The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.”

The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 340.6 describe the form that a petition for a determination of nonregulated status must take and the information that must be included in the petition.

On November 19, 2003, APHIS received a petition (APHIS Petition Number 03-323-01p) from Monsanto Company of St. Louis, MO, and KWS SAAT AG of Einbeck, Germany (Monsanto/KWS), requesting a determination of nonregulated status under 7 CFR part 340 for sugar beet ( Beta vulgaris ssp. vulgaris ) designated as event H7-1, which has been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate. The Monsanto/KWS petition states that the subject sugar beet should not be regulated by APHIS because it does not present a plant pest risk. As described in the petition, sugar beet event H7-1 has been genetically engineered to express a 5-enolpyruvyshikimate-3-phosphate synthase protein from Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4 (CP4 EPSPS), which confers tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate. Expression of the added genes is controlled in part by the 35S promoter derived from the plant pathogen figwort mosaic virus. The Agrobacterium tumefaciens transformation method was used to transfer the added genes into the KWS proprietary sugar beet line 3S0057.

Sugar beet event H7-1 has been considered a regulated article under the regulations in 7 CFR part 340 because it contains gene sequences from plant pathogens. In the process of reviewing the notifications for field trials of the subject sugar beet, APHIS determined that the vectors and other elements were disarmed and that the trials, which were conducted under conditions of reproductive and physical confinement or isolation, would not present a risk of plant pest introduction or dissemination.

In § 403 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701-7772), plant pest is defined as any living stage of any of the following that can directly or indirectly injure, cause damage to, or cause disease in any plant or plant product: A protozoan, a nonhuman animal, a parasitic plant, a bacterium, a fungus, a virus or viroid, an infectious agent or other pathogen, or any article similar to or allied with any of the foregoing. APHIS views this definition very broadly. The definition covers direct or indirect injury, disease, or damage not just to agricultural crops, but also to plants in general, for example, native species, as well as to organisms that may be beneficial to plants, for example, honeybees, rhizobia, etc.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for the regulation of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. ). FIFRA requires that all pesticides, including herbicides, be registered prior to distribution or sale, unless exempt by EPA regulation. In cases in which genetically modified plants allow for a new use of a pesticide or involve a different use pattern for the pesticide, EPA must approve the new or different use. Accordingly, EPA has granted a registration for the use of glyphosate on glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet.

When the use of the pesticide on the genetically modified plant would result in an increase in the residues in a food or feed crop for which the pesticide is currently registered, or in new residues in a crop for which the pesticide is not currently registered, establishment of a new tolerance or a revision of the existing tolerance would be required. Residue tolerances for pesticides are established by EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq. ), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) enforces tolerances set by EPA under the FFDCA. EPA has determined that the existing residue tolerance for glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet is sufficient to support future use of glyphosate on event H7-1.

FDA published a statement of policy on foods derived from new plant varieties in the Federal Register on May 29, 1992 (57 FR 22984-23005). The FDA statement of policy includes a discussion of FDA's authority for ensuring food safety under the FFDCA, and provides guidance to industry on the scientific considerations associated with the development of foods derived from new plant varieties, including those plants developed through the techniques of genetic engineering. Monsanto/KWS has begun consultation with FDA on the subject sugar beet event.

To provide the public with documentation of APHIS' review and analysis of the environmental impacts and plant pest risk associated with a proposed determination of nonregulated status for the Monsanto/KWS event H7-1 sugar beet, an environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared. The EA was prepared in accordance with (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).

In accordance with § 340.6(d) of the regulations, we are publishing this notice to inform the public that APHIS will accept written comments regarding the petition for a determination of nonregulated status from interested persons for a period of 60 days from the date of this notice. We are also soliciting written comments from interested persons on the EA prepared to examine any environmental impacts of the proposed determination for the subject sugar beet event. The petition and the EA and any comments received are available for public review, and copies of the petition and the EA are available as indicated in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

After the comment period closes, APHIS will review the data submitted by the petitioner, all written comments received during the comment period, and any other relevant information. After reviewing and evaluating the comments on the petition and the EA and other data and information, APHIS will furnish a response to the petitioner, either approving the petition in whole or in part, or denying the petition. APHIS will then publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the regulatory status of the Monsanto/KWS glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet event H7-1 and the availability of APHIS' written decision.

Agenda items to be covered include: (1) New member orientation and (2) review of FY 2004 RAC proposals.

On April 17, 1997, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the PRC (62 FR 18740). On August 27, 2004, Fengkun Foundry submitted information and documentation in support of its claim that it is the successor-in-interest to Fengkun Metallurgical and requested that the Department conduct a changed-circumstances review to determine whether Fengkun Foundry is the successor-in-interest to Fengkun Metallurgical and whether it should receive the same antidumping duty treatment as is accorded to Fengkun Metallurgical with respect to the subject merchandise.

On September 7, 2004, we informed Fengkun Foundry that in order to further consider its August 27, 2004, request for a changed circumstances review, it was required to provide a response to the Department's separate rates questionnaire for purposes of determining whether it was entitled to a separate rate ( see September 7, 2004, memorandum from the team leader to the file, entitled “Telephone Conversation with Counsel for Fengkun Foundry and Fengkun Metallurgical). On September 14, 2004, Fengkun Foundry provided its response to the Department's separate rates questionnaire.

On September 14, 2004, the petitioner requested that the Department publish a separate notice of initiation and refrain from simultaneously issuing a preliminary finding because (1) it claimed that the data provided in the public version of Fengkun Foundry's August 27, 2004, request did not provide the Department with sufficient information to conduct an expedited review; and (2) the petitioner was denied the ability to comment fully on Fengkun Foundry's initiation request until it is granted access to the business proprietary data contained in Fengkun Foundry's initiation request pursuant to an administrative protective order (“APO”).

The products covered by this review are brake rotors made of gray cast iron, whether finished, semifinished, or unfinished, ranging in diameter from 8 to 16 inches (20.32 to 40.64 centimeters) and in weight from 8 to 45 pounds (3.63 to 20.41 kilograms). The size parameters (weight and dimension) of the brake rotors limit their use to the following types of motor vehicles: automobiles, all-terrain vehicles, vans, recreational vehicles under “one ton and a half,” and light trucks designated as “one ton and a half.”

Finished brake rotors are those that are ready for sale and installation without any further operations. Semi-finished rotors are those rotors which have undergone some drilling and on which the surface is not entirely smooth. Unfinished rotors are those which have undergone some grinding or turning.

These brake rotors are for motor vehicles and do not contain in the casting a logo of an original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”) which produces vehicles sold in the United States ( e.g. , General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, and Volvo). Brake rotors covered in this review are not certified by OEM producers of vehicles sold in the United States. The scope also includes composite brake rotors that are made of gray cast iron which contain a steel plate but otherwise meet the above criteria. Excluded from the scope of the review are brake rotors made of gray cast iron, whether finished, semifinished, or unfinished, with a diameter less than 8 inches or greater than 16 inches (less than 20.32 centimeters or greater than 40.64 centimeters) and a weight less than 8 pounds or greater than 45 pounds (less than 3.63 kilograms or greater than 20.41 kilograms).

Brake rotors are currently classifiable under subheading 8708.39.5010 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this review is dispositive.

In proceedings involving non-market economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping duty deposit rate. Based on information contained in its September 14, 2004, submission, Fengkun Foundry is registered in the PRC as a limited liability company owned by private individuals. Thus, a separate rates analysis is necessary to determine whether Fengkun Foundry is independent from government control ( see Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the People's Republic of China, 61 FR 19026 (April 30, 1996)).

To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control, and therefore entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each exporting entity under a test arising out of the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“ Sparklers ”) and amplified in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (“ Silicon Carbide ”). Under the separate rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if the respondent can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over export activities.

Fengkun Foundry has placed on the administrative record documentation to demonstrate absence of de jure governmental control, including the 1994 “Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China,” and the “Administrative Regulations of the People's Republic of China Governing the Registration of Legal Corporations,” promulgated on June 3, 1988.

As in prior cases, we have analyzed these laws and have found them to establish sufficiently an absence of de jure control of stock companies including limited liability companies. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544 (May 8, 1995) (“ Furfuryl Alcohol ”), and Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Partial-Extension Steel Drawer Slides with Rollers from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 29571 (June 5, 1995). We have no new information in this proceeding which would cause us to reconsider this determination with regard to Fengkun Foundry.

As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. See Silicon Carbide and Furfuryl Alcohol. Therefore, the Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether the respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates.

The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating whether a respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by, or subject to the approval of, a governmental authority; (2) whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide and Furfuryl Alcohol.

Fengkun Foundry asserted the following: (1) It establishes its own export prices; (2) it negotiates contracts without guidance from any governmental entities or organizations; (3) it makes its own personnel decisions; and (4) it retains the proceeds of its export sales, uses profits according to its business needs, and has the authority to sell its assets and to obtain loans. Additionally, statements contained in Fengkun Foundry's September 14, 2004, submission indicate that the company does not coordinate its prices with other exporters. This information supports a initial finding that there is de facto absence of governmental control of the export functions of Fengkun Foundry. See Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Administrative Review, 62 FR 55215 (October 23, 1997). Consequently, for purposes of initiating its request for a changed circumstances review, we find that there is a sufficient basis to determine that Fengkun Foundry has met the criteria for the application of a separate rate.

Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act, the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of information concerning, or a request from an interested party for a review of, an antidumping duty order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. In its August 27, 2004, submission, Fengkun Foundry notified the Department that it had changed its name on November 28, 2003, in order to reflect better the company's operations. In its submission, Fengkun Foundry also stated that neither its corporate structure nor its owners and shareholders has changed. The information submitted by Fengkun Foundry regarding its claim that it is the successor-in-interest to Fengkun Metallurgical shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review. See 19 CFR 351.216(c).

In antidumping duty changed circumstances reviews involving a successor-in-interest determination, the Department typically examines several factors including, but not limited to, changes in: (1) Management; (2) production facilities; (3) supplier relationships; and (4) customer base. See Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review , 57 FR 20460, 20462 (May 13, 1992) (“ Brass Sheet ”). While no single factor or combination of factors will necessarily be dispositive, the Department generally will consider the new company to be the successor to the predecessor company if the resulting operations are essentially the same as those of the predecessor company. See e.g., Industrial Phosphorus Acid from Israel: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review , 59 FR 6944, 6945 (February 14, 1994), and Brass Sheet , 57 FR at 20460. Thus, if the record evidence demonstrates that, with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, the new company operates as the same business entity as the predecessor company, the Department may assign the new company the cash deposit rate of its predecessor. See e.g., Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 64 FR 9979, 9980 (March 1, 1999).

