On August 17, 2004, FSA published a notice with request for comments, Proposed Uniform Guidelines for Conducting Farm Service Agency County Committee Elections, in the Federal Register (69 FR 51052). The notice requested comments on the proposed guidelines to ensure that the County Committee election process is fair and transparent and that producers are fairly represented on FSA County Committees. The uniform guidelines make public the principles and procedures under which FSA will conduct such elections, thus contributing to the transparency and accountability of the process. FSA will be required to follow such guidelines in conducting County Committee elections, and FSA regulations and directives on conducting such elections must conform to these guidelines.

The Agency believes that the request for additional time to comment on the proposed guidelines is reasonable. As a result of the reopening and extension, the comment period for the proposed rule will close on October 16, 2004.

FSIS is committed to developing strategies that address food safety hazards throughout the entire food production chain. Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act, FSIS has the authority and responsibility to provide for the safety of meat and poultry products during in-plant production and also through transportation, storage, and other handling.

On June 6, 2003, FSIS published an interim final rule (68 FR 34207) that amended its regulations to require that official establishments that produce certain ready-to-eat (RTE) meat and poultry products prevent product adulteration by the pathogen Listeria monocytogenes ( L. monocytogenes ). In this interim final rule, FSIS identified three alternative methods for addressing post-lethality contamination of RTE products by L. monocytogenes and required that establishments adopt and implement one of these alternatives.

The use of FSIS Form 10,240-1, Production Information on Post-Lethality Exposed Ready-to-Eat Products, will facilitate collection of information about the RTE products produced by establishments. This information will be used in developing FSIS' annual sampling frequencies for establishments and RTE products. The annual collection of this information was addressed in the interim final rule (68 FR 34207) in 9 CFR 430.4(d). The Agency will use this information, along with the FSIS verification testing history of the establishment, to design a risk-based verification testing program, as stated in the preamble to the interim final rule and in FSIS Directive 10,240.4, Verification Procedures for the Listeria monocytogenes Regulation and Microbial Sampling of Ready-to-Eat (RTE) Products for the FSIS Verification Testing Program. In addition, FSIS will be issuing an FSIS notice to instruct FSIS inspection program personnel on how to verify that establishments are completing and submitting FSIS Form 10,240-1 to FSIS. At the first weekly meeting held after receipt of the FSIS notice, inspection program personnel are to inform plant management (1) about the availability of the form, (2) that the establishment is to complete and submit the form to meet the regulatory requirement at 9 CFR 430.4(d), and (3) that the establishment's failure to complete the form or to submit it to FSIS within 30 days from the date of the meeting may cause the Agency to seek appropriate enforcement actions against the establishment or responsible officials. The regulations at 9 CFR 430.4(d) state that “* * * an establishment that produces post-lethality exposed RTE product shall provide FSIS * * * with estimates of annual production volume and related information for the types of meat and poultry products processed * * *” under 9 CFR part 430—Requirements for Specific Classes of Product.

In a memorandum of interview, inspection program personnel are to document who was present at the meeting, the date and time of the meeting, what was discussed, and any documents that were shared with management. Inspection program personnel are to maintain a copy of the memorandum in the official government file and provide a copy to the plant management.

After 30 days from the meeting at which inspection program personnel notified the establishment about completing and submitting the form, inspection program personnel are to ask the establishment management whether it has completed FSIS Form 10,240-1 and submitted it to FSIS.

If an establishment has not completed the form, and does not indicate that it plans to do so in a timely manner, inspection program personnel are to notify the appropriate FSIS District Office through supervisory channels. The District Office will take the necessary follow-up actions.

FSIS Form 10,240-1 is available on the FSIS Web site at www.fsis.usda.gov/Forms/index.asp and is also available to FSIS employees in the FAIM forms library. The form can either be printed and filled out, signed and mailed to FSIS/USDA or filled out online, printed, signed and mailed to FSIS/USDA. The full address is FSIS/USDA, Data Analysis and Statistical Support Staff, Cotton Annex Building, 300 12th Street, SW., Room 201, Washington, DC 20250, or faxed to (202) 690-0824. (The form can also be requested from the FSIS Data Analysis and Statistical Support Staff at the address above).

The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection and recordkeeping requirements under approval number 0583-0132.

As establishments continue to adapt to the regulatory approach embodied in the interim final rule, FSIS will evaluate the need for the specific information required and the frequency of its collection. The Agency will consider, for example, whether establishments with no change in Listeria control methods or products affected could simply verify the fact and report production volume.

Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained from John O'Connell, Paperwork Reduction Act Coordinator, FSIS, USDA, 112 Annex, 300 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700.

FSIS is committed to compliance with the GPEA, which requires Government agencies, in general, to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible.

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that the public and in particular minorities, women, and persons with disabilities, are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it on-line through the FSIS Web page located at http://www.fsis.usda.gov .

FSIS also will make copies of this Federal Register publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, recalls, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The update is communicated via Listserv, a free e-mail subscription service consisting of industry, trade, and farm groups, consumer interest groups, allied health professionals, scientific professionals, and other individuals who have requested to be included. The update also is available on the FSIS Web page. Through Listserv and the Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience.

The Kings River Project is a key part of the adaptive management program for the Sierra Nevada that is designed to address questions that relate to the uncertainties associated with management activities and their effects on wildlife habitat, watershed condition and modified wildlife behavior.

The Sierra National Forest proposes to implement the Kings River Project that initially involves analyzing in detail eight management units for treatment between 2006 and 2008 (the ninth management unit, South of Shaver, already had NEPA completed and is scheduled for implementation in 2004). The remaining 71 management units (of which 10 are planned as no treatment-controls and the remaining 61 for implementation between 2011 and 2033) will be examined based on existing condition and the potential for cumulative effects on the Kings River Project. Thus the EIS will be programmatic for the entire project with a focused piece for the initial eight management units. The EIS will address the five planned research studies (Kings River experimental watershed, California spotted owl, fisher, air quality, and uneven-aged management) while incorporating the National Fire Plan objectives (April 2000), USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan and the Sierra Nevada Framework for Conservation and Collaboration Record of Decision (January 2001), as amended on January 21, 2004.

The Kings River Project is a collaborative effort between the Sierra National Forest and the Pacific Southwest Research Station (PSW). The Sierra National Forest is the lead agency.

Ed Cole, Forest Supervisor, Sierra National Forest, 1600 Tollhouse Ave., Clovis, CA 93612.

The decision to be made is whether to implement the planned treatment and associated studies, an alternative or select no action.

The Sierra National Forest will conduct a 30-day public scoping period that coincides with this notice.

This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. The scoping period will be conducted for 30 days from the date of this notice. The Sierra National Forest is seeking comments regarding this proposal to identify issues that may be presently unknown to the agency.

A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period of the draft environmental impact statement will be 60 days from the date the Environmental Protection agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register .

The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC , 435 U.S. 519, 533 (1978). Also environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel , 803 F.2D 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris , 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 60-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection.

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 August anniversary dates. The Department also received a timely request to revoke in part the antidumping duty order on Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe (Under 4 1/2 Inches) from Romania.

In accordance with sections 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 August 31, 2005.

None.

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 duty 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, whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested.

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).

Title I of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 (TDA 2000) provides for duty- and quota-free treatment for certain textile and apparel articles imported from designated beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries. Section 112(b)(3) of TDA 2000 provides duty- and quota-free treatment for apparel articles wholly assembled in one or more beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries from fabric wholly formed in one or more beneficiary countries from yarn originating in the U.S. or one or more beneficiary countries. This preferential treatment is also available for apparel articles assembled in one or more lesser-developed beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries, regardless of the country of origin of the fabric used to make such articles. This special rule for lesser-developed countries applies through September 30, 2004. TDA 2000 imposed a quantitative limitation on imports eligible for preferential treatment under these two provisions.

The Trade Act of 2002 amended TDA 2000 to extend preferential treatment to apparel assembled in a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country from components knit-to-shape in a beneficiary country from U.S. or beneficiary country yarns and to apparel formed on seamless knitting machines in a beneficiary country from U.S. or beneficiary country yarns, subject to the quantitative limitation. The Trade Act of 2002 also increased the quantitative limitation but provided that this increase would not apply to apparel imported under the special rule for lesser-developed countries. Section 7(b)(2)(B) of the AGOA Acceleration Act extended the expiration of the quantitative limitations. It also further amended the percentages to be used in calculating the quantitative limitations for each twelve-month period, beginning on October 1, 2003. The AGOA Acceleration Act of 2004 provides that the quantitative limitation for the twelve-month period beginning October 1, 2004 will be an amount not to exceed 5.31025 percent of the aggregate square meter equivalents of all apparel articles imported into the United States in the preceding 12-month period for which data are available. See Section 112(b)(3)(A)(ii) of TDA 2000, as amended by Section 7(b)(2)(B) of the AGOA Acceleration Act. Of this overall amount, apparel imported under the special rule for lesser-developed countries is limited to an amount not to exceed 2.6428 percent of apparel imported into the United States in the preceding 12-month period. See Section 112(b)(3)(B)(ii) of TDA 2000, as amended by Section 7(b)(2)(B) of the AGOA Acceleration Act. For the purpose of this notice, the most recent 12-month period for which data are available is the 12-month period ending July 31, 2004.

Presidential Proclamation 7350 directed CITA to publish the aggregate quantity of imports allowed during each 12-month period in the Federal Register . Presidential Proclamation 7626, published on November 18, 2002, modified the aggregate quantity of imports allowed during each 12-month period.

For the one-year period, beginning on October 1, 2004, and extending through September 30, 2005, the aggregate quantity of imports eligible for preferential treatment under these provisions is 1,076,876,652 square meters equivalent. Of this amount, 535,938,914 square meters equivalent is available to apparel imported under the special rule for lesser-developed countries. These quantities will be recalculated for each subsequent year. Apparel articles entered in excess of these quantities will be subject to otherwise applicable tariffs.