Based on data contained in its August 27, 2004, submission and September 14, 2004, supplemental submission, Fengkun Foundry has provided sufficient evidence to warrant a review to determine if it is the successor-in-interest to Fengkun Metallurgical based on the successor-in-interest criteria enunciated in Brass Sheet and the Department's separate rates criteria articulated in Sparklers and amplified in Silicon Carbide . However, we consider it inappropriate to expedite this review by combining the preliminary results of review with this notice of initiation, as permitted under 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii), because Fengkun Foundry's request for this changed circumstances review was based on business proprietary information. The petitioner has, therefore, been unable to review or comment on the review request to date. Therefore, the Department is not issuing the preliminary results of its antidumping duty changed circumstances review at this time.

The Department will publish in the Federal Register a notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty changed circumstances review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(I). This notice will set forth the factual and legal conclusions upon which our preliminary results are based and a description of any action proposed based on those results. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(ii), interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results of review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e), the Department will issue the final results of its antidumping duty changed circumstances review not later than 270 days after the date on which the review is initiated.

During the course of this antidumping duty changed circumstances review, we will not change the cash deposit requirements for the merchandise subject to review. The cash deposit will only be altered, if warranted, pursuant to the final results of this review.

This notice of initiation is in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.222.

The meeting will be closed to discuss the relative merits of persons and companies nominated for the Medal. Public disclosure of this information would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of the National Medal of Technology program because premature publicity about candidates under consideration for the Medal, who may or may not ultimately receive the award, would be likely to discourage nominations for the Medal.

Accordingly, I find and determine, pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, as amended, that the November 30, 2004, meeting may be closed to the public in accordance with section 552b (c) (9) (B) of title 5, United States Code because revealing information about Medal candidates would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency Action.

Due to closure of the meeting, copies of the minutes of the meeting will not be available, however a copy of the Notice of Determination will be available for public inspection and copying in the office of Mildred Porter, Director, National Medal of Technology, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Herbert Hoover Building, Room 4843, Washington, DC 20230, Phone: 202/482-5572.

Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ; Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508); and Department of the Navy regulations (32 CFR 775), the Department of the Navy (Navy) announces its decision to purchase approximately 5,200 acres of privately owned property in the northwestern acoustic buffer of the John C. Stennis Space Center (SSC) in Hancock County, MS to establish a Naval Special Operations Forces (SOF) riverine and jungle training range. This decision implements Basic Training Alternative C, the preferred type and tempo of training alternative at Alternative Range Location 3, as described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The range will provide Naval SOF with reliable and priority access to a local training range characterized by a permanent riverine and jungle environment and where live combat exercises using Short Range Training Ammunition (SRTA) can be conducted.

Background and Issues: Naval SOF have conducted riverine and jungle training along the lower Pearl River and its tributaries within the boundaries of the SSC since the late 1990's. Current training operations consist of transitory events, including riverine patrol and interdiction, insertion and extraction in the riverine and jungle environment, inland reconnaissance and surveillance operations, craft concealment and evasion tactics and surveillance of rivers and waterways. Only blank-fire is authorized during these training activities.

The timely development of SRTA has made it possible to consider the use of SRTA-fire in specific existing training areas where all previous weapons training has been limited to blank-fire. This training improvement allows Naval SOF to understand the dynamics of firing live ammunition, such as the dynamics of randomly-fired projectiles leaving the weapon, the reaction (ricochet) of ammunition hitting objects, and a demonstration of techniques that avoid friendly-fire incidents during combat. SRTA-fire is safer for use during training and SRTA-fire is safer potentially on the environment.

The purpose of the proposed action is to significantly improve existing Naval SOF riverine and jungle training available at SSC by establishing a training range where Naval SOF have priority access to conduct live combat exercises using SRTA. The proposed range will meet the needs of Naval SOF for comprehensive, systematic, and progressive jungle and riverine training under realistic combat conditions. As a result, the readiness of Naval SOF to support national defense objectives will be increased and the potential for combat casualties reduced.

The proposed property acquisition will be completed as quickly as practicable, consistent with Congressional appropriations and final assessments and negotiations with property owners. Military use of the property will continue by permission of existing property owners, but will be expanded consistent with the Final EIS and this Record of Decision to include SRTA and increased operational tempo only after all of the necessary parcels are purchased.

Alternatives Considered: In identifying a reasonable range of alternatives that will satisfy the Navy's purpose and need, Naval Special Warfare Command (NAVSPECWARCOM) initially evaluated the feasibility of training at existing military and Federal installations within the southeast United States where NAVSPECWARCOM units had previously conducted (or had submitted a request to conduct) riverine training, as well as locations known to have specifically developed a riverine training capability, including: Fort Knox, KY; Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), FL; Camp Lejeune, NC; and SSC, MS. A screening analysis, based upon operational factors set out in the Final EIS was conducted to determine whether these potential range locations could be considered reasonable alternatives. Only the SSC area was found to be consistent with the operational screening factors and as a result, Fort Knox, Eglin AFB, and Camp Lejeune were eliminated from further evaluation.

Additional operational factors were applied to the analysis of alternative training range sites in the vicinity of SSC. These operational factors considered the extent to which realistic training scenarios could be conducted and the safety of Naval SOF personnel and the public. Of the five candidate ranges evaluated, only Alternative Range Location 3 was found to meet all identified operational factors.

In addition to the no action alternative, three operational alternatives (Basic Training Alternatives A, B, and C) were analyzed in detail, in the Final EIS. The basic training alternatives are differentiated by training type and tempo. However, all of the alternatives would involve 36 weeks per year of training on the East Pearl River, an increase of 11 weeks per year compared to existing conditions. Even with implementation of any of the proposed alternatives, Naval SOF will continue to conduct necessary live-fire training at the Army ranges at Fort Knox, KY.

Basic Training Alternative A would allow Naval SOF to conduct basic training activities within the selected range location. This would include small arms training with SRTA and the use of High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs).

Basic Training Alternative B builds upon the activities identified for Basic Training Alternative A and would allow possible use of the range by other SOF elements such as Army SOF Surveillance and Reconnaissance elements. Other authorized operations on the range could involve the use of maritime unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and unmanned riverine observation craft (UROCs). The UAVs would operate at treetop height above the river, and UROCs would be limited to areas located in front of the controlling watercraft. In addition, 36 helicopter insertion and extraction events would be conducted annually. Each event will consist of 10 helicopters conducting arrival, SOF insertion/deployment, SOF extraction, and departure movements. All flight plans would be filed and Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) issued for any planned helicopter operations.

Basic Training Alternative C, which has been identified as the preferred alternative by NAVSPECWARCOM, would allow Naval SOF to conduct all of the activities identified for Basic Training Alternative B and provide for conducting 24 additional helicopter insertion and extraction events, for a total of 60 annual events with ten helicopters each, participating in joint combined operations with Army SOF units.

Ensuring the safety of proposed range users and the public at large is of paramount importance to the Navy. NAVSPECWARCOM will develop a “SRTA-Fire Range Safety Procedures Plan” for controlling water-to-land and land-to-land SRTA-fire range operations. The plan will require that the full flight profile of all ordnance used on the range will be safely contained within the range perimeter and established safety zone. The safety plan will specify procedures for notifying the public of planned range operations that may affect access to the East Pearl River or adjacent lands, list range safety personnel and their roles and responsibilities, and identify the procedures to be followed in the event of injuries to personnel or the public.

To insure public safety during operations conducted on or adjacent to the East Pearl River, the Navy may request the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (consistent with the conditions of 33 CFR 334, Danger Zone and Restricted Area Regulations), to establish an area to be temporarily restricted from public passage on the East Pearl River and Mikes River during SRTA-fire or other sensitive training. Actual firing time will usually be limited to increments of about 10 to 15 minutes infrequently throughout the training cycle. Public passage will be allowed to resume when it is safe to do so.

In addition to the basic training alternatives, the Final EIS evaluates the consequences of implementing the No Action Alternative. Under this alternative, privately owned property in Hancock County, MS would not be purchased nor would the Naval SOF training range be established. Naval SOF training operations conducted in the area would remain at current levels and Naval SOF boat detachments would continue to conduct only blank-fire exercises. Live-fire exercises would continue to be scheduled at the Army training range at Fort Knox, KY. The No Action Alternative is the environmentally preferred alternative because it involves no change to the physical environment. However, it would not meet the Navy's purpose and need for the proposed action.

Environmental Impacts: The Final EIS assesses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of implementing the three basic training alternatives and the no action alternative on earth resources, air quality, noise, water resources, solid and hazardous materials, biological resources, land use and aesthetics, socioeconomics and environmental justice, public health and safety, transportation, recreation, and cultural resources. No significant environmental impacts were identified for any resource area for any alternative; however, to reduce even further the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action, the Navy will: (1) Implement a spill contingency plan to reduce or eliminate the potential for contamination of soils from accidental spills and releases from vehicles, watercraft, and aircraft; (2) implement fugitive dust controls on roadways; (3) prohibit the release of bilge water from watercraft during training exercises; (4) limit activities that generate hazardous waste, such as hull maintenance, weapons maintenance, and outboard motor maintenance and overhaul, to the boat storage and maintenance yard and the SBT-22 training facility; and (5) conduct all refueling of Naval SOF watercraft, HMMWVs, and helicopters at approved facilities outside the proposed range.

Since the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has indicated that the majority of the proposed range area is subject to their jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, some construction/maintenance activities, such as the potential road maintenance and culvert repair/replacement, could require a Department of the Army permit. The need for a permit would depend on the specific location of the proposed activities and projected impacts. For those actions that will result in impacts to any Section 404 jurisdictional areas, permitting activities will be initiated.

In addition, the Navy intends to allow hunting to occur within the proposed range. The hunting program will be consistent with state and local hunting programs, but will be developed such that it will not interfere with the military training mission of the area and will adequately provide for the safety of participants in the program.

Response to Comments Received Regarding the FEIS: The Final EIS was distributed to government agencies and the public on August 6, 2004, for a 30-day public review period. During this period only two comment letters were received, one from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the other from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. No new substantive issues were raised in the comments received. All of the issues raised in the comment letters were thoroughly discussed in the Final EIS.

Conclusions: After carefully considering the purpose and need for the proposed action, the analyses contained in the Final EIS, and the comments received on the Draft and Final EIS from Federal, state, and local agencies, non-governmental organizations, and individual members of the public, I have determined that purchase of the proposed acreage at SSC (Alternative Range Location 3) and establishment of a Naval SOF riverine and jungle training range to conduct training, as described in Basic Training Alternative C will best meet the needs of Naval SOF to train under realistic combat conditions, thereby increasing their readiness to support national defense objectives and ultimately reducing combat casualties.

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

Type of Review: Revision.

Title: Student Aid Internet Gateway (SAIG) Enrollment Document.

Frequency: On Occasion.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions; Businesses or other for-profit; State, local, or tribal gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Responses —9,332.

Burden Hours —6,221.

Abstract: Enrollment in SAIG allows eligible entities to exchange Title IV information electronically with the Department of Education. Users are able to receive, transmit, view and update student financial aid data via SAIG. Eligible respondents include postsecondary schools that participate in Federal student financial aid programs, financial aid servicers, State and guaranty agencies, lenders, and need analysis servicers.

Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2553. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to (202) 245-6621. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

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

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

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

Type of Review: Reinstatement.

Title: Section 704 Annual Performance Report (Parts I and II).

Abstract: Section 706(d), 721(b)(3), and 725(c) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Act) and corresponding program regulations in 34 CFR parts 364, 365, and 366 require centers for independent living, Statewide Independent Living Councils (SILCs) and Designated State Units (DSUs) supported under Parts B and C of Chapter 1 of Title VII of the Act to submit to the Secretary of Education (Secretary) annual performance information and identify training and technical assistance needs.

Additional Information: The Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) is in the process of modifying Part I and Part II of the 704 report to address the concerns identified by the community as well as those noted in the RSA-approved “Cherry Engineering Support Services Incorporated (CESSI) Report on Independent Living”.

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: State, local, or tribal gov't, SEAs or LEAs; not-for-profit institutions.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

  Responses —319.

  Burden Hours —11,165.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2625. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to (202) 245-6621. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

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

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

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

Type of Review: Reinstatement.

Title: Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who Are Blind.

Abstract: The new form will be used to evaluate and monitor Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who Are Blind related to: (a) The type of services provided and the number of persons receiving each type of service, (b) the amounts and percentage of funds reported on each type of service provided.

Additional Information: Section 752(i)(2)(A) of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992 requires each grantee under this program to submit an annual report to the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) on essential demographic, service and outcome information. It provides RSA with a uniform and efficient method of monitoring the program for compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements and to determine substantial progress required for the funding of all non-competing continuation discretionary grants.

Frequency: Annually.

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

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Responses —55.

Burden Hours —440.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2626. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to (202) 245-6621. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

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

Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824a (e)).

On April 8, 2003, the Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) issued Order No. EA-275 authorizing NorthPoint to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada as a power marketer using existing international electric transmission facilities. That two-year authorization will expire on April 8, 2005.

On September 30, 2004, the FE received an application from NorthPoint to renew its authorization to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada for a term of five years. NorthPoint, a Canadian corporation based in Saskatchewan, Canada, is a power marketer that does not own or control any electric generation or transmission facilities nor does it have any franchised service territory in the United States. NorthPoint exports electrical energy acquired from United States generating sources to customers in Canada.

In FE Docket No. EA-275-A, NorthPoint proposes to export electric energy to Canada and to arrange for the delivery of those exports over the international transmission facilities owned by Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Bonneville Power Administration, Eastern Maine Electric Cooperative, International Transmission Company, Joint Owners of the Highgate Project, Long Sault, Inc., Maine Electric Power Company, Maine Public Service Company, Minnesota Power, Inc., Minnkota Power Cooperative, New York Power Authority, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Northern States Power, Vermont Electric Company, and Vermont Electric Transmission Company.

The construction of each of the international transmission facilities to be utilized by NorthPoint, as more fully described in the applications, has previously been authorized by a Presidential permit issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended.

Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to become a party to these proceedings or to be heard by filing comments or protests to these applications should file a petition to intervene, comment or protest at the address provided above in accordance with sections 385.211 or 385.214 of the FERC's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Fifteen copies of each petition and protest should be filed with the DOE on or before the dates listed above.

Comments on the NorthPoint applications to export electric energy to Mexico and/or Canada should be clearly marked with Docket EA-275-A. Additional copies are to be filed directly with Debra L. McAllister, Senior Legal Counsel, NorthPoint Energy Solutions Inc., 2025 Victoria Avenue, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada S4P 0S1 and Stan Berman, Todd Glass, Heller Ehrman White & McAulilffe LLP, 701 Fifth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104.

Copies of these applications will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above or by accessing the Fossil Energy Home Page at http://www.fe.doe.gov. Upon reaching the Fossil Energy Home page, select “Electricity Regulation,” and then “Pending Proceedings” from the options menus.

Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).

On September 27, 2004, the Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) received an application from Rainbow to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada. Rainbow is a North Dakota corporation with its principal place of business located in Bismark, North Dakota. Rainbow is a privately owned corporation and is a subsidiary of United Energy Corporation. Rainbow does not own or control any transmission or distribution assets, nor does it have a franchised service area. The electric energy which Rainbow proposes to export to Canada would be purchased from electric utilities and Federal power marketing agencies within the U.S.

On October 13, 2004, Rainbow supplemented its application with a letter requesting that DOE expedite the processing of this application based on Rainbow's assertion that it currently has pending transactions that cannot be executed until prior to receipt of an electricity export authorization. Accordingly, DOE has shortened the public comment period to 15 days.

Rainbow proposes to arrange for the delivery of electric energy to Canada over the existing international transmission facilities owned by Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Bonneville Power Administration, Eastern Maine Electric Cooperative, International Transmission Company, Joint Owners of the Highgate Project, Long Sault, Inc., Maine Electric Power Company, Maine Public Service Company, Minnesota Power Inc., Minnkota Power Cooperative, New York Power Authority, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Northern States Power, Vermont Electric Company, and Vermont Electric Transmission Company. The construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of each of the international transmission facilities to be utilized by Rainbow, as more fully described in the application, has previously been authorized by a Presidential permit issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended.

Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to become a party to this proceeding or to be heard by filing comments or protests to this application should file a petition to intervene, comment or protest at the address provided above in accordance with sections 385.211 or 385.214 of the FERC's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Fifteen copies of each petition and protest should be filed with DOE on or before the date listed above.

Comments on the Rainbow application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with Docket EA-296. Additional copies are to be filed directly with Joseph M. Wolfe, Rainbow Energy Marketing Corporation, Kirkwood Office Tower, 919 South 7th Street, Suite 405, Bismarck, ND 58504.

A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and a determination is made by the DOE that the proposed action will not adversely impact on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.

Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above or by accessing the Fossil Energy Home Page at http://www.fe.de.gov. Upon reaching the Fossil Energy Home page, select “Electricity Regulation,” and then “Pending Procedures” from the options menus.

Background: The General Provisions to the NSPS in 40 CFR part 60 and the NESHAP in 40 CFR part 61 provide that a source owner or operator may request a determination of whether certain intended actions constitute the commencement of construction, reconstruction, or modification. EPA's written responses to these inquiries are broadly termed applicability determinations. See 40 CFR 60.5 and 61.06. Although the part 63 NESHAP, refer to as the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standard, and section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act regulations contain no specific regulatory provision that sources may request applicability determinations, EPA does respond to written inquiries regarding applicability for the part 63 and section 111(d) programs. The NSPS and NESHAP also allow sources to seek permission to use monitoring or recordkeeping which is different from the promulgated requirements. See 40 CFR 60.13(i), 61.14(g), 63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f), and 63.10(f). EPA's written responses to these inquiries are broadly termed alternative monitoring decisions. Furthermore, EPA responds to written inquiries about the broad range of NSPS and NESHAP regulatory requirements as they pertain to a whole source category. These inquiries may pertain, for example, to the type of sources to which the regulation applies, or to the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping or reporting requirements contained in the regulation. EPA's written responses to these inquiries are broadly termed regulatory interpretations.

EPA currently compiles EPA-issued NSPS and NESHAP applicability determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory interpretations, and posts them on the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) on a quarterly basis. In addition, the ADI contains EPA-issued responses to requests pursuant to the stratospheric ozone regulations, contained in 40 CFR part 82. The ADI is an electronic index on the Internet with over one thousand EPA letters and memoranda pertaining to the applicability, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the NSPS and NESHAP. The letters and memoranda may be searched by date, office of issuance, subpart, citation, control number or by string word searches.

Today's notice comprises a summary of 32 such documents added to the ADI on September 17, 2004. The subject, author, recipient, date and header of each letter and memorandum are listed in this notice, as well as a brief abstract of the letter or memorandum. Complete copies of these documents may be obtained from the ADI through the OECA Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/assistance/applicability.

The following table identifies the database control number for each document posted on the ADI database system on September 17, 2004; the applicable category; the subpart(s) of 40 CFR part 60, 61, or 63 (as applicable) covered by the document; and the title of the document, which provides a brief description of the subject matter. We have also included an abstract of each document identified with its control number after the table. These abstracts are provided solely to alert the public to possible items of interest and are not intended as substitutes for the full text of the documents.

Q: May the Ashland Specialty Chemical Company facility located at Neville Island in Pittsburgh, subject to the Hazardous Organic NESHAP of 40 CFR part 63 and potentially subject to future Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP (MON) and Organic Liquids Distribution NESHAP (OLD) standards, avoid being subject to the MON and OLD standards by taking enforceable limits and becoming a minor source?

A: Per the EPA guidance memorandum entitled, “Potential to Emit for MACT Standards—Guidance on Timing Issues,” dated May 16, 1995, a facility that is subject to a MACT standard is not necessarily a major source for future MACT standards. For example, if after compliance with a MACT standard, a source's potential to emit is less than the 10/25 tons per year applicability level, EPA will consider the facility to be an area source for a subsequent standard.” Consistent with this guidance, EPA would consider the Company to be an area source for purposes of determining the applicability of the MON and OLD if the Company takes an enforceable limit which makes the facility a minor source of HAPs prior to the compliance dates of the MON and OLD standards.