These quantities are calculated using the aggregate square meter equivalents of all apparel articles imported into the United States, derived from the set of Harmonized System lines listed in the Annex to the World Trade Organization Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC), and the conversion factors for units of measure into square meter equivalents used by the United States in implementing the ATC.

Section 3103 of the Trade Act of 2002 amended the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA) to provide for duty and quota-free treatment for certain textile and apparel articles imported from designated Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA) beneficiary countries. Section 204(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the amended ATPA provides duty- and quota-free treatment for certain apparel articles assembled in ATPDEA beneficiary countries from regional fabric and components. More specifically, this provision applies to apparel articles sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more ATPDEA beneficiary countries from fabrics or from fabric components formed or from components knit-to-shape, in one or more ATPDEA beneficiary countries, from yarns wholly formed in the United States or one or more ATPDEA beneficiary countries (including fabrics not formed from yarns, if such fabrics are classifiable under heading 5602 and 5603 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) and are formed in one or more ATPDEA beneficiary countries). Such apparel articles may also contain certain other eligible fabrics, fabric components, or components knit-to-shape.

For the one-year period, beginning on October 1, 2004, and extending through September 30, 2005, preferential tariff treatment is limited under the regional fabric provision to imports of qualifying apparel articles in an amount not to exceed 3.5 percent of the aggregate square meter equivalents of all apparel articles imported into the United States in the preceding 12-month period for which data are available. For the purpose of this notice, the 12-month period for which data are available is the 12-month period that ended July 31, 2004. In Presidential Proclamation 7616, (published in the Federal Register on November 5, 2002, 67 FR 67283), the President directed CITA to publish in the Federal Register the aggregate quantity of imports allowed during each 12-month period.

For the one-year period, beginning on October 1, 2004, and extending through September 30, 2005, the aggregate quantity of imports eligible for preferential treatment under the regional fabric provision is 709,772,286 square meters equivalent. This quantity will be recalculated for each subsequent year, under Section 204(b)(3)(B)(iii). Apparel articles entered in excess of this quantity will be subject to otherwise applicable tariffs.

This quantity is calculated using the aggregate square meter equivalents of all apparel articles imported into the United States, derived from the set of Harmonized System lines listed in the Annex to the World Trade Organization Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC), and the conversion factors for units of measure into square meter equivalents used by the United States in implementing the ATC.

Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and guidance on a continuing basis to the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation on scientific priorities within the field of basic nuclear science research.

Tentative Agenda: Agenda will include discussions of the following:

• Perspectives from Department of Energy and National Science Foundation.

• Presentation and discussion on the interim report from the Relativistic Heavy Ion Sub-Committee.

• Discussion of NSAC response and transmittal letter on the Relativistic Heavy Ion Report.

• Public comment (10-minute rule).

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. If you would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements regarding any of these items on the agenda, you should contact Brenda L. May, 301-903-0536 or Brenda.May@science.doe.gov (e-mail). You must make your request for an oral statement at least 5 business days before the meeting. Reasonable provision will be made to include the scheduled oral statements on the agenda. The Chairperson of the Committee will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Public comment will follow the 10-minute rule.

Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available for public review and copying within 30 days at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room; Room 1E-190; Forrestal Building; 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.; Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

This section contains the following information about the energy information collection submitted to OMB for review: (1) The collection numbers and title; (2) the sponsor ( i.e. , the Department of Energy component); (3) the current OMB docket number (if applicable); (4) the type of request ( i.e. , new, revision, extension, or reinstatement); (5) response obligation ( i.e. , mandatory, voluntary, or required to obtain or retain benefits); (6) a description of the need for and proposed use of the information; (7) a categorical description of the likely respondents; and (8) an estimate of the total annual reporting burden.

1. EIA-886, “Annual Survey of Alternative Fueled Vehicle Suppliers and Users.”

2. Energy Information Administration.

3. OMB Number 1905-0191.

4. Revision.

5. Mandatory.

6. Form EIA-886 is an annual survey of the number of Alternative Fuel Vehicles. (AFVs) made available on a calendar year basis and the amount and distribution of each type of Alternative Transportation Fuel (ATF) consumed. The data will be used to track the AFV supply situation available for the Federal Government, State Governments, and the fuel providers, and the consumption of ATFs. Respondents are manufacturers, importers, and conversion companies of AFV vehicles, and ATF providers and users.

7. Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions; Federal Government; State, Local or Tribal Government.

8. 10,853 hours.

Please refer to the supporting statement as well as the proposed forms and instructions for more information about the purpose, who must report, when to report, where to submit, the elements to be reported, detailed instructions, provisions for confidentiality, and uses (including possible nonstatistical uses) of the information. For instructions on obtaining materials, see the For Further Information Contact section.

The information collected under the requirements of FERC-511, “Application for Transfer of License” (OMB No. 1902-0069) is used by the Commission to implement the statutory refund provisions of Part I, Sections 4(e) and 8 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) 16 U.S.C. 792-828c. Section 4(e) authorizes the Commission to issue licenses for the construction, operation and maintenance of Reservoirs, power houses, and transmission lines or other facilities necessary for development, transmission, and utilization of power from bodies of water Congress has jurisdiction over. Section 8 of the FPA provides that the voluntary transfer of any license can only be made with the written approval of the Commission. Any successor to the licensee may assign the rights of the original licensee but is subject to all of the conditions of the license. The information filed with the Commission is a mandatory requirement contained in the format of a written application for transfer of license, executed jointly by the parties to the proposed transfer. The transfer of a license may be occasioned by the sale or merger of a licensed hydropower project. The information is used by Commission staff to determine the qualifications of the proposed transferee to hold the license, and to prepare the transfer of the license order. The Commission implements these filing requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) under 18 CFR Part 9.

Action: The Commission is requesting a three-year extension of the current expiration date, with no changes to the existing collection of data.

Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this information collection is estimated as:

Estimated cost to respondents: 600 hours ÷ 2,080 per year × $107,185 = $30,919. The cost per respondent = $2,061 (rounded off). The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial resources to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining, disclosing and providing information; (3) adjusting the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; (4) training personnel to respond to a collection of information; (5) searching data sources; (6) completing and reviewing the collection of information; and (7) transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the information.

The estimate of cost for respondents is based upon salaries for professional and clerical support as well as direct and indirect overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than any one particular function or activity.

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

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID number OECA-2004-0045, which is available for public viewing at the OECA Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OECA Docket is (202) 566-1752. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Use EDOCKET to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above.

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

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are the following:

Title: Region 7 Lead Education and Awareness Project in St. Louis, Missouri (Agency Information Collection); EPA ICR Number 2161.01.

Abstract: EPA Region 7 and the Office of Compliance (OC) within the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) are planning to conduct a performance baseline survey and follow-up survey for the Lessors and Lessees sectors. The OC is interested in having a baseline performance survey conducted and compliance assistance needs assessed for the Lessors sector. In addition, OC is interested in assessing the awareness and behavioral change of Lessees through a survey. There are three main purposes for these Lessor and Lessee surveys:

(1) To determine a baseline level of regulatory awareness of and compliance with the “Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992” (Title X) and the “Requirements for Disclosure of Known Lead-Based Paint and/or Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing” rule (Disclosure Rule), from which to measure the success of the Agency's compliance outreach efforts for reporting under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). For key sectors for which EPA is planning to initiate compliance assistance, a baseline level of compliance and regulatory awareness is needed from which to measure future progress.

(2) To determine the effectiveness of the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) education and outreach efforts.

(3) To determine whether lessees are reading and understanding the Protect Your Family From Lead In Your Home pamphlet and whether they are implementing methods to reduce lead exposure as a result.

The EPA Region 7 is planning targeted Disclosure Rule inspections in high risk areas of St. Louis, Missouri during FY2005 and/or FY2006. The activities planned under the Statistically Valid Compliance Assistance Rate study are designed to determine the baseline rate of lessors' compliance with the Disclosure Rule and whether lessees are reading and understanding the Protect Your Family From Lead In Your Home pamphlet and implementing methods to reduce exposure to lead. The EPA would like to conduct statistically valid voluntary surveys with a sample size of approximately 150 respondents. These surveys will be used to establish a performance baseline at the start of the study. A follow-up survey will then be conducted to determine progress against the baseline.

The OECA has adopted a sector approach for many of its compliance assistance activities. The lessor sector is an example of a sector for which EPA has focused many of its compliance assistance activities. There is considerable debate as to the extent of regulatory compliance, the need for additional compliance assistance, and the effectiveness of compliance assistance methods and materials developed for this sector. The OECA would like to conduct a statistically valid voluntary survey and site-visit survey of a sample of lessor venues in areas of high risk for lead poisoning in St. Louis, Missouri to determine a performance snapshot of this sector which reflects current sector performance with respect to the Disclosure Rule. The surveys will be conducted as a voluntary blind sample ( i.e. , the lessors' identities will be unknown to EPA and the lessors will participate voluntarily). The results of the survey will provide OECA with information on compliance assistance applicable to this sector and information from which to measure the success of OECA's compliance assistance programs for Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) reporting purposes.

The EPA Region 7 will evaluate the need for educational outreach for an additional sector: lessees in areas of St. Louis, Missouri at high risk for lead poisoning. Sufficient data are not available in EPA's databases to evaluate the current rate at which lessees are reading the EPA pamphlet, Protect Your Family From Lead In Your Home , and are implementing behavioral changes to reduce lead exposure as a result. Therefore, OECA is interested in determining:

• The level of regulatory awareness and compliance in the lessor sector;

• Areas of noncompliance and root causes of noncompliance;

• The need for compliance assistance for the lessor sector; and

• The need for educational outreach for the lessee sector.

The OECA is soliciting comment on whether to conduct a statistically valid voluntary survey and site-visit survey of a sample of lessors and a site-visit survey of a sample of lessees in high risk areas of St. Louis.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

The EPA would like to solicit comments to:

(i) 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;

(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

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

Burden Statement: The baseline surveys being requested are one-time information collections. The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average:

• 1.5 hours per respondent.