Q: Methyl ethyl ketone is used to soften plastic parts at the Sonoco Products plant in Union, South Carolina, so that they can be joined or welded together in a process that does not leave any nonvolatile residual material on the joined parts. Is this process subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP?

A: No. Applicability of MACT subpart PPPP depends on the mass of coating solids remaining on the joined pieces to determine an emission limit. Since this process does not involve any mass of coating solids, the provisions of MACT subpart PPPP do not apply to the operation.

Q1: May the Abbott Laboratories facility in North Chicago, Illinois, that is subject to the pharmaceutical MACT standard of 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG, establish an alternative monitoring parameter for regenerating its carbon adsorption beds that is based on load?

A1: No. EPA will not approve an alternative monitoring parameter that does not also recognize the critical factor of time and include minimum regeneration frequencies.

Q2: May the Abbott facility establish 212 degrees F as a minimum temperature to which the bed is heated during regeneration?

A2: Yes. Based on the manufacturer's recommendation and temperature data collected during the performance test, the facility may establish 212 degrees F as a minimum temperature to which the bed is heated during regeneration.

Q3: May the Abbott facility establish 170 degrees F as the maximum temperature to which the bed is cooled, measured within 15 minutes of completing cooling?

A3: Yes. Based on the manufacturer's recommendation and temperature data collected during the performance test, the facility may establish 170 degrees F as the maximum temperature to which the bed is cooled, measured within 15 minutes of completing cooling.

Q4: May the Abbott facility use an alternative minimum regeneration stream flow rate of 4,877 lb/hr to maintain a methylene chloride emissions control efficiency of 98 percent?

A4: No. The facility may not use an alternative minimum regeneration stream flow rate of 4,877 lb/hr to maintain a methylene chloride emissions control efficiency of 98 percent. The flow rate during the performance test was 5,419 lb/hr. A flow rate of 4.877 lb/hr is based on the facility's assumption that 90percent of the performance test rate is appropriate to sufficiently maintain a 98+ percent methylene chloride emissions control efficiency. EPA can find no support for this assumption.

Q1: Will EPA waive the 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE requirement to establish an Operating Parameter Limit (OPL) on the maximum solids content of the scrubber solution, or the minimum blowdown rate and either the minimum scrubber tank volume or level for the fluid bed incinerator at the BP refinery in Whiting, Indiana?

A1: Yes. Provided the Title 5 permit is rewritten to include an operating condition requiring the use of once through scrubber water, EPA will waive the requirement.

Q2: Will EPA waive the requirement to establish an OPL on the minimum scrubber water pH?

A2: Yes. Provided that the facility includes a water pH of 6.5—9.0 and a requirement to use once through water in its Title 5 permit, and provided that the facility's Title 5 permit is rewritten to include an operating condition requiring the use of once through scrubber water, EPA will waive the requirement.

Q3: Will EPA waive the requirement to analyze the No. 2 fuel oil for regulated constituents?

A3: Yes. EPA will waive the requirement based upon the historical data provided by the facility. However, the facility must continue to analyze the No. 2 fuel oil for principal organic hazardous constituents (POHCS).

Q4: Will EPA approve alternative monitoring for the sludge waste feed rate if the facility continuously monitors the feed rate to the presses and monitors on a monthly basis the ash percentage after the presses?

A4: Yes Provided that the facility also measures the density of the solids before the press on a monthly basis, EPA will approve the requested alternative monitoring for the sludge waste feed rate.

Q1: Will EPA waive the 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE requirement to establish an operating parameter limit (OPL) on the maximum solids content of the scrubber solution, or the minimum blowdown rate and either the minimum scrubber tank volume or level at the condenser/absorber for the T149 Trane incinerator at the Eli Lilly, Tippecanoe Laboratories facility in Shadeland, Indiana?

A1: Yes. Because the maximum solids content of the scrubber solution, or the minimum blowdown rate and either the minimum scrubber tank volume or liquid level are being measured at the Hydro-Sonic scrubber, this OPL does not need to be measured at the condenser/absorber.

Q2: Will EPA waive the requirement to establish an OPL on the minimum pressure drop across the condenser/absorber?

A2: No. Because some hydrochloric acid (HCl) removal occurs at the condenser/ absorber through the liquid to gas interface, EPA will not waive the requirement to establish an OPL on the minimum pressure drop.

Q3: Will EPA waive the requirement to establish an OPL on the minimum liquid feed pressure at the condenser/absorber?

A3: No. Because some HCl removal occurs at the condenser/absorber through the liquid to gas interface, it is appropriate to establish an OPL on the minimum liquid feed pressure to ensure that the feed is at least the amount present during the performance test.

Q4: Will EPA waive the requirement to establish an OPL on the minimum scrubber water pH at the condenser/absorber?

A4: No. The facility adds a mixture of caustic and make-up water to the air pollution control system (APCS) at the condenser/absorber, not at the Hydro-Sonic scrubber. Thus, it is appropriate to establish an OPL on the pH of the caustic/water solution as it enters the condenser/absorber to ensure that the pH of this solution is at least that of the solution used during the performance test.

Q5: Will EPA waive the requirement to establish an OPL on the minimum liquid to gas ratio or the minimum liquid and maximum flue gas flow rates for the condenser/absorber?

A5: No. The justification provided in your request that “the condenser/absorber is not the HCl/Cl2 control device” is insufficient. However, EPA approves the facility's subsequent request to set the minimum liquid feed rate at the level recommended by the manufacturer or lower, if demonstrated during the comprehensive performance test (CPT).

Q6: Will EPA approve an alternative OPL for the minimum pressure drop across the Hydro-Sonic scrubber, based on an equivalent differential pressure which would be calculated based on an equation developed by the manufacturer of the Hydro-Sonic scrubber?

A6: Conditional. The facility may use the model in its CPT plan if it maintains a minimum equivalent differential pressure of 25 inches. If Lilly still wants to develop a site-specific model, it must submit all supporting data to U.S. EPA for review and approval.

Q1: Will EPA waive the 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE requirement to establish an OPL on the minimum pressure drop across the condenser/absorber for the T03 and T04 Trane incinerators at the Eli Lilly, Tippecanoe Laboratories facility in Clinton, Indiana?

A1: No. Because some hydrochloric acid (HCl) removal occurs at the condenser/absorber through the liquid to gas interface, EPA will not waive the requirement to establish an OPL on the minimum pressure drop.

Q2: Will EPA waive the requirement to establish an OPL on the minimum liquid feed pressure at the condenser/absorber?

A2: No. Because some HCl removal occurs at the condenser/absorber through the liquid to gas interface, it is appropriate to establish an OPL on the minimum liquid feed pressure to ensure that the feed is at least the amount present during the performance test.

Q3: Will EPA waive the requirement to establish an OPL on the minimum liquid to gas ratio or the minimum liquid and maximum flue gas flow rates for the condenser/absorber?

A3: No. The justification for the source's original request that the condenser/absorber is not the HCl/Cl2 control device is insufficient. However, EPA approves the facility's alternate request made in a follow up conversation that the minimum liquid feed rate be set at the level recommended by the manufacturer.

Q4: Will EPA waive the requirement to establish an OPL on the minimum scrubber water pH at the condenser/absorber?

A4: No. The facility adds a mixture of caustic and make-up water to the air pollution control system (APCS) at the condenser/absorber. Thus, it is appropriate to establish an OPL on the pH of the caustic/water solution as it enters the condenser/absorber to ensure that the pH of this solution is at least that of the solution used during the performance test.

Q5: Will EPA approve an alternative OPL for the minimum pressure drop across the Hydro-Sonic scrubber, based on an equivalent differential pressure which would be calculated based on an equation developed by the manufacturer of the Hydro-Sonic scrubber?

A5: Conditional. The facility may use the model in its CPT plan if it maintains a minimum equivalent differential pressure of 25 inches. If Lilly still wants to develop a site-specific model, it must submit all supporting data and involve U.S. EPA in the development of the model.

Q6: Will EPA approve annual calibrations as an alternative to the requirement to conduct daily zero and high-level calibration drifts on several instruments?

A6: Eli Lilly withdrew this request.

Q7: Will the U.S. EPA waive the requirement for immediate repair of a CMS found at 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(I)?

A7: Eli Lilly withdrew this request.

Q1: Will EPA waive the 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE requirement to establish an operating parameter limit (OPL) on the minimum liquid feed pressure at the condenser/absorber for the T49 Trane incinerator at the Eli Lilly Tippecanoe Laboratories facility in Shadeland, Indiana?

A1: Yes. Because the condenser/absorber uses a flow distributor plate rather than spray nozzles, EPA waives the requirement to establish an operating parameter limit (OPL) on the minimum liquid feed pressure.

Q2: Will EPA waive the requirement to establish an OPL on the maximum solids content of the scrubber solution, or the minimum blowdown rate and either the minimum scrubber tank volume or level at the condenser/absorber?

A2: No. The facility must establish an OPL somewhere in the air pollution control system (APCS), since it recycles some water. The most appropriate location for this OPL is at the condenser/absorber.

Q3: Will EPA waive the requirement to establish an OPL on the minimum scrubber water pH at the condenser/absorber?

A3: No. The facility adds a mixture of caustic and make-up water to the APCS at the condenser/absorber, not at the Hydro-Sonic scrubber. Thus, it is appropriate to establish an OPL on the pH of the caustic/water solution as it enters the condenser/absorber to ensure that the pH of this solution is at least that of the solution used during the performance test.

Q4: Will EPA approve an alternative OPL for the minimum pressure drop across the Hydro-Sonic scrubber, based on an equivalent differential pressure which would be calculated based on an equation developed by the manufacturer of the Hydro-Sonic scrubber?

A4: Conditional. The facility may use the model in its comprehensive performance test plan if it maintains a minimum equivalent differential pressure of 25 inches. If Lilly still wants to develop a site-specific model, it must submit all supporting data and involve EPA in the development of the model.

Q5: Will EPA waive the requirement to establish an OPL for the minimum scrubber water pH at the Hydro-Sonic scrubber?