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

Respondents/Affected Entities: Lessors conducting business in areas of high risk for lead poisoning in St. Louis, Missouri; Lessees living in areas of high risk for lead poisoning in St. Louis, Missouri.

Estimated Number of Respondents: Approximately 150 respondents in areas of high risk for lead poisoning in St. Louis, Missouri.

Frequency of Response: Twice (EPA Region 7 will conduct a follow-up survey in FY 2007).

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 225 hours.

Estimated Total Annualized Cost Burden: $10,715.

• Did you provide the tenant with a copy of the pamphlet, Protect Your Family From Lead In Your Home before you rented the housing unit to them?

• Did you provide the tenant with a copy of the Lead Warning Statement before you rented the housing unit to them?

• Do you have records and/or reports regarding lead-based paint for the housing unit rented to the tenant? If yes, did you provide the tenants with a copy of the records and/or reports regarding lead-based paint for the housing unit rented to the tenant before you rented the housing unit to them?

• Did you complete a disclosure form and have the tenants sign and date it before you rented the housing unit to them?

• Did you receive the pamphlet, Protect Your Family From Lead In Your Home from the landlord before you rented the housing unit? If yes, did you read the pamphlet, Protect Your Family From Lead In Your Home? If yes, did you make behavior changes because of reading the pamphlet, Protect Your Family From Lead In Your Home?

This action is directed to the public in general. Nevertheless, a wide range of stakeholders will be interested in obtaining the revised risk assessments and submitting risk management comments on these nine rodenticides, including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the use of pesticides. As such, the Agency has not attempted to specifically describe all of the entities potentially 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-2004-0033. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

2. Electronic access . You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/ . In addition, copies of the revised comparative ecological risk assessment for nine rodenticides may also be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/rodenticidecluster/.

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

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

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

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

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

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

i. EPA Dockets . Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ , and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPP-2004-0033. 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-2004-0033. 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-2004-0033.

3. By hand delivery or courier . Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID number OPP-2004-0033. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.1.

Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as 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 version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

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

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

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

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

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may 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 identification (ID) number OPP-2004-0261. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ , and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPP-2004-0261. 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-2004-0261. 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-2004-0261.

3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2004-0261. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.1.

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

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

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

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

3. Provide 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 ID 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.

EPA has reassessed the uses of desmedipham, reassessed two existing tolerances or legal residue limits, and reached a tolerance reassessment decision for the low risk pesticide. The Agency is issuing for comment the resulting Report on Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk Management Decision for Desmedipham, known as a TRED, as well as related risk assessments and technical support documents.

Desmedipham is currently registered for use as a selective post-emergence herbicide on sugar beets. Desmedipham is formulated only as an active ingredient in emulsifiable concentrates and wettable powders. Permanent tolerances are established for desmedipham residues in/on sugar beet roots and tops under 40 CFR 180.353(a). Time-limited tolerances established in conjunction with a section 18 emergency exemption had been established for desmedipham residues in red beet roots and tops under 40 CFR 180.353(b).

EPA developed the Desmedipham TRED through a modified, streamlined version of its public process for making tolerance reassessment and reregistration eligibility decisions. Through these programs, the Agency is ensuring that pesticides meet current standards under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended by FQPA. EPA must review tolerances and tolerance exemptions that were in effect when the FQPA was enacted, to ensure that these existing pesticide residue limits for food and feed commodities meet the safety standard established by the new law. Tolerances are considered reassessed once the safety finding has been made or a revocation occurs. EPA has reviewed and made the requisite safety finding for the desmedipham tolerances included in this notice.

EPA is applying the principles of public participation to all pesticides undergoing reregistration and tolerance reassessment. The Agency's Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration; Public Participation Process, published in the Federal Register of May 14, 2004 (FR 68 26819) (FRL-7357-9), explains that in conducting these programs, the Agency is tailoring its public participation process to be commensurate with the level of risk, extent of use, complexity of issues, and degree of public concern associated with each pesticide. EPA can expeditiously reach decisions for pesticides like desmedipham, which pose no risk concerns, have low use, affect few if any stakeholders, and require no risk mitigation. Once EPA assesses uses and risks for such pesticides, the Agency may go directly to a decision and prepare a document summarizing its findings. The Agency therefore is issuing the low risk Desmedipham TRED, risk assessments, and related documents simultaneously for public comment.

The tolerance reassessment program is being conducted under Congressionally mandated time frames, and EPA recognizes the need both to make timely decisions and to involve the public in finding ways to effectively mitigate pesticide risks. Desmedipham, however, poses no risks that require mitigation. The Agency therefore is issuing the Desmedipham TRED, its risk assessments, and related support documents simultaneously for public comment. The comment period is intended to provide an opportunity for public input and a mechanism for initiating any necessary amendments to the TRED. All comments should be submitted using the methods in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION , and must be received by EPA on or before the closing date. These comments will become part of the Agency Docket for desmedipham. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

EPA will carefully consider all comments received by the closing date and will provide a Response to Comments Memorandum in the Docket and electronic docket. If any comment significantly affects the document, EPA also will publish an amendment to the TRED in the Federal Register . In the absence of substantive comments requiring changes, the decisions reflected in the TRED will be implemented as presented.

Section 408(q) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(q), requires EPA to review tolerances and exemptions for pesticide residues in effect as of August 2, 1996, to determine whether the tolerance or exemption meets the requirements of section 408(b)(2) or (c)(2) of FFDCA. This review is to be completed by August 3, 2006.

A. Proposed General Permit

On July 20, 2000, EPA proposed to issue a general permit for discharges from oil and gas exploration, development, and production operations in Federal waters offshore of the State of California. The proposed permit contained effluent limitations based on EPA's 1993 effluent limitation guidelines for the offshore subcategory of the oil and gas extraction point source category (40 CFR part 435) as well as other terms and conditions, including a provision that would require permittees to sample produced water discharges for purposes of a future determination whether the discharges had the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance of Federal water quality criteria (adopted under Clean Water Act section 304(a)) applied 100 meters from the platform's point of discharge. As required by the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), EPA submitted a certification to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) that the general permit was consistent with the California Coastal Management Plan (CMP) approved by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in 1978.

After reviewing the proposal and EPA's consistency determination, the CCC requested that, for purposes of analyzing samples of produced water discharges to determine reasonable potential to exceed a water quality standard, dilution be calculated based on Federal water quality criteria and California Ocean Plan (COP) objectives (both applied at the boundary of the 100-meter mixing zone). Additionally, the CCC requested that EPA revise the scope and timing of the study requirements in the permit for alternative disposal for certain discharges and include in the fact sheet a description of a commitment by EPA regarding third party monitoring. On the condition that EPA made these changes in the final general permit and fact sheet, the CCC concurred that the permit was consistent with the CMP.

On December 10, 2003, EPA submitted a revised proposed general permit to the CCC, along with a certification by EPA that the revised proposed permit was consistent with the CMP. For produced water discharges, EPA proposed a revision to the requirement that each permittee sample produced water discharges for certain, specified constituents in order to determine whether the discharges cause, have the reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an exceedance above the applicable water quality criteria. For each constituent, EPA proposed that the facility include a determination of the minimum dilution limit required for each discharge location to ensure no reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the Federal water quality criteria at a point 100 meters from the platform's point of discharge or the California Ocean Plan (COP) criteria (adopted by California under Clean Water Act section 303(c)) at the seaward boundary of California's territorial seas. EPA would then review the results of each facility's sampling, evaluate the information for the potential to cause an exceedance of the applicable water quality criteria, and propose any appropriate new limits for the general permit pursuant to the procedures in 40 CFR part 124. On March 17, 2004, the CCC objected to EPA's consistency certification. On April 8, 2004, EPA proposed a revised general permit consistent with the December 10, 2003, certification to the CCC.

The CCC objected to EPA's proposed revision of the reasonable potential study provision and recommended that, after EPA received and reviewed the results of the study, the permit should be modified to require produced water discharges to comply with either the COP criteria or EPA's CWA section 304(a) criteria, whichever was determined to be more stringent, at a point of compliance located 100 meters from each platform's point of discharge. In today's action, EPA is issuing the general permit with the changes requested by the CCC, for the reasons described in this notice.

EPA proposed the general permit on July 20, 2000 (65 FR 45063), and solicited public comment from July 20, 2000, through September 5, 2000. In addition, EPA held a public hearing on the proposed permit on August 23, 2000. On April 8, 2004, EPA proposed certain modifications to the July 2000 proposed permit and sought public comment on such modifications (69 FR 18570). EPA has included additional relevant documents in the administrative record for this permit, including responses to comments received on the July 20, 2000, proposed permit as well as the revisions proposed in April 2004.

EPA is revising the reasonable potential study provisions proposed in April 2004. Specifically, today's permit requires each permittee to sample produced water discharges for certain, specified constituents in order to determine whether the discharges cause, have the reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an exceedance above the more stringent of the Federal and COP criteria, compared at a point of compliance 100 meters from each facility's point of discharge. For each constituent, the minimum dilution must be calculated for each discharge location to ensure no reasonable potential to cause or contribute to a water quality standard exceedance and submit the results to EPA.

EPA will then review the results of each facility's sampling and evaluate the information, and following such review, EPA intends to propose appropriate modifications to the general permit pursuant to the procedures in 40 CFR part 124 to establish new effluent limitations based on the review of the study results. 1 EPA is including this reasonable potential study point of compliance provision in the general permit as a consequence of the CCC's March 17, 2004, objection to EPA's proposed decision to apply the COP criteria at the seaward boundary of State waters for purposes of the reasonable potential study dilution calculation.

EPA will, at the time of permit modification after completion of the study, consider new information relevant to the provision in the final general permit for produced water discharges which requires that each permittee use a point 100 meters from its platform's point of discharge to determine whether there is reasonable potential to cause or contribute to exceedances of either EPA or COP criteria. The final permit provides that EPA will reopen the permit after completion of the reasonable potential study and will modify the permit to establish permit conditions based on the outcome of that study. EPA will provide the public with notice and an opportunity to comment on any such modification, as required by 40 CFR 124.5. If, as a result of the study, or for other reasons, there is new information relevant to the new limits proposed at that time, EPA will consider such information and determine whether and how the general permit should be modified.

The CZMA prohibits Federal agencies from granting a license or permit that is subject to the CZMA consistency certification requirement until the State has concurred with the certification. CZMA section 307(c)(3). Even though EPA continues to believe the permit proposed in April 2004 was fully consistent with the enforceable policies of the CMP, as described in our comments on the CCC Staff Report of March 2004, the CCC's objection to EPA's consistency certification effectively prevented EPA from issuing the permit under CZMA section 307(c)(3). Further, for the reasons described below, EPA is concerned that issuing the permit under CZMA section 307(c)(1) with a delayed effective date, as proposed in April 2004, could result in considerable delay in implementing the new permit. Moreover, issuing the permit under CZMA section 307(c)(3) is consistent with EPA's long-standing practice and the NOAA regulations. 2 As described in more detail below, EPA is including the requirement requested by the CCC in order to issue the permit now, make it effective on December 1, 2004, and thus ensure that the environmental benefits of the new permit are achieved as soon as possible.

EPA is including this provision in the permit in order to implement the more stringent permit limits as soon as possible. However, EPA continues to believe that the permit proposed in April 2004 would be consistent with the California CMP. EPA recognizes that the Federal consistency provisions of the CZMA apply to licenses for activities outside State waters, such as those addressed by today's General Permit, if it is reasonably foreseeable that such activities will affect the uses or resources of the State's coastal zone. However, EPA disagrees that the CZMA authorizes California to require that the discharges at issue in this General Permit comply with the COP criteria at the point of discharge in Federal waters. Moreover, EPA continues to believe that the permit proposed in April 2004 would be fully protective of California's coastal resources. As described in more detail in EPA's December 2003 consistency certification, EPA concluded that the proposed discharges would not cause unreasonable degradation of the marine environment, including its biological resources, or other adverse effects in California's coastal zone. See “Demonstration of Consistency of the Revised Draft General Permit with the California CMP,” Enclosure D (enclosure with letter from Alexis Strauss, Water Division Director, EPA Region 9, to Peter Douglas, Executive Director, California Coastal Commission) Dec. 10, 2003.

EPA notes that the Agency cannot at this time predict whether any particular permittee's discharges will be found to have reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the applicable water quality criterion, nor can it predict the specific nature of any potential future permit modifications based on the results of the reasonable potential analysis described in today's permit, including whether the COP criteria or the Federal criteria will apply for any particular constituent. EPA will provide public notice of and seek public comment on any proposed permit modification, including permit limitations based on the Federal water quality criteria or COP criteria. 40 CFR 124.5 and 124.6.

Today's general permit will be effective on December 1, 2004, which is the first day of the month that begins at least 45 days after the date of the Federal Register notice of final permit issuance. Because of the significant and important environmental benefits that will be achieved by the general permit, EPA has determined that it is critical to make the permit effective as soon as possible and therefore is not finalizing the delayed effective date proposed on April 8, 2004. Instead, EPA is issuing the permit with an effective date of December 1, 2004.

In April 2004, EPA proposed to treat the permit as a Federal agency activity under CZMA Section 307(c)(1) and to modify the proposed effective date to allow the Agency to issue the permit but delay its effectiveness for a given facility until the facility sought and obtained from the CCC concurrence with the facility's certification that its discharges pursuant to the permit would be consistent with the CMP. As described above, the CCC objected to the permit as proposed at that time. Thus, pursuant to regulations implementing the CZMA, the permit would not have become effective for a particular discharger until after a considerable delay. Under the proposed approach, each facility would first prepare an individual certification that its discharges under the general permit would be consistent with the CMP. Each facility would then seek concurrence with its certification from the CCC. The CCC would consider each certification and, under the requirements of the State law governing the CCC's procedures, would hold a public hearing on each certification. See California Public Resources Code sections 30315 and 30320. After considering comments received, the CCC would decide whether to concur with or object to each certification. If the CCC objected to a facility's certification, the facility could appeal the objection to the Secretary of Commerce. See 15 CFR part 930, subpart H. In that event, the Secretary of Commerce would hear and decide the appeal under the procedures described at 15 CFR 930.125-930.130. The entire process described above, including a potential appeal to the Secretary of Commerce, could take as long as two to three years. In the meantime, the terms and conditions of the existing permits would continue in effect and the environmental benefits of the new permit conditions would be further postponed.

After considering the time involved in such a process and the potential delay in implementing the new general permit, EPA concludes that the approach proposed on April 8, 2004, would delay significant environmental benefits that will be achieved by the effluent limitations in today's general permit. In particular, the permit implements technology-based effluent limitations for conventional, non-conventional, and toxic pollutants based on EPA's effluent guidelines promulgated in March 1993, and EPA wants to avoid any further delay in achieving the environmental benefits of these effluent limitations. See 58 FR 12504 (March 4, 1993). Today's general permit offers substantial improvements over the present discharge requirements for the 22 platforms because it incorporates the more stringent 1993 EPA effluent limitations guidelines. For example, the 1993 guidelines reduce allowable discharges of oil and grease in produced water to 42 mg/l (daily maximum) and 29 mg/l (monthly average). In comparison the existing general permit includes a daily maximum limit of 72 mg/l and no monthly average limit.

The CCC has concurred with EPA's determination that today's general permit is consistent with the CMP. The CCC Executive Director confirmed in a letter to EPA dated July 19, 2004, that the January 9, 2001, CCC concurrence is still valid as long as EPA includes in the permit and the addendum to the fact sheet all the changes which EPA agreed to in 2001. Today's permit includes those changes. Therefore, permittees need not seek and obtain the CCC's concurrence with individual consistency certifications under 15 CFR 930.31(d) before applying for coverage under the general permit.

The April 8, 2004, proposed permit included a number of other proposed changes from the July 20, 2000, permit. These changes have been retained with no significant changes in the final permit. As proposed on April 8, 2004, today's final permit accelerates the schedule for produced water sampling for determining reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality criteria. The final permit requires a total of 12 samples taken during the first year of the permit rather than 10 samples taken during the first 2 1/2 years, as was required by the proposed permit of July 20, 2000. The final permit also retains the revised maximum discharge volumes for Platforms Harvest, Hermosa and Hidalgo (based on updated information from the operator) which had been proposed on April 8, 2004. Further, the final permit uses EPA's revised CWA 304(a) water quality criteria found in “National Recommended Water Quality Criteria: 2002 (EPA-822-R-02-047) and 68 FR 75507 (December 31, 2003) for purposes of the reasonable potential study's dilution calculation. The April 8, 2004, proposed permit also included a number of minor editorial changes, clarifications and other revisions based on comments which had been received since the proposal of July 20, 2000. These revisions have been retained in the final permit.

Within 120 days following notice of EPA's final decision for the general permit under 40 CFR 124.15, any interested person may appeal the permit in the federal Court of Appeals in accordance with section 509(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Persons affected by a general permit may not challenge the conditions of a general permit as a right in further Agency proceedings. They may instead either challenge the general permit in court, or apply for an individual permit as specified at 40 CFR 122.21 (and authorized at 40 CFR 122.28), and then petition the Environmental Appeals Board to review any condition of the individual permit (40 CFR 124.19).

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health, or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. OMB has exempted review of NPDES general permits under the terms of Executive Order 12866.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

Issuance of an NPDES general permit is not subject to rulemaking requirements, under APA section 553 or any other law, and is thus not subject to the RFA requirements. The APA defines two broad, mutually exclusive categories of agency action—“rules” and “orders.” Its definition of “rule” encompasses “an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency * * *” APA section 551(4). Its definition of “order” is residual: “a final disposition * * * of an agency in a matter other than rule making but including licensing” APA section 551(6). The APA defines “license” to “include * * * an agency permit * * *” APA section 551(8). The APA thus categorizes a permit as an order, which by the APA's definition is not a rule. Section 553 of the APA establishes “rule making” requirements. The APA defines “rule making” as “the agency process for formulating, amending, or repealing a rule” APA section 551(5). By its terms, then, section 553 applies only to “rules” and not also to “orders,” which include permits.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their “regulatory actions” on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. UMRA uses the term “regulatory actions” to refer to regulations. ( See, e.g. , UMRA section 201, “Each agency shall * * * assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions * * * (other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law)”). UMRA section 102 defines “regulation” by reference to 2 U.S.C. 658 which in turn defines “regulation” and “rule” by reference to section 601(2) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). That section of the RFA defines “rule” as “any rule for which the agency publishes a notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)[we only need parentheses around APA], or any other law * * *.”

As discussed in the RFA section of this notice, NPDES general permits are not “rules” under the APA and thus not subject to the APA requirement to publish a notice of proposed rule making. NPDES general permits are also not subject to such a requirement under the CWA. While EPA publishes a notice to solicit public comment on draft general permits, it does so pursuant to the CWA section 402(a) requirement to provide “an opportunity for a hearing.” Thus, NPDES general permits are not “rules” for RFA or UMRA purposes.

The information collection required by this permit has been approved by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. , in submissions made for the NPDES permit program and assigned OMB control numbers 2040-0086 (NPDES permit application) and 2040-0004 (discharge monitoring reports).

OMB Control Number: 3060-0057.

Title: Application for Equipment Authorization, 47 CFR Sections 2.911, 2.913, 2.925, 2.926, 2.929, 2.932, 2.944, 2.960, 2.1033(a), and 2.1043.

Form Number: FCC 731.

Type of Review: Revision of currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for profit entities.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 5,619.

Estimated Time per Response: 18 to 30 hours (average 24 hours).

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping; On occasion reporting requirements.

Total Annual Burden: 134,856 hours.

Total Annual Costs: $1,124,000.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: N.A.