A5: Yes. Because the facility adds a mixture of caustic and make-up water to the APCS at the condenser/absorber, not at the Hydro-Sonic scrubber.

Q6: Will EPA approve annual calibrations as an alternative to the requirement to conduct daily zero and high-level calibration drifts on several instruments?

A6: Eli Lilly withdrew this request.

Q7: Will the U.S. EPA waive the requirement for immediate repair of a CMS found at 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(I)?

A7: Eli Lilly withdrew this request. Recent revisions of the General Provisions changed these requirements in a way that is suitable to Eli Lilly.

Q: Will EPA approve an automated dynamic pressure monitoring system for a 3-stage high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG, standards for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities, for the Honeywell plant in South Bend, Indiana?

A: Yes. EPA approves the automated dynamic pressure monitoring system for a 3-stage HEPA filter. The system eliminates the need for manual observations, recordkeeping, and equipment adjustments. To maintain the manufacturer's recommended pressure drop, the automated design includes velocity pressure sensors and a motor-controlled lineal air flow rate which ensures that the pressure drop is not exceeded.

Q: Are the hot condensing scrubber/hot condensing tank and the hotwell at the Wausau-Mosinee Paper magnesium-based sulfite pulp mill in Brokaw, Wisconsin, air pollution control devices covered by the pulp and paper Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standard, 40 CFR part 63, subpart S?

A: Yes, they are considered control devices. Although EPA did not name the hazardous air pollutant (HAP) control systems needed to meet specific emission reduction for a sulfite mill, any technology that reduces HAP emissions is considered a MACT control option regardless of why the technology was installed. The hot condensing scrubber and its auxiliary tank and the hotwell all reduce emissions of methanol, a HAP. Thus, the vents, wastewater and condensate streams from these control devices must be controlled per 40 CFR 63.444(c)(2).

Q: If a facility is subject to the metal coil surface coating requirements of both 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS and 40 CFR part 60, subpart TT, and uses thermal incinerators or catalytic oxidizers to comply, would EPA find streamlining of these two monitoring requirements acceptable?

A: Yes. EPA concludes that for facilities using thermal incinerators, the MACT subpart SSSS effluent gas monitoring requirements may be streamlined with the similar subpart TT monitoring requirements. Also, EPA determines that for facilities using catalytic oxidizers, either of the MACT subpart SSSS monitoring requirements may be streamlined with the NSPS subpart TT monitoring requirements.

Q1: Does Trelleborg Wheel Systems operate a “rubber processing affected source” as described in the Rubber Tire Manufacturing MACT standard at 40 CFR 63.5982(b)(4)?

A1: Yes. Trelleborg mixes the raw materials for solid rubber tires in a Banbury mixer to produce mixed rubber compound. EPA concludes that this constitutes a rubber processing affected source.

Q2: Are the adhesives that Trelleborg uses to hold layers of mixed rubber compound to a steel rim “cements and solvents” as defined in the Rubber Tire Manufacturing MACT standard at 40 CFR 63.6015 or a “rubber to metal coating” as defined in the Miscellaneous Metal Parts Coating NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.3981?

A2: Even though the adhesives meet the definition of “cements and solvents,” EPA concludes that the adhesives are more correctly designated as a rubber to metal coating because the definition of rubber to metal coating explicitly describes Trelleborg's use of the adhesives.

Q3: Does Trelleborg operate a “tire production affected source” as described in the Rubber Tire Manufacturing MACT standard at 40 CFR 63.5982(b)(1)?

A3: One defining characteristic of “cements and solvents” is their use as process aids in the production of rubber tires. EPA concludes that the organic compounds in Trelleborg's mixed rubber compound are integral components of the product, and do not merely facilitate or assist the production of rubber tires. Therefore, EPA concludes that Trelleborg's adhesive coating lines and tire production operations do not meet the definition of a tire production affected source.

Q1: What is the definition of “treatment” under NSPS subpart WWW at 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C)?

A1: EPA has determined that compression, de-watering, and filtering the landfill gas down to at least 10 microns is considered “treatment” under NSPS Subpart WWW, 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C). EPA made the same determination under ADI Control Numbers 0200019, 0200028, and 0300121, available on the ADI website.

Q2: Do the municipal solid waste landfill regulations apply to the gas once treatment has occurred?

A2: No. Once landfill gas has been treated, NSPS subpart WWW no longer applies to the treated gas. However, all gas before treatment, and respective control equipment, would be subject.

Q: The Duratek Services facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, proposes to sort and repackage wastes for off-site disposal and will incinerate secondary wastes which are incidental to the primary sorting operation. The wastes which are sorted and repackaged will include some beryllium machine shop waste. Will the facility be subject to the NESHAP subpart C requirements?

A: If any beryllium-containing waste will be incinerated, the incinerator will be subject to NESHAP subpart C. If the company can confirm that emissions from incinerating the waste will be in compliance with the standard, a waiver from emission testing requirements may be appropriate.

Q: Will EPA approve under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, the use of monthly fuel usage monitoring for the new package boiler at the ISG facility in Steelton, Pennsylvania?

A: Yes. EPA will approve the use of monthly fuel usage monitoring and recording rather than daily monitoring as required by subpart Dc due to the fact that the new package boiler is only permitted to combust pipeline-quality natural gas as fuel.

Q: Will EPA approve under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, new test port locations for conducting the oxygen traverse and gas sampling for the Old Dominion Electric Cooperative Marsh Run facility in Virginia?

A: Yes. EPA will approve the new test port location and reduced amount of oxygen traverse data in the exhaust stack from the turbine, provided that the oxygen range for the 8 traverse points does not exceed 0.5 percent oxygen and the average oxygen content is greater than 15 percent.

Q1: Will the combustion of a fuel produced during the polymerization of distillates from petroleum refining operations at the Resinall facility in Severn, North Carolina be regulated under the NSPS subpart Dc?

A1: Yes. Because the fuel is derived from petroleum and is described as having properties similar to those of lightweight fuel oils, it is considered equivalent to oil under NSPS subpart Dc. Under NSPS subpart Dc, the same SO2 standard will apply whether the fuel is classified as No. 2 fuel oil or residual oil. If the fuel does not meet the No. 2 fuel oil criteria, it would be classified as residual oil.

Q2: Will this fuel be considered a “fossil fuel” as defined in NSPS subparts D and Da?

A2: Yes. Based on the description provided by the company, the fuel appears to meet the definition of fossil fuel provided in NSPS Subparts D and Da in that it is a liquid fuel derived from petroleum for the purpose of creating useful heat.

Q: Grupo Antolin Kentucky, in Lexington, Kentucky, proposes to maintain baghouse inlet temperature and pressure drop to ensure continuous compliance with lead emissions standards. Are these proposed operating parameters sufficient to ensure compliance with the lead standards in NSPS subpart CCCC?

A: Yes. Maintaining temperature and pressure drop in accordance with the conditions mentioned in this letter will ensure reasonable assurance of compliance with NSPS subpart CCCC.

Q: Natural gas-fired fuel heaters at a Gulfstream Pipeline facility in Florida will heat glycol which will be used to heat natural gas prior to its use in combustion turbines as fuel. Will the heaters be subject to NSPS subpart Dc?

A: Yes. Because the fuel heaters will heat a heat transfer medium (glycol), they will be steam generating units subject to NSPS subpart Dc.

Q: Will EPA allow continuous monitoring of fan amps and the total scrubbing liquid flow rate as an alternative to the required monitoring parameters under NSPS subpart BB, for a smelt dissolving tank dynamic scrubber at a MeadWestvaco Coated Board facility in Alabama?

A: Yes. Because the dynamic scrubber operates near atmospheric pressure, the proposed monitoring is an acceptable alternative to the NSPS subpart BB requirement to monitor the pressure loss of the gas stream and the scrubbing liquid supply pressure.

Q: Are proposed alternative monitoring procedures at an Eastman Chemical facility in Tennessee, regarding flow indicator location, acceptable for two process units which may comply with the NSPS subpart NNN by using either a flare or boilers?

A: Yes. The proposed alternatives meet the intent of NSPS subpart NNN by ensuring that affected vent streams are directed to the combustion device used to control VOC emissions.

Q: A proposed carbon burn-out unit with a heat input of 95.57 mmBtu/hr will be used to burn fly ash and heat feedwater going to electric utility steam generating units at a Progress Energy facility in North Carolina. Will the carbon burn-out unit be a steam generating unit subject to the 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc?

A: Yes. The carbon burn-out unit will be an affected facility subject to NSPS subpart Dc and will be subject to the recordkeeping requirements of that standard. No NSPS subpart Dc emission limits will be applicable to the combustion of fly ash since fly ash is not considered “coal” under this rule. However, if the heat input exceeds 100 mmBtu/hr, the carbon burn-out unit will be subject to NSPS subpart Db and will be subject to the emission limits for “coal” as defined in NSPS subpart Db because the definition includes fly ash.

Q: Do the NSPS subparts Kb, VV, III, NNN, and RRR apply to any of the Liquid Resources of Ohio facilities in Medina, Ohio, a plant that manufactures ethanol from waste beverages and distills ethanol from waste alcohol containing beverages?

A: NSPS subparts Kb and VV apply to all affected operations at the plant. NSPS subpart NNN applies only to the distillation of waste alcohol containing beverages. NSPS subparts III and RRR do not apply to any facilities at this plant.

Q1: Are covers on junction boxes at the Marathon Ashland Petroleum facility in St. Paul Park, Minnesota, required to be equipped with a gasket or other type of seal in order to satisfy the “tight seal” requirements for junction box covers in NSPS subpart QQQ?

A1: Yes. The tight seal requirements in 40 CFR 60.692-2(b)(2) implicitly require that all junction box covers be equipped with a gasket and clamp. [This determination has been superseded by determination number 0400031, summarized below.]

Q2: May infrequently used drains be equipped with a tightly sealed cap or plug in lieu of the water seal controls required by 40 CFR 60.692-2(a)(1)?

A2: Yes. Tightly sealed caps or plugs may be used on drains that are not used more than twice in a two month time frame. However, all other drains must be equipped with water seals.

Q3: Do hatches and valves satisfy the “tightly sealed cap or plug” requirement under 40 CFR 60.692-2(a)(4)?