Needs and Uses: On July 8, 2004, the Commission adopted a Report and Order, Modification of Parts 2 and 15 of the Commission's Rules for Unlicensed Devices and Equipment Approval, ET Docket No. 03-201, FCC 04-165. The change requires that all paper filings required in 47 CFR Sections 2.913(c), 2.926(c), 2.929(c), and 2.929(d) of the rules are outdated and now must be filed electronically via the Internet on FCC Form 731. The Commission believes that electronic filing speeds up application processing and supports the Commission in further streamlining to reduce cost and increase efficiency. Information on the procedures for electronically filing equipment authorization applications can be obtained from the Commission's rules, and from the Internet at: https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/eas/index.cfm.

Designated Telecommunications Certification Body (TCB). The number of responses and the response time is not expected to change, since the basic authorization process will not change. Respondents are only being required to file the same information electronically.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0934.

Title: Application for Equipment Authorization, 47 CFR Sections 2.913, 2.925, 2.926, 2.929, 2.932, 2.944, 2.960, 2.962, 2.1043, 68.160 and 68.162.

Form Number: FCC 731-TC.

Type of Review: Revision of currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for profit entities.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 25.

Estimated Time per Response: 4 hours.

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

Total Annual Burden: 6,400 hours.

Total Annual Costs: $175,000.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: N.A.

Needs and Uses: Under 47 CFR parts 2 and 15 of FCC Rules, certain equipment must comply with FCC technical standards before it can be marketed. Equipment that operates in the licensed service requires FCC Authorization under 47 CFR parts 2 and 68. Since its 1999 Report and Order, ET Docket No. 98-68, the FCC has permitted private sector firms or “Telecommunications Certification Body” (TCB) to approve equipment for marketing. TCBs are accredited by FCC recognized accrediting bodies, and then designated by the FCC to act on behalf of the Commission. TCBs may be designated based on the terms of established Mutual Recognition Agreements with foreign trade partners. TCBs may accept FCC Form 731-TC filings and evaluate the equipment's compliance with FCC Rules and technical standards. TCBs submit this information to the FCC via the Internet. On July 8, 2004, the Commission adopted a Report and Order, Modification of Parts 2 and 15 of the Commission's Rules for Unlicensed Devices and Equipment Approval, ET Docket No. 03-201, FCC 04-165. The change requires that all paper filings required in Sections 2.913(c), 2.926(c), 2.929(c), and 2.929(d) of the rules are outdated and now must be filed electronically via the Internet on FCC Form 731-TC. The Commission believes that electronic filing speeds up application processing and supports the Commission in further streamlining to reduce cost and increase efficiency. The number of responses and the response time is not expected to change, since the basic authorization process will not change. Respondents are only being required to file the same information electronically.

Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and Section 2.34 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for September 15, 2004), on the World Wide Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2004/09/index.htm. A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room 130-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-2222.

Public comments are invited, and may be filed with the Commission in either paper or electronic form. Written comments must be submitted on or before October 14, 2004. Comments should refer to “General Electric Company, File No. 041 0106,” to facilitate the organization of comments. A comment filed in paper form should include this reference both in the text and on the envelope, and should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade Commission/Office of the Secretary, Room H-159, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. If the comment contains any material for which confidential treatment is requested, it must be filed in paper (rather than electronic) form, and the first page of the document must be clearly labeled “Confidential.”  1 The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions. Comments filed in electronic form should be sent to the following email box: consentagreement@ftc.gov.

The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. All timely and responsive public comments, whether filed in paper or electronic form, will be considered by the Commission, and will be available to the public on the FTC Web site, to the extent practicable, at http://www.ftc.gov. As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from the public comments it receives before placing those comments on the FTC Web site. More information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

The Federal Trade Commission has accepted, subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Orders from General Electric Company, which is designed to remedy the anticompetitive effects resulting from GE's acquisition of InVision Technologies, Inc. Under the terms of the Consent Agreement, GE will be required to divest InVision's nondestructive testing (“NDT”) business, including InVision's YXLON NDT subsidiaries, within six months after the date GE signed the Consent Agreement. The Consent Agreement also includes an Order to Hold Separate and Maintain Assets that requires GE to preserve the YXLON NDT business as a viable, competitive, and ongoing operation until the divestiture is achieved.

The proposed Consent Agreement has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days to solicit comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the proposed Consent Agreement and the comments received and will decide whether it should withdraw from the proposed Consent Agreement or make it final.

Pursuant to a stock purchase agreement dated March 15, 2004, GE proposes to acquire InVision (“Proposed Acquisition”). The total value of the Proposed Acquisition is approximately $900 million. The Commission's Complaint alleges that the Proposed Acquisition, if consummated, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, by lessening competition in the U.S. market for the research, development, manufacture, and sale of certain types of x-ray NDT and inspection equipment, specifically: (1) Standard x-ray cabinets, (2) x-ray NDT and inspection systems equipped with automated defect recognition software (“ADR-capable x-ray systems”), and (3) x-ray generators capable of producing energy levels higher than 350 kilovolts (“high-energy x-ray generators”).

GE is a diversified technology and services company headquartered in Fairfield, Connecticut. GE is made up of a broad range of primary business units, each with its own divisions. GE Infrastructure, the business unit that proposes to acquire InVision, oversees the operations of GE's security and sensing, water technologies, and automation enterprises. Another business unit of GE, GE Inspection Technologies, designs, manufactures, and sells various NDT and inspection equipment, including x-ray, ultrasound and eddy current equipment under the Seifert, Pantak, Krautkramer and Hocking brand names. GE Inspection Technologies is headquartered in Hürth, Germany. The company's NDT and inspection products serve customers in the aerospace, energy, petrochemical and automotive industries.

Headquartered in Newark, California, InVision is the leading supplier of explosive detection systems (“EDS”) to the U.S. government for civil aviation security. InVision's EDS devices are used at airports for screening checked passenger baggage. InVision also offers industrial NDT and inspection equipment through its YXLON subsidiary. YXLON, headquartered in Hamburg, Germany, was acquired by InVision in 2003. YXLON designs, manufactures and sells x-ray NDT and inspection equipment for use in a wide range of industries, including the aerospace, automotive, and security industries.

GE and InVision, through its YXLON subsidiary, are the two largest suppliers of x-ray NDT and inspection equipment in the United States. X-ray NDT and inspection equipment includes, among other products: (1) Standard x-ray cabinets; (2) ADR-capable x-ray systems; and (3) high-energy x-ray generators. X-ray NDT and inspection equipment is used to inspect the structure and tolerance of materials, or identify objects inside materials, without damaging the materials or impairing their future usefulness.

Standard x-ray cabinets are x-ray NDT and inspection systems with generic configurations and uniform prices. Standard x-ray cabinets are multi-purpose inspection systems, as opposed to customized systems that are designed for particular customer needs, or application-specific x-ray systems utilized for specific tasks such as tire or airbag inspection. A single standard x-ray cabinet is capable of inspecting a variety of products as diverse as, for example, metal die-castings, turbine engine parts, steel components, plastics and ceramics.

ADR-capable x-ray systems are inspection systems that utilize automated defect recognition, or ADR, software that completely automates the inspection process. Unlike traditional x-ray NDT and inspection systems that require a manual operator, ADR-capable x-ray systems eliminate the need to make subjective human decisions regarding the objects being inspected. The benefits of ADR-capable x-ray systems for customers are improved inspection quality, increased throughput and decreased labor costs.

High-energy x-ray generators are components of x-ray NDT and inspection systems that generate the power needed to produce an x-ray beam and display an x-ray image. There are different categories of x-ray generators that are distinguished by the amount of power they can produce. High-energy x-ray generators produce levels of power sufficient for x-rays to penetrate dense materials, such as steel, that other types of x-ray generators cannot produce.

Manufacturers and end users in a variety of industries use standard x-ray cabinets, ADR-capable x-ray systems, and high-energy x-ray generators for quality control and safety purposes. Purchasers of these products purchase the type of x-ray NDT and inspection equipment that is best-suited for their application and, because of the unique performance characteristics of each type of equipment, there is little opportunity to switch to alternative equipment. In fact, even a price increase of five to ten percent for standard x-ray cabinets, ADR-capable x-ray systems, or high-energy x-ray generators would not likely cause a significant number of customers for these products to switch to any alternative product.

The United States is the appropriate geographic market for standard x-ray cabinets, ADR-capable x-ray systems, and high-energy x-ray generators in which to analyze the competitive effects of the Proposed Acquisition. Because x-ray NDT and inspection equipment frequently needs to be serviced and repaired to ensure proper operation, customers purchase from suppliers with local service and support networks. Furthermore, customers purchase from companies with a proven reputation for accurate and reliable equipment, and are reluctant to switch to a new company that does not have a proven track record for providing such service and support. Foreign suppliers that have not established the necessary service and support networks, brand reputation, and customer acceptance in the United States are not effective competitors for U.S. customers and would not be able to constrain a price increase for standard x-ray cabinets, ADR-capable x-ray systems, or high-energy x-ray generators in the United States.

The U.S. markets for standard x-ray cabinets, ADR-capable x-ray systems, and high-energy x-ray generators are all highly concentrated. GE and InVision are the two largest suppliers in each of these markets. If the Proposed Acquisition is consummated, GE would become the dominant supplier in each of these markets. For many customers, GE and InVision are the top two choices when considering a supplier of standard x-ray cabinets, ADR-capable x-ray systems, or high-energy x-ray generators. By eliminating competition between these two leading suppliers, the Proposed Acquisition would allow GE to unilaterally exercise market power, thereby increasing the likelihood that purchasers of standard x-ray cabinets, ADR-capable x-ray systems, and high-energy x-ray generators would be forced to pay higher prices and that innovation in these markets would decrease.