A3: Yes. Any type of cap or plug which provides a gas tight barrier to the atmosphere meets the requirements of 40 CFR 60.692-2(a)(4).

Q1: In a December 4, 2003 letter, EPA determined that a gasket is required to satisfy the “tight seal” requirements for junction box covers under 40 CFR part 60, subpart QQQ. Would another type of seal which prevents leaks to the atmosphere, such as external caulking, satisfy these requirements?

A1: Yes. Any type of seal that prevents detectable leaks around the edges is sufficient to comply with the “tight seal” requirements in 40 CFR 60.692-2(b)(2).

Q2: Are drains which are not open to the atmosphere more than 24 hours per month used infrequently enough to allow the usage of a tightly sealed cap or plug in lieu of the water seal requirements in 40 CFR 60.692-2(a)(1)?

A2: Yes. Drains open less than 24 hours per month are used infrequently enough to forgo the water seal requirements.

Q1: Will EPA grant the request of the Central Disposal Systems facility in Lake Mills, Iowa, for flexibility under NSPS, subpart WWW, to modify the design of its collection and control system?

A1: The facility may make changes to the design of the collection and control system by submitting a revised collection and control system design plan to and receiving approval from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). The facility must then follow the revised design plan if approved by IDNR.

Q2: Will EPA allow use of a temporary collection system, leachate collection system, and leachate recirculation system until final grades are achieved?

A2: The facility may use these types of collection systems if they meet the requirements of 40 CFR 60.759 and are approved in the design plan.

Q3: Will EPA exempt leachate recirculation piping, temporary horizontal collection trenches, and leachate sump/riser connections from the oxygen/nitrogen, temperature, and pressure requirements under NSPS subpart WWW?

A3: No. The facility states that these gas collection systems are not part of the Landfill NSPS collection and control system. However, it appears that these gas collection systems would be part of the Landfill NSPS collection and control system if they are collecting gas from an area, cell, or group of cells if the initial solid waste has been in place for a period of five years or more (if active), or two years or more (if closed or at final grade). Although an exemption will not be granted, the facility may still propose an alternative monitoring procedure.

Q4: Will EPA allow the facility to exclude dangerous areas from the surface monitoring?

A4: 40 CFR 60.753(d) allows for dangerous areas to be excluded. These areas will be reviewed by IDNR as part of the facility's surface monitoring design plan.

Q5: Will EPA allow the facility to apply the surface monitoring requirement only to closed portions of the landfill?

A5: No. Surface monitoring is required in all areas that collection systems are required.

Q6: Will EPA allow the facility to widen the spacing between surface monitoring intervals from 30 meters to 60 meters in areas that will have a final cover in place with a geomembrane component?

A6: No.

Q7: Will EPA allow higher oxygen levels in gas wellheads if temperatures are maintained below 38 degrees C?

A7: Yes. Higher values may be set if the facility demonstrates that the elevated parameters do not cause fires or significantly inhibit anaerobic decomposition by killing methanogens.

Q8: Will EPA allow the facility to place the surface monitoring probe inlet as close as possible, 5 to 10 centimeters from the ground, but further away when there are materials that could clog the probe tip?

A8: No.

Q9: Will EPA allow a variance to the 10-day window that 40 CFR 60.755(c)(4)(ii) allows to adjust the cover and/or collection system?

A9: No. Because this is not an alternative monitoring request, EPA Region 7 does not have the authority to allow this.

Q10: Will EPA allow the facility to not perform surface monitoring during the winter quarter?

A10: No. The facility is apparently concerned that the flame ionization detector will not work unless the ambient air is above freezing. There are days during each quarter that are warm enough to do surface monitoring. The facility has not proposed any alternative monitoring.

Q11: Will EPA allow the facility to record the flow to the flare instead of the presence of a pilot flame?

A11: No. The regulations require continuous records of the flare pilot flame. EPA notes that it does understand that the lack of flame at the flare is not necessarily a violation.

Q12: Will EPA approve a final cover design that includes the use of a geomembrane or synthetic cover and that may have positive pressure at wellheads under certain conditions?

A12: Yes. Positive pressure under these circumstances is allowed by 40 CFR 60.753(b)(2). Pressure limits should be included in the design plan for approval by IDNR.

Q: Will EPA approve the use of custom fuel sulfur monitoring schedules under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, for natural gas-fired turbines at three Basin Electric Power Cooperative facilities in Wyoming?

A: Yes. Based on an EPA directive dated August 14, 1987, EPA will approve the use of custom fuel sulfur monitoring schedules for natural gas-fired turbines at the facilities in question.

Q: Will EPA approve the use of custom fuel sulfur monitoring schedules under NSPS subpart GG, for two natural gas-fired emergency turbine generators at the LaBarge Black Canyon Dehydration Facility in Sublette County, Wyoming?

A: Yes. Based on an EPA directive dated August 14, 1987, EPA will approve the use of custom fuel sulfur monitoring schedules for natural gas-fired turbines at the facility in question.

Q: The California Parks and Recreation Department owns and operates an air curtain incinerator that burns clean wood for the purpose of clearing dead trees at state parks. Is this unit subject to NSPS subpart CCCC?

A: No. The activity of this unit is neither commercial nor industrial, and does not burn commercial and industrial waste as defined in 40 CFR 60.2265.

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), FIFRA, and the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPP-2004-0349. 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/ .

EPA's position paper, charge/questions to FIFRA SAP, FIFRA SAP composition (i.e., members and consultants for this meeting), and the meeting agenda will be available as soon as possible, but no later than mid-November 2004. In addition, the Agency may provide additional background documents as the materials become available. You may obtain electronic copies of these documents, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the FIFRA SAP Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap .

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 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 in hard copy 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 (preferred), through hand delivery/courier, or by mail. 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. 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-2004-0349. 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-2004-0349. 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 deliver as described in Unit I.C.2 or mail to the address provided in Unit I.C.3. 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 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-2004-0349. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.1.

3. By mail . Due to potential delays in EPA's receipt and processing of mail, respondents are strongly encouraged to submit comments either electronically or by hand delivery or courier. We cannot guarantee that comments sent via mail will be received prior to the close of the comment period. If mailed, please 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-2004-0349.

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. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

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

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

You may participate in this meeting by following the instructions in this unit. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number OPP-2004-0349 in the subject line on the first page of your request.

1. Oral comments . Oral comments presented at the meetings should not be repetitive of previously submitted oral or written comments. Although requests to present oral comments are accepted until the date of the meeting (unless otherwise stated), to the extent that time permits, interested persons may be permitted by the Chair of FIFRA SAP to present oral comments at the meeting. Each individual or group wishing to make brief oral comments to FIFRA SAP is strongly advised to submit their request to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no later than noon, eastern time, November 24, 2004, in order to be included on the meeting agenda. The request should identify the name of the individual making the presentation, the organization (if any) the individual will represent, and any requirements for audiovisual equipment (e.g., overhead projector, 35mm projector, chalkboard). Oral comments before FIFRA SAP are limited to approximately 5 minutes unless prior arrangements have been made. In addition, each speaker should bring 30 copies of his or her comments and presentation slides for distribution to FIFRA SAP at the meeting.

2. Written comments . Although submission of written comments are accepted until the date of the meeting (unless otherwise stated), the Agency encourages that written comments be submitted, using the instructions in Unit I., no later than noon, eastern time, November 19, 2004, to provide FIFRA SAP the time necessary to consider and review the written comments. There is no limit on the extent of written comments for consideration by FIFRA SAP. Persons wishing to submit written comments at the meeting should contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and submit 30 copies.

3. Seating at the meeting . Seating at the meeting will be on a first-come basis. Individuals requiring special accommodations at this meeting, including wheelchair access and assistance for the hearing impaired, should contact the DFO at least 5 business days prior to the meeting using the information under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

4. Request for nominations of prospective candidates for service as ad hoc members of the FIFRA SAP for this meeting . As part of a broader process for developing a pool of candidates for each meeting, the FIFRA SAP staff routinely solicit the stakeholder community for nominations of prospective candidates for service as ad hoc members of the FIFRA SAP. Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified individuals to be considered as prospective candidates for a specific meeting. Individuals nominated for this meeting should have expertise in one or more of the following areas: Toxicology; physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling; exposure modeling (dietary and residential) including Lifeline, Cares and DEEM/Calendex; and probabilistic risk assessment. Nominees should be scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and experience, to be capable of providing expert comments on the scientific issues for this meeting. Nominees should be identified by name, occupation, position, address, and telephone number. Nominations should be provided to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT on or before October 29, 2004. The Agency will consider all nominations of prospective candidates for this meeting that are received on or before this date. However, final selection of ad hoc members for this meeting is a discretionary function of the Agency.

The selection of scientists to serve on the FIFRA SAP is based on the function of the panel and the expertise needed to address the Agency's charge to the panel. No interested scientists shall be ineligible to serve by reason of their membership on any other advisory committee to a Federal department or agency or their employment by a Federal department or agency (except the EPA). Other factors considered during the selection process include availability of the potential panel member to fully participate in the panel's reviews, absence of any conflicts of interest or appearance of lack of impartiality, independence with respect to the matters under review, and lack of bias. Though financial conflicts of interest, the appearance of lack of impartiality, lack of independence, and bias may result in disqualification, the absence of such concerns does not assure that a candidate will be selected to serve on the FIFRA SAP. Numerous qualified candidates are identified for each panel. Therefore, selection decisions involve carefully weighing a number of factors including, the candidates' areas of expertise and professional qualifications, and achieving an overall balance of different scientific perspectives on the panel. In order to have the collective breadth of experience needed to address the Agency's charge for this meeting, the Agency anticipates selecting approximately 12 ad hoc scientists.

If a prospective candidate for service on the FIFRA SAP is considered for participation in a particular session, the candidate is subject to the provisions of 5 CFR part 2634, Executive Branch Financial Disclosure, as supplemented by the EPA in 5 CFR part 6401. As such, the FIFRA SAP candidate is required to submit a Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Special Government Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at EPA (EPA Form 3110-48 5-02) which shall fully disclose, among other financial interests, the candidate's employment, stocks, and bonds, and where applicable, sources of research support. EPA will evaluate the candidate's financial disclosure form to assess that there are no financial conflicts of interest, no appearance of lack of impartiality, and no prior involvement with the development of the primary documents under consideration before the candidate is considered further for service on the FIFRA SAP.