Significant impediments to new entry exist in the U.S. markets for x-ray NDT and inspection equipment. First, a new entrant would need to devote significant time and expense researching and developing a product. Second, a new entrant must undertake the lengthy and costly process of establishing a track record of reliability for its product. This track record is critical to customers because x-ray NDT and inspection equipment is relied upon to ensure the quality, performance, and safety of their products. Finally, a new supplier of standard x-ray cabinets, ADR-capable x-ray systems, and high-energy x-ray generators would have to spend a great deal of time and money to develop a broad service and support network upon which customers can rely. For these reasons, new entry into the markets for standard x-ray cabinets, ADR-capable x-ray systems, and high-energy x-ray generators is not likely to occur in a timely manner even if prices increased substantially after the Proposed Acquisition. Additionally, new entry into these markets is unlikely because the costs of entering these markets are too high relative to the limited sales opportunities available to new entrants.

The Consent Agreement effectively remedies the Proposed Acquisition's anticompetitive effects in the U.S. markets for the research, development, manufacture, and sale of standard x-ray cabinets, ADR-capable x-ray systems, and high-energy x-ray generators by requiring GE to divest InVision's YXLON NDT business. Pursuant to the Consent Agreement, GE is required to divest the YXLON NDT business, including the YXLON NDT subsidiaries, to a buyer, at no minimum price, within six (6) months from the date GE signed the Consent Agreement. The acquirer of the YXLON NDT business must receive the prior approval of the Commission. The Commission's goal in evaluating possible purchasers of divested assets is to ensure that the competitive environment that existed prior to the acquisition is maintained. A proposed acquirer of divested assets must not itself present competitive problems.

Should GE fail to accomplish the divestiture within the time and in the manner required by the Consent Agreement, the Commission may appoint a trustee to divest these assets. If approved, the trustee would have the exclusive power and authority to accomplish the divestiture within six (6) months of being appointed, subject to any necessary extensions by the Commission. The Consent Agreement requires GE to provide the trustee with access to information related to the YXLON NDT business as necessary to fulfill his or her obligations.

The Order to Hold Separate and Maintain Assets that is included in the Consent Agreement requires that GE hold separate and maintain the viability of the YXLON NDT business as a competitive operation until the business is transferred to the Commission-approved acquirer. Furthermore, it contains measures designed to ensure that no material confidential information is exchanged between GE and the YXLON NDT business (except as otherwise provided in the Consent Agreement) and provisions designed to prevent interim harm to competition in each x-ray NDT and inspection equipment market pending divestiture. The Order to Hold Separate and Maintain Assets provides that the Commission may appoint a Hold Separate Trustee who is charged with the duty of monitoring GE's compliance with the Consent Agreement. Pursuant to that Order, the Commission has appointed Hartmut G. Grossmann of H. Grossmann Consulting LLC as Hold Separate Trustee to oversee the YXLON NDT business prior to its divestiture and to ensure that GE complies with its obligations under the Consent Agreement. Mr. Grossmann, who holds law degrees from both the United States and Germany, has more than 25 years of experience advising and managing companies both inside and outside of Germany. He has held several key management positions, including chief counsel, managing director, and chief operating officer, and during his professional career has developed experience related to corporate governance, litigation, business integration and restructuring, and regulatory compliance matters.

In order to ensure that the Commission remains informed about the status of the YXLON NDT business pending divestiture, and about the efforts being made to accomplish the divestiture, the Consent Agreement requires GE to file periodic reports with the Commission until the divestiture is accomplished.

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

The General Services Administration is requesting that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and approve information collection, 3090-0200, Sealed Bidding. The information requested regarding an offeror's monthly production capability is needed to make progressive awards to ensure coverage of stock items.

Respondents: 10

Responses Per Respondent: 1

Hours Per Response: .5

Total Burden Hours: 5

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (V), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 208-7312. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0200, Sealed Bidding, in all correspondence.

The General Services Administration will be requesting the Office of Management and Budget to extend information collection 3090-0007, concerning GSA Form 527, Contractor's Qualifications and Financial Information. This form is used to determine the financial capability of prospective contractors as to whether they meet the financial responsibility standards in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the General Services Administration Acquisition Manual (GSAM).

Respondents: 2,940

Responses Per Respondent: 1.2

Total Responses: 3,528

Hours Per Response: 2.5

Total Burden Hours: 8,820

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (V), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 208-7312. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0007, GSA Form 527, Contractor's Qualifications and Financial Information, in all correspondence.

FDA advises other Federal agencies, State, local, and tribal governments on food safety standards for institutional food service establishments, restaurants, retail food stores, and other retail food establishments. In this advisory role, FDA works closely with these agencies to provide guidance and assistance that will enhance the regulatory programs of Federal, State, local, and tribal jurisdictions.

The purpose of the 2004 Report is to present data on foodborne illness risk factors in institutional foodservice establishments, restaurants, and retail food stores. The results contained in the 2004 Report provide insight into the effectiveness of current industry management systems and food safety regulatory programs in controlling foodborne illness risk factors in retail and foodservice operations. Using the data from multiple collection periods, FDA hopes to evaluate trends and determine if progress is being made toward the goals of reducing the occurrence of foodborne illness risk factors.

FDA will discuss the 2004 Report during the public meeting. The presentation will be available on FDA's Web site at http://www.fda.gov on the day of the satellite broadcast.

Persons interested in attending the satellite downlink public meeting as a member of the studio audience should send their registration information (including name, title, business affiliation, address, and telephone and fax numbers) to the contact person (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). Due to space limitations, we recommend that you register at least 5 days prior to the meeting. Seating capacity is limited to 75 persons. Registration will be accepted on a first-come-first-served basis. There is no registration fee for this public meeting, but early registration is encouraged because space is limited, and it will expedite entry into the building and its parking area. If you are interested in attending as a member of the studio audience and need any reasonable accommodations due to a disability, including a sign language interpreter, please contact Lakesha Abbey by October 6, 2003.

The satellite broadcast can be received at any place that has access to a steerable C-ban satellite dish. Contact your state retail food protection office or local FDA office for locations where the satellite broadcast will be available.

A videotape copy of the satellite broadcast may be available at the location where it was viewed or through the contact person listed in this document (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). You may also borrow a copy of the videotape through FDA's ORA-U Lending Library by sending your name and mailing address along with the name, title, and date of the broadcast to ORADLT@ora.fda.gov .

The 2004 report will be available electronically on FDA's Web site at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/retrsk2.html .

FDA is announcing the availability of the 2004 Report. The 2004 Report is the subject of a public meeting (via satellite downlink) which will be held on Wednesday, October 13, 2004, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m., eastern standard time. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register , FDA is announcing the satellite downlink public meeting. The 2004 Report summarizes results from a data collection conducted in 2003 on risk factors which have been identified as contributing to foodborne illness in institutional foodservice establishments, restaurants, and retail food stores; food from unsafe sources; inadequate cooking; improper holding temperature; contaminated equipment; and poor personal hygiene. A previous report presented data from a 1998 data collection on the same risk factors in institutional food-service establishments, restaurants, and retail food stores.

The two reports are FDA's response to a 1996 report entitled “Reinventing Food Regulations” issued under the National Performance Review, which concluded that foodborne illness caused by harmful bacteria and other pathogenic microorganisms in meat, poultry, seafood, dairy products, and a host of other foods is a significant public health problem in the United States. This 1996 report required Federal agencies to develop performance plans that included measurable goals and performance indicators which resulted in the study being reported.

In order to assess information associated with the occurrence of foodborne outbreaks and improve risk assessment capabilities, the level at which risky practices and behaviors occur had to be identified first. The 1998 data collection established a national baseline on the occurrence of foodborne disease risk factors within the retail segment of the food industry. The risk factors identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as contributing to foodborne illness that are being tracked are as follows: Food from unsafe sources, inadequate cooking, improper holding temperature, contaminated equipment, and poor personal hygiene.

The purpose of the 2004 Report is to present the second set of data from the 2003 data collection on risk factors in institutional foodservice establishments, restaurants, and retail food stores.

The 2004 Report is most useful when read and the data interpreted, as a separate stand alone report. As such, the 2004 report makes no attempt to draw comparisons between the results of the 1998 and 2003 data collections. Additional data are needed before any meaningful assessments of trends can be made for each of the facility types.

The results contained in the 2004 Report provide insight into the effectiveness of current industry management systems and food safety regulatory programs in controlling foodborne illness risk factors in retail and foodservice operations.

The data from the 1998 study, this project, and future studies planned for 2008 are expected to provide input into the Healthy People 2010's Food Safety Objective 10.6. This objective is designed to improve food preparation practices and food employee behaviors at institutional food-service establishments, restaurants, and retail food stores. Healthy People 2010 is a national health promotion and disease prevention initiative with the objective to improve the health of all Americans.

The 2004 Report is available electronically on FDA's Web site at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/retrsk2.html .

A satellite downlink public meeting will be held October 13, 2004, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m., eastern standard time to discuss results in the report. The satellite broadcast can be received at any place that has access to a steerable C-band satellite dish. Satellite coordinates with instructions on how to downlink will be posted on FDA's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ocer/dcm/html/program_calendar.html beginning September 15, 2004.

The Program provides a system of no-fault compensation for certain individuals who have been injured by specified childhood vaccines. Subtitle 2 of Title XXI of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-10 et seq., provides that those seeking compensation are to file a petition with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and to serve a copy of the petition on the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who is named as the respondent in each proceeding. The Secretary has delegated his responsibility under the Program to HRSA. The Court is directed by statute to appoint special masters who take evidence, conduct hearings as appropriate, and make initial decisions as to eligibility for, and amount of, compensation.

A petition may be filed with respect to injuries, disabilities, illnesses, conditions, and deaths resulting from vaccines described in the Vaccine Injury Table (the Table) set forth at Section 2114 of the PHS Act or as set forth at 42 CFR 100.3, as applicable. This Table lists for each covered childhood vaccine the conditions which will lead to compensation and, for each condition, the time period for occurrence of the first symptom or manifestation of onset or of significant aggravation after vaccine administration. Compensation may also be awarded for conditions not listed in the Table and for conditions that are manifested outside the time periods specified in the Table, but only if the petitioner shows that the condition was caused by one of the listed vaccines.

Section 2112(b)(2) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-12(b)(2), requires that the Secretary publish in the Federal Register a notice of each petition filed. Set forth below is a list of petitions received by HRSA on January 5, 2004, through March 30, 2004.