Those who are selected from the pool of prospective candidates will be asked to attend the public meetings and to participate in the discussion of key issues and assumptions at these meetings. In addition, they will be asked to review and to help finalize the meeting minutes. The list of FIFRA SAP members participating at this meeting will be posted on the FIFRA SAP web site or may be obtained by contacting the PIRIB at the address or telephone number listed in Unit I.

Amendments to FIFRA enacted November 28, 1975 (7 U.S.C. 136w(d)), include a requirement under section 25(d) of FIFRA that notices of intent to cancel or reclassify pesticide registrations pursuant to section 6(b)(2) of FIFRA, as well as proposed and final forms of regulations pursuant to section 25(a) of FIFRA, be submitted to a SAP prior to being made public or issued to a registrant. In accordance with section 25(d) of FIFRA, the FIFRA SAP is to have an opportunity to comment on the health and environmental impact of such actions. The FIFRA SAP also shall make comments, evaluations, and recommendations for operating guidelines to improve the effectiveness and quality of analyses made by Agency scientists. Members are scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and experience, to be capable of providing expert comments as to the impact on health and the environment of regulatory actions under sections 6(b) and 25(a) of FIFRA. The Deputy Administrator appoints seven individuals to serve on the FIFRA SAP for staggered terms of 4 years, based on recommendations from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.

Section 104 of FQPA (Public Law 104-170) established the FQPA Science Review Board (SRB). These scientists shall be available to the FIFRA SAP on an ad hoc basis to assist in reviews conducted by the FIFRA SAP.

The FIFRA SAP will meet to consider and review the N-methyl carbamate cumulative risk assessment (CRA) strategies, and methodologies for exposure assessment. The FQPA of 1996 amended the laws under which EPA evaluates the safety of pesticide residues in food. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) and (vi) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by FQPA, specifies that when determining the safety of a pesticide chemical, EPA shall base its risk assessment on aggregate exposure (i.e., total dietary including drinking water, residential, and other non-occupational exposure) and available information concerning the cumulative effects to human health that may result from exposure to pesticides and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.

EPA is currently preparing a CRA for the N-methyl carbamate class of pesticides. The specific N-methyl carbamate pesticides which will be included in this assessment are the following: Aldicarb; carbaryl; carbofuran; formetanate hydrochloride; methiocarb; methomyl; oxamyl; pirimicarb; propoxur; and thiodicarb (see Federal Register notice dated February 4, 2004 (69 FR 5340) (FRL-7334-4)). As was previously done for the CRA for the organophosphorus pesticides, EPA will convene several meetings of the FIFRA SAP to review a number of science issues which are crucial to the development and completion of the N-methyl carbamate CRA.

The first meeting that is being announced in the Federal Register notice will be held on December 3, 2004, and will deal with general strategies, and methodologies being considered for use in this CRA and discuss some of the overall issues to be covered at a subsequent meeting of the SAP scheduled for February 2005.

A separate Federal Register notice will be issued later announcing the February meeting. In addition to general proposed strategies and methodologies for the N-methyl carbamate CRA, specific topics to be discussed at the December 3, 2004, SAP meeting include, sophisticated PBPK modeling, as well as more conventional relative-potency based approaches, the interface between the exposure models and the PBPK models, and proposals to revise current exposure models to evaluate exposure periods of less than 24 hours.

The FIFRA SAP will prepare meeting minutes summarizing its recommendations to the Agency in approximately 60 days after the meeting. The meeting minutes will be posted on the FIFRA SAP web site or may be obtained by contacting the PIRIB at the address or telephone number listed in Unit I.

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), FIFRA, and the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPP-2004-0343. 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/ .

EPA's position paper, charge/questions to FIFRA SAP, FIFRA SAP composition (i.e., members and consultants for this meeting), and the meeting agenda will be available as soon as possible, but no later than mid-November 2004. In addition, the Agency may provide additional background documents as the materials become available. You may obtain electronic copies of these documents, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the FIFRA SAP Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap .

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 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 in hard copy 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 (preferred), through hand delivery/courier, or by mail. 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. 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-2004-0343. 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-2004-0343. 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 deliver as described in Unit I.C.2 or mail to the address provided in Unit I.C.3. 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 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-2004-0343. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.1.

3. By mail . Due to potential delays in EPA's receipt and processing of mail, respondents are strongly encouraged to submit comments either electronically or by hand delivery or courier. We cannot guarantee that comments sent via mail will be received prior to the close of the comment period. If mailed, please 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-2004-0343.

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. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

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

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

You may participate in this meeting by following the instructions in this unit. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number OPP-2004-0343 in the subject line on the first page of your request.

1. Oral comments . Oral comments presented at the meetings should not be repetitive of previously submitted oral or written comments. Although requests to present oral comments are accepted until the date of the meeting (unless otherwise stated), to the extent that time permits, interested persons may be permitted by the Chair of FIFRA SAP to present oral comments at the meeting. Each individual or group wishing to make brief oral comments to FIFRA SAP is strongly advised to submit their request to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no later than noon, eastern time, November 24, 2004, in order to be included on the meeting agenda. The request should identify the name of the individual making the presentation, the organization (if any) the individual will represent, and any requirements for audiovisual equipment (e.g., overhead projector, 35mm projector, chalkboard). Oral comments before FIFRA SAP are limited to approximately 5 minutes unless prior arrangements have been made. In addition, each speaker should bring 30 copies of his or her comments and presentation slides for distribution to FIFRA SAP at the meeting.

2. Written comments . Although submission of written comments are accepted until the date of the meeting (unless otherwise stated), the Agency encourages that written comments be submitted, using the instructions in Unit I., no later than noon, eastern time, November 18, 2004, to provide FIFRA SAP the time necessary to consider and review the written comments. There is no limit on the extent of written comments for consideration by FIFRA SAP. Persons wishing to submit written comments at the meeting should contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and submit 30 copies.

3. Seating at the meeting . Seating at the meeting will be on a first-come basis. Individuals requiring special accommodations at this meeting, including wheelchair access and assistance for the hearing impaired, should contact the DFO at least 5 business days prior to the meeting using the information under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

4. Request for nominations of prospective candidates for service as ad hoc members of the FIFRA SAP for this meeting . As part of a broader process for developing a pool of candidates for each meeting, the FIFRA SAP staff routinely solicit the stakeholder community for nominations of prospective candidates for service as ad hoc members of the FIFRA SAP. Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified individuals to be considered as prospective candidates for a specific meeting. Individuals nominated for this meeting should have expertise in one or more of the following areas: Pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, toxicology, and exposure. Nominees should be scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and experience, to be capable of providing expert comments on the scientific issues for this meeting. Nominees should be identified by name, occupation, position, address, and telephone number. Nominations should be provided to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT on or before October 29, 2004. The Agency will consider all nominations of prospective candidates for this meeting that are received on or before this date. However, final selection of ad hoc members for this meeting is a discretionary function of the Agency.

The selection of scientists to serve on the FIFRA SAP is based on the function of the panel and the expertise needed to address the Agency's charge to the panel. No interested scientists shall be ineligible to serve by reason of their membership on any other advisory committee to a Federal department or agency or their employment by a Federal department or agency (except the EPA). Other factors considered during the selection process include availability of the potential panel member to fully participate in the panel's reviews, absence of any conflicts of interest or appearance of lack of impartiality, independence with respect to the matters under review, and lack of bias. Though financial conflicts of interest, the appearance of lack of impartiality, lack of independence, and bias may result in disqualification, the absence of such concerns does not assure that a candidate will be selected to serve on the FIFRA SAP. Numerous qualified candidates are identified for each panel. Therefore, selection decisions involve carefully weighing a number of factors including, the candidates' areas of expertise and professional qualifications, and achieving an overall balance of different scientific perspectives on the panel. In order to have the collective breadth of experience needed to address the Agency's charge for this meeting, the Agency anticipates selecting approximately 12 ad hoc scientists.

If a prospective candidate for service on the FIFRA SAP is considered for participation in a particular session, the candidate is subject to the provisions of 5 CFR part 2634, Executive Branch Financial Disclosure, as supplemented by the EPA in 5 CFR part 6401. As such, the FIFRA SAP candidate is required to submit a Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Special Government Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at EPA (EPA Form 3110-48 5-02) which shall fully disclose, among other financial interests, the candidate's employment, stocks, and bonds, and where applicable, sources of research support. EPA will evaluate the candidate's financial disclosure form to assess that there are no financial conflicts of interest, no appearance of lack of impartiality, and no prior involvement with the development of the primary documents under consideration before the candidate is considered further for service on the FIFRA SAP.

Those who are selected from the pool of prospective candidates will be asked to attend the public meetings and to participate in the discussion of key issues and assumptions at these meetings. In addition, they will be asked to review and to help finalize the meeting minutes. The list of FIFRA SAP members participating at this meeting will be posted on the FIFRA SAP web site or may be obtained by contacting the PIRIB at the address or telephone number listed in Unit I.

Amendments to FIFRA enacted November 28, 1975 (7 U.S.C. 136w(d)), include a requirement under section 25(d) of FIFRA that notices of intent to cancel or reclassify pesticide registrations pursuant to section 6(b)(2) of FIFRA, as well as proposed and final forms of regulations pursuant to section 25(a) of FIFRA, be submitted to a SAP prior to being made public or issued to a registrant. In accordance with section 25(d) of FIFRA, the FIFRA SAP is to have an opportunity to comment on the health and environmental impact of such actions. The FIFRA SAP also shall make comments, evaluations, and recommendations for operating guidelines to improve the effectiveness and quality of analyses made by Agency scientists. Members are scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and experience, to be capable of providing expert comments as to the impact on health and the environment of regulatory actions under sections 6(b) and 25(a) of FIFRA. The Deputy Administrator appoints seven individuals to serve on the FIFRA SAP for staggered terms of 4 years, based on recommendations from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.

Section 104 of FQPA (Public Law 104-170) established the FQPA Science Review Board (SRB). These scientists shall be available to the FIFRA SAP on an ad hoc basis to assist in reviews conducted by the FIFRA SAP.