Section 2112(b)(2) also provides that the special master “shall afford all interested persons an opportunity to submit relevant, written information” relating to the following:

1. The existence of evidence “that there is not a preponderance of the evidence that the illness, disability, injury, condition, or death described in the petition is due to factors unrelated to the administration of the vaccine described in the petition,” and

2. Any allegation in a petition that the petitioner either:

(a) “Sustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition not set forth in the Table but which was caused by” one of the vaccines referred to in the Table, or

(b) “Sustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table the first symptom or manifestation of the onset or significant aggravation of which did not occur within the time period set forth in the Table but which was caused by a vaccine” referred to in the Table.

This notice will also serve as the special master's invitation to all interested persons to submit written information relevant to the issues described above in the case of the petitions listed below. Any person choosing to do so should file an original and three (3) copies of the information with the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims at the address listed above (under the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ), with a copy to HRSA addressed to Joyce Somsak, Acting Director, Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, Special Programs Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 16C-17, Rockville, MD 20857. The Court's caption (Petitioner's Name v. Secretary of Health and Human Services) and the docket number assigned to the petition should be used as the caption for the written submission.

Chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, related to paperwork reduction, does not apply to information required for purposes of carrying out the Program.

1. Krystyna Kane on behalf of Miriam Labib, Somers Point, New Jersey, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0002V.

2. Lynette and Joseph Hasson on behalf of Izzy Jack Hasson, Washington, District of Columbia, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0003V.

3. Robert C. Blair, III, Bluefield, Virginia, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0004V.

4. Diane and Craig Arpino on behalf of Joseph Craig Arpino, Somers Point, New Jersey, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0005V.

5. Kelley Tomczak and Christopher Sarli on behalf of Megan Sarli, Chicago, Illinois, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0006V.

6. Shana and Allen Denenberg on behalf of Chase Denenberg, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0014V.

7. Hieu T. Doan and Phuoc H. Nguyen on behalf of Douglas Duc Nguyen, Temecula, California, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0015V.

8. Ivy and Nathaniel Seeds on behalf of Evan Seeds, Temecula, California, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0016V.

9. Christy and Eric Crider on behalf of Dylan Scott Crider, Temecula, California, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0017V.

10. Brenda and Garth Bachman on behalf of Parker Allen Bachman, Temecula, California, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0018V.

11. Amots Grosvirt-Dramen and Sigal Dramen on behalf of Adam Dramen, Temecula, California, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0019V.

12. Dale Sader on behalf of Garrett Sader, Temecula, California, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0020V.

13. Rosemarie Dombrowski on behalf of Brendan Wagner, Vienna, Virginia, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0022V.

14. Erika Cababe, Las Vegas, Nevada, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0024V.

15. Norieta and George Stephanos on behalf of Tanner Michael Stephanos, Houston, Texas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0025V.

16. Teotimo and Eleuteria Sosa on behalf of Joshua Alejandro Sosa, Houston, Texas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0026V.

17. Deanne Palmer, Sharon, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0029V.

18. Shannon and William Albright on behalf of Taylor Albright, Pine Bluff, Arkansas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0030V.

19. Debbie and Michael Graves on behalf of Haley Graves, Dallas, Texas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0031V.

20. Denise and Todd Glover on behalf of Chance Glover, Dallas, Texas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0032V.

21. Randi and Craig Garfinkel on behalf of Jaden Garfinkel, Lake Success, New York, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0039V.

22. Chrissy and Matt McNair on behalf of Luke McNair, Lake Success, New York, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0040V.

23. Jill Robinson, Lexington, Kentucky, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0041V.

24. Kimberlee and Glenn Leuz on behalf of Logan Leuz, Deceased, Meadowbrook, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0042V.

25. Carmen Gail and Rodney Lee Phillips on behalf of Carson Anthony Phillips, Van Nuys, California, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0043V.

26. Julianne Colon on behalf of Sierra Kendall Colon, Deceased, Perrysburg, Ohio, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0044V.

27. Charmane Collins on behalf of Sharmarie Simmons, Holtsville, New York, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0047V.

28. Roslyn Ewah on behalf of Bryant Akeiti, Holtsville, New York, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0048V.

29. Roslyn Ewah on behalf of Brittany Akeiti, Holtsville, New York, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0049V.

30. Laura Orozco-Cordero on behalf of Kevin Cordero, Decatur, Texas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0051V.

31. Marissa and David Leal on behalf of Daniel Leal, Decatur, Texas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0052V.

32. Nina Fabella on behalf of Lisa Maria Arellano, Decatur, Texas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0053V.

33. Luisa Salinas on behalf of Joseph Anthony Guitierrez, Decatur, Texas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0054V.

34. Julie Fuentes on behalf of Robbye Lea Ivey, Decatur, Texas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0055V.

35. Joe Fuentes on behalf of Brittany Fuentes, Decatur, Texas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0056V.

36. Martha and Francisco Luna on behalf of Sergio Enrique Luna, Decatur, Texas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0057V.

37. Alma Lozano on behalf of Pierre Lozano, Decatur, Texas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0058V.

38. Mathal Vasquez on behalf of Rafael Vasquez, Decatur, Texas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0059V.

39. Veronica and Francisco Perez on behalf of Luis Angel Perez, Decatur, Texas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0060V.

40. Karnella McMillan on behalf of Christopher White, Houston, Texas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0061V.

41. Vicki Kirby on behalf of Destiny Kirby, Chicago, Illinois, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0062V.

42. Alejandro Villalobos on behalf of Rodolfo Villalobos, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0064V.

43. Ada Sepulveda on behalf of Darian Sepulveda, Brooklyn, New York, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0066V.

44. Joanna and Marcus Kerner on behalf of Daniel Lewis Kerner, Trabuco Canyon, California, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0072V.

45. Mary Ann and Keiffer Markley on behalf of Noah Markley, Reisterstown, Maryland, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0073V.

46. Michelle Weaver on behalf of William Weaver, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0076V.

47. Stewart West on behalf of Jackson West, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0077V.

48. Melissa Hartman on behalf of Julia Hartman, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0078V.

49. Marianne Lasseigne on behalf of James Lasseigne, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0079V.

50. Luanne Helms on behalf of Jake Helms, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0080V.

51. Christine and Joseph Bolander on behalf of Katlyn Bolander, New York, New York, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0081V.

52. Teresa and Irvin Stepp on behalf of Cammi Jo Stepp, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0086V.

53. Kimberly Kelly and Mark Edmonds on behalf of Blake Edwards, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0087V.

54. Melanie Hewitt on behalf of Brandan Michael Hewitt, Houston, Texas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0089V.

55. Patricia and Howard Alperin on behalf of Courtney Alperin, Santa Monica, California, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0092V.

56. Laura Harris on behalf of Valarie Harris, Decatur, Georgia, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0105V.

57. Kara and Alan Brodeur on behalf of Arlen Brodeur, Hoffman Estates, Illinois, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0110V.

58. John Cordts, Fullerton, California, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0111V.

59. Leslie Richards and Terrell Sheppard on behalf of Victoria Ann Sheppard, Deceased, Fort Walton Beach, Florida, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0112V.

60. Rebecca and Kevin Peck on behalf of Spencer Peck, Overland Park, Kansas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0113V.

61. Delores Legros on behalf of Emile Legros, Great Neck, New York, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0114V.

62. Sherrie Kjar on behalf of Dillon Christopher Kjar, Decatur, Texas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0115V.

63. Keisha and Thomas Miller on behalf of Isaiah Miller, Deceased, New Orleans, Louisiana, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0122V.

64. Michelle Hartis on behalf of Garrett Hartis, Deceased, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0128V.

65. Brenda and Charlie Steele on behalf of Mason Steele, Vienna, Virginia, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0136V.

66. Allison Wastak on behalf of Ashlynn Wastak, Vienna, Virginia, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0137V.

67. Carol Sojka, Brattleboro, Vermont, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0138V.

68. Virginia and Peter Violas on behalf of Peter Violas, Houston, Texas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0139V.

69. Kenneth Ulappa on behalf of Theodore Graham Ulappa, Portland, Oregon, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0140V.

70. Darlene Crosby on behalf of Hugh Paul Dyson, Portland, Oregon, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0141V.

71. Kellie Cirone on behalf of Stevan Cirone, Portland, Oregon, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0142V.

72. Lisa and Timothy Thompson on behalf of Patricia Thompson, Lake Success, New York, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0143V.

73. Bill Hoffman on behalf of Matthew Hoffman, Houston, Texas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0144V.

74. Joyce and Greg Wiatt on behalf of Weston Wiatt, Temecula, California, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0147V.

75. Carla and Kenneth Sizemore on behalf of Sean Sizemore, Temecula, California, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0148V.

76. Jeanne Ferrucci on behalf of Joseph Anthony Ferrucci, Somers Point, New Jersey, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0151V.

77. Cynthia and James Reiners on behalf of James Robert Reiners, III, Houston, Texas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0152V.

78. Marianne and Anthony Salemi on behalf of Anthony Salemi, Houston, Texas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0153V.

79. Susan Spund on behalf of Alexandra Spund, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0156V.

80. Susan Spund on behalf of Jennifer Spund, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0157V.

81. Dorothy Young on behalf of Daniel Young, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0158V.

82. Laura Martinez on behalf of Charles Martinez, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0159V.

83. James Bryan Quattlebaum on behalf of Grant Quattlebaum, Sacramento, California, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0160V.

84. Ana and Randy Tillim on behalf of Ryan Tillim, Sterling, Virginia, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0162V.

85. Lona Maker on behalf of McKinley Maker, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0164V.

86. Ellen Schneider and Sam Alexander on behalf of Benjamin Alexander, New Orleans, Louisiana, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0168V.

87. Nancy Cobb on behalf of Tasmin Mosby, New Orleans, Louisiana, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0169V.

88. Sharon Muse on behalf of Drexel Muse, Jr., New Orleans, Louisiana, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0170V.