The FIFRA SAP will meet to consider and review the use of pharmacokinetic data to refine carbaryl risk estimates from oral and dermal exposure. The Agency recently completed a human health risk assessment for carbaryl and has since, received a proposal to use pharmacokinetic data to refine risk estimates from oral and dermal exposure from carbaryl use on residential turf. These exposures include, post-application dermal exposure on turf, and hand-to-mouth, object-to-mouth, and soil ingestion exposures in children. The proposal offers a refined approach to calculating a margin of exposure based on target tissue concentrations. This approach compares internal doses in the target tissue, brain, rather than comparing administered doses. The proposal to use this approach was based upon the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of carbaryl. Carbaryl has a short half-life in the body and the duration of binding to cholinesterase enzymes is brief. Because of these characteristics, peak brain levels rather than total exposure were proposed for exposure assessment. The purpose of this SAP meeting is to evaluate whether comparison of internal doses in target tissue is a useful way to refine carbaryl risk estimates, and to evaluate the approach used to estimate brain concentrations from intermittent exposure using pharmacokinetic data.

The FIFRA SAP will prepare meeting minutes summarizing its recommendations to the Agency in approximately 60 days after the meeting. The meeting minutes will be posted on the FIFRA SAP web site or may be obtained by contacting the PIRIB at the address or telephone number listed in Unit I.

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

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPPT-2004-0120. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center, Rm. B102-Reading Room, EPA West, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The EPA Docket Center Reading Room telephone number is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket, which is located in EPA Docket Center, is (202) 566-0280.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i. EPA Dockets . Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ , and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPPT-2004-0120. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail . Comments may be sent by e-mail to oppt.ncic@epa.gov , Attention: Docket ID Number OPPT-2004-0120 and PMN Number or TME Number. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

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

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

3. By hand delivery or courier . Deliver your comments to: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO) in EPA East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID Number OPPT-20040120 and PMN Number or TME Number. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is (202) 564-8930.

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

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

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

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

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

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

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

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

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

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

Section 5 of TSCA requires any person who intends to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) a new chemical (i.e., a chemical not on the TSCA Inventory to notify EPA and comply with the statutory provisions pertaining to the manufacture of new chemicals. Under sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3) of TSCA, EPA is required to publish a notice of receipt of a PMN or an application for a TME and to publish periodic status reports on the chemicals under review and the receipt of notices of commencement to manufacture those chemicals. This status report, which covers the period from September 13, 2004 to October 1, 2004, consists of the PMNs pending or expired, and the notices of commencement to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.

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

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

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

This proposed agreement concerns the Bernstein Salvage Superfund Site, located in Oskaloosa, Iowa, and is made and entered into by EPA and Union Pacific Railroad (Settling Party).

In response to the release of hazardous substances at or from the Site, EPA undertook response actions at the Site pursuant to Section 104 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9604. In performing these response actions, EPA incurred response costs at or in connection with the Site.

Pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), the Settling Party is a responsible party and is liable for response costs incurred or to be incurred at or in connection with the Site. This Agreement requires the Settling Party to pay to the Hazardous Substance Superfund the principal sum of $100,000 in reimbursement of Past Response Costs, plus an additional sum for interest and will resolve the Settling Party's civil liability for these costs. The proposed agreement also includes a covenant not to sue the Settling Party pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a).

This proposed agreement concerns the Bernstein Salvage Superfund Site, located in Oskaloosa, Iowa, and is made and entered into by EPA and Virginia Bernstein and the Virginia Bernstein Revocable Living Trust (Settling Parties).

In response to the release of hazardous substances at or from the Site, EPA undertook response actions at the Site pursuant to Section 104 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9604. In performing these response actions, EPA incurred response costs at or in connection with the Site.

Pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), the Settling Parties are responsible parties and are liable for response costs incurred or to be incurred at or in connection with the Site. This Agreement requires the Settling Parties to pay to the Hazardous Substance Superfund the principal sum of $100,000 in reimbursement of Past Response Costs, plus an additional sum for interest and will resolve the Settling Parties' civil liability for these costs. The proposed agreement also includes a covenant not to sue the Settling Parties pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a).

This proposed Agreement concerns the Helena Chemical Company Superfund Site, located in Hayti, Missouri, and is made and entered into by EPA and BP Products North America, Inc. and Helena Chemical Company (Settling Parties). This Site consists of an approximately 2.6 acre lot, and is located about one-eighth mile east of the City of Hayti in Pemiscot County, Missouri.

In response to the release of hazardous substances including toxaphene, arsenic and dieldrin at or from the Site, EPA undertook response actions at the Site pursuant to Section 104 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9604. In performing these response actions, EPA incurred response costs at or in connection with the Site. In addition, EPA provided oversite of response actions undertaken by the Settling Parties.

Pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), the Settling Parties are responsible parties and are jointly and severally liable for response costs incurred at or in connection with the Site. The Regional Administrator EPA, Region VII, or his designee, has determined that the total past and projected response costs of the United States at or in connection with the Site will not exceed $500,000, excluding interest.

This Agreement requires the Settling Parties to pay to the EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund the principal sum of $151,072.65 in reimbursement of Past Response Costs, and will resolve the Settling Parties' alleged civil liability for these costs. The proposed Agreement also includes a covenant not to sue the Settling Parties pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a).

The Federal Reserve Banks provide a service to depository institutions for the collection of definitive municipal securities. Definitive municipal securities are registered or bearer bonds that have been issued with interest coupons in certificated, or physical, form by local governments, as well as by states and their political subdivisions and agencies. 1 The Reserve Banks accept deposits of coupons or bonds from depository institutions, identify the appropriate paying agent, and present the items to the paying agent for collection. These services are collectively referred to as the “noncash collection service.”

Over the years, the number of outstanding definitive municipal securities has declined as a result of legal and market changes. Municipalities stopped issuing bearer municipal securities in 1983, when the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) of 1982 removed the tax advantages of bearer municipal securities for investors. Further, the securities industry began issuing and trading municipal securities in book-entry form and began immobilizing existing securities. These changes also had implications for the noncash collection service, because the volume of bonds and coupons presented for collection declines as the number of outstanding definitive municipal securities declines.

In response to these market trends, in the early 1990s the Reserve Banks reviewed their role in the definitive securities business, in both the areas of safekeeping and collection. In 1993, the Reserve Banks withdrew from the priced definitive securities safekeeping service but decided to continue providing the priced noncash collection service. 2 Given the volume declines, the Reserve Banks aggressively pursued cost savings through consolidation and improvements in processing efficiencies. Between 1992 and 1997, the existing twenty-two noncash collection operations sites were consolidated into one site.

Since 1995, the Reserve Banks' noncash collection volume has decreased 85 percent. Over the past five years, volume has decreased an average of 20 percent annually and is expected to decline by one-third in 2005. Over the last few years, as interest rates have fallen, issuers have called high-interest-rate bonds, including those in definitive form, and issued bonds in book-entry form with lower rates, thereby accelerating the volume decline. The last bearer municipal bond is expected to mature in 2030.

In addition to declining volume, the Reserve Banks' noncash collection service has also experienced a decline in the number of customers that use the service. In 2003, approximately 1,000 depository institutions used the noncash collection service, 10 percent fewer than in 2002. In addition, use of the service is highly concentrated, as the top twenty-five depository institution customers accounted for 70 percent of total revenue in 2003.

Moreover, the Reserve Banks have been presenting noncash collection items to a declining number of paying agents over the past several years due to the consolidation of paying agents through mergers and acquisitions. Currently, the Reserve Banks present to around 100 paying agents, whereas in the past this number had been as high as 3,500. In addition to the decline in the number of paying agents, there is also a significant degree of concentration in the business, with almost 95 percent of coupon envelope volume being presented to ten paying agents in 2003.

Between 1994 and 2003, the noncash collection service has recovered 109.5 percent of its costs, including imputed expenses and return on equity. In 2004, the Reserve Banks expect the service's cost recovery rate to be 110.4 percent. Given the significant decline in volume and the fixed-cost nature of the service, the Reserve Banks expect a significant underrecovery of costs, beginning in 2005. The Reserve Banks have considered price increases to target full cost recovery, but analysis suggests that price increases may accelerate volume loss and reduce revenue.

In addition, more than one-third of total noncash collection service revenue in 2003 came from return-item fees. A return-item fee is charged to depository institutions for submitting coupons that are returned from the paying agent, primarily due to the deposit and return of coupons from called bonds. In these cases, the institution pays not only the $35 return-item fee, but also the cash-letter and coupon-envelope fee; and it does not receive payment for the returned item.  3 Of the approximately 1,000 customers that used the noncash collection service in 2003, 56 percent were charged a return-item fee at least once. Because the Reserve Banks no longer provide a safekeeping service for municipal securities, there is no readily available way for the noncash collection service to track called bonds.

DTC provides both a securities safekeeping service and an over-the-counter collection service for its participants. The over-the-counter coupon collection service, implemented in 1995 in response to participants' requests, is comparable to the noncash collection service, in that DTC acts as a “pass-through” by collecting securities and then sending them to the appropriate paying agent. In 2003, DTC processed 12,800 coupon envelopes through its over-the-counter coupon collection service. The Reserve Banks charge $4.50 per coupon envelope plus $13.00 for the cash letter that must accompany any deposit of coupon envelopes. DTC charges $21.00 to $23.00 per coupon envelope and does not require an accompanying cash letter.  4 For return items, the Reserve Banks charge $35.00 per envelope, while DTC charges $15.00. In addition, it is likely that customers would be charged significantly fewer return-item fees if they used DTC. Because DTC provides a safekeeping service for securities, it maintains information on partially and fully called bonds and notifies its customers if they deposit items associated with a called bond before presenting these items to the paying agents, thereby eliminating returns due to called bonds. In addition to the benefits for depositors, paying agents would also benefit from the reduction in return items because they incur costs to handle items received that must be returned to the depositor. DTC's provision of safekeeping services also presents an opportunity to work with depository institutions that use DTC as their alternative to immobilize additional securities.

Correspondent banks also provide services to their customers for the processing of definitive municipal securities. Many of the Reserve Banks' largest noncash collection customers indicated that a significant portion of their transactions are on behalf of other depository institutions. This suggests that many market participants are already using correspondent banks as alternative service providers. Interviews with several of these large banks suggest that they would be able to use DTC or present directly to paying agents if the Reserve Banks were to withdraw from the service. Thus, it appears