89. Kimberly Ngo on behalf of Joanh Nguyen, New Orleans, Louisiana, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0171V.

90. Sabrina Slattery on behalf of Kyle Baham, New Orleans, Louisiana, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0172V.

91. Cassandra Thomas on behalf of Ryan Thomas, New Orleans, Louisiana, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0173V.

92. Ikona Traylor on behalf of Michael Brown, New Orleans, Louisiana, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0174V.

93. J. Danyele and Danny Tutt on behalf of Kaleb Tutt, New Orleans, Louisiana, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0176V.

94. Traneice Victor on behalf of Malaysia Victor, New Orleans, Louisiana, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0177V.

95. Marilyn and John Warr on behalf of John E. Warr, III, New Orleans, Louisiana, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0178V.

96. Scott Devinney on behalf of Garret Devinney, Vienna, Virginia, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0179V.

97. Patricia Brockman on behalf of Hannah Jacobson, Vienna, Virginia, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0180V.

98. Susan Sexton and Michael Smith on behalf of Spencer Ryan Smith, Vienna, Virginia, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0181V.

99. Jennifer and Joshua Mazer on behalf of Maximilian Mazer, Vienna, Virginia, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0182V.

100. Michele Akmon on behalf of Taya Akmon, Vienna, Virginia, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0183V.

101. Katrina and Lance Ray on behalf of Elise Victoria Ray, Saginaw, Michigan, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0184V.

102. Rosann Landry on behalf of David Landry, Vienna, Virginia, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0185V.

103. Jennifer Jean and Marvin Robert Oskey on behalf of Elijah Maurice Oskey, Portland, Oregon, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0186V.

104. Denise and Scott Corbin on behalf of William Corbin, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0189V.

105. Wendy and Pausanias Alexander on behalf of Christos Alexander, Richmond, Virginia, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0191V.

106. Miriam and James Owens on behalf of Sarah Christina Owens, Richmond, Virginia, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0193V.

107. Katherine and Seymour Young on behalf of Anna Young, Houston, Texas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0194V.

108. Jade and Andrea Trahan on behalf of Dominic Trahan, Miami, Florida, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0195V.

109. Doris and Abdel Brown on behalf of Sharif Brown, Miami, Florida, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0196V.

110. Kerri and Robert Helmick on behalf of Kameron William Helmick, Melbourne, Florida, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0197V.

111. Genett and Nathan Reed on behalf of Adam Reed, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0198V.

112. Joanne Patsis on behalf of Alec Jonathan Patsis, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0199V.

113. Laurie and George Curry on behalf of Thomas Curry, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0200V.

114. Jeff Rousseau on behalf of Hunter Rousseau, Houston, Texas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0201V.

115. Jennifer and Erik Boergesson on behalf of Brigham Boergesson, Houston, Texas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0202V.

116. Jesus Camero on behalf of Jesus A. Camero, Houston, Texas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0203V.

117. Darlene and Charles DiRico on behalf of Derek DiRico, Houston, Texas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0204V.

118. Dana Everette, Tarboro, North Carolina, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0205V.

119. Kathryn Moffatt on behalf of Patrick Moffatt, Somers Point, New Jersey, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0206V.

120. Lisa and Richard Richardson on behalf of Megan Richardson, Hanover, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0208V.

121. Laura and Dan Clarke on behalf of Daniel Joseph Clarke, II, Covington, Kentucky, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0209V.

122. Patricia Schrum, Melbourne, Florida, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0210V.

123. Penn Schwartzenburg on behalf of Connor Schwartzenburg, Vienna, Virginia, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0211V.

124. Lisa Gutierrez on behalf of David Gutierrez, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0215V.

125. Anne and Dean Moore on behalf of Andrew Moore, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0217V.

126. Monica and Clifton Hoffman on behalf of Clifton Hoffman, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0218V.

127. Eileen DiMarino on behalf of Drew DiMarino, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0219V.

128. Mattie and Gilbert Hattier on behalf of Fionn Hattier, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0220V.

129. Melissa and Jonathan Garner on behalf of Joshua Garner, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0221V.

130. Debra Coviak on behalf of Alexander Coviak, Somers Point, New Jersey, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0222V.

131. Linda Tutza on behalf of Peter Leal, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0223V.

132. Lori and Scott Cox on behalf of Tyler Austin Cox, Decatur, Texas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0224V.

133. Sarita and Peter Lang on behalf of Talan Lang, Houston, Texas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0227V.

134. Martha and Paul Brach on behalf of Sam Brach, Houston, Texas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0228V.

135. Maria and Mario Ramirez on behalf of Andre Ramirez, Houston, Texas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0229V.

136. Sarita and Peter Lang on behalf of Trevan Lang, Houston, Texas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0230V.

137. Michelle Bennett on behalf of Brandon Derrick Hernandez, Sandusky, Michigan, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0232V.

138. Christine and Jeffrey Sanders on behalf of Matthew Serget Sanders, Richmond, Virginia, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0234V.

139. Diane and Peter Tenore on behalf of Haley Morgan Tenore, Richmond, Virginia, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0235V.

140. Ember Plumlee, Little Rock, Arkansas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0241V.

141. Jennifer and Troy Armstrong on behalf of Bryant Armstrong, Cleveland, Mississippi, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0242V.

142. Amy and Stephen Pincus on behalf of Mark Gregory Pincus, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0243V.

143. Linda Tutza on behalf of Peter Leal, Huntington, Vermont, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0244V.

144. Susan Goewey and William Carey on behalf of Luke Owen Carey, Richmond, Virginia, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0245V.

145. Jennifer Deoliveira on behalf of Isaiah Deoliviera, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0246V.

146. Jennifer Landau on behalf of Caleb Landau, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0247V.

147. Kristin and Jeffrey Morrison on behalf of Wade Morrison, Alexandria, Virginia, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0251V.

148. Moses Lacy on behalf of Rachel Lacy, Deceased, Fort McCoy, Wisconsin, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0253V.

149. Cindy Bramblett on behalf of Tiffany Bramblett, Vienna, Virginia, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0255V.

150. Suihua Zhu and Bin Zhao on behalf of Fiona Zhao, Houston, Texas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0257V.

151. Eva J. Coiro-Lorusso and Nicola Lorusso on behalf of Umberto Lorusso, Melbourne, Florida, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0258V.

152. Tammy and Joseph Hodges on behalf of Joseph Christopher Hodges, Houston, Texas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0259V.

153. Jenell and Randall Bailey on behalf of Joel Bailey, Portland, Oregon, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0260V.

154. Jenell and Randall Bailey on behalf of David Bailey, Portland, Oregon, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0261V.

155. Jenell and Randall Bailey on behalf of James Bailey, Portland, Oregon, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0262V.

156. Stephanie James on behalf of Nicholas James, Portland, Oregon, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0263V.

157. Kelly Ray and Leslie Duncan on behalf of Zachary Duncan, Portland, Oregon, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0264V.

158. Carla and William Whiteside on behalf of Lauren Whiteside, Deceased, Lincolnton, North Carolina, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0266V.

159. Arkadiusz and Bozena Zarzycka on behalf of Alan Victor Zarzycka, Houston, Texas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0268V.

160. Francine and Bennett Zuck on behalf of Adin Jacob Zuck, Houston, Texas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0269V.

161. Carolyn Proper and Gary Wimbish on behalf of Nicholas Wimbish, Norcross, Georgia, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0271V.

162. Edie and William Nale on behalf of William Nale, Dallas, Texas, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0272V.

163. Janis Talebizadeh, Valencia, California, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0273V.

164. Wasfi Meshagbeh on behalf of Karam Al-Meshagbeh, Troy, Michigan, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0274V.

165. Julie and Mark Hutton on behalf of Caleb Hutton, Portland, Oregon, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0275V.

166. Anna Smith on behalf of Ryan Smith, Portland, Oregon, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0276V.

167. Amanda and Richard Coe on behalf of Colton Coe, Alexandria, Virginia, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0278V.

168. Karen and David Zwemer on behalf of Andrew Zwemer, Vero Beach, Florida, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0281V.

169. Aydin Rza on behalf of Camilla Rza, Lake Success, New York, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0282V.

170. Cynthia and David Emminger on behalf of David Thomas Emminger, Lake Success, New York, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0283V.

171. Heather and Aaron Bostic on behalf of Colin Bostic, Portland, Oregon, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0285V.

172. Cheryl and Timothy Lozon on behalf of Christopher Lozon, Gaithersburg, Maryland, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0286V.

173. Deana Orth on behalf of Nicholas Orth, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0292V.

174. Katrina Dyer-Alexander on behalf of Amya Alexander, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0293V.

175. Corina Ianculovici on behalf of Christopher Ianculovici, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0294V.

176. Beth Schmied on behalf of William Schmied, Portland, Oregon, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0298V.

177. Ellen and Paul Mazzie on behalf of Eric Mazzie, North Reading, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0305V.

178. Susan and Mike Killiany on behalf of Dominic Killiany, Dover, New Hampshire, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0306V.

179. Debbie and Terrence Kavanagh on behalf of Julia Kavanagh, Dover, New Hampshire, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0307V.

180. Beverly and Edward Messina on behalf of Harrison Messina, Peabody, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0308V.

181. Beverly and Edward Messina on behalf of Charles Messina, Peabody, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0309V.

182. Kelly and Guido Melo on behalf of Lindsey Melo, North Dartmouth, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0310V.

183. Joanna Callinan on behalf of Patrick Callinan, Sommerville, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0311V.

184. Gail Carnes on behalf of Matthew Carnes, Hyde Park, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0312V.

185. Elizabeth and Bruce Collins on behalf of Ruby Collins, Quincy, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0313V.

186. Elizabeth and Matthew Corbeil on behalf of Bradley Corbeil, Salem, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0314V.

187. Gerald Dorsainvil on behalf of Nicholas Dorsainvil, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0315V.

188. John Doherty on behalf of Erica Rose Doherty, Torrance, California, Court of Federal Claims Number 04-0316V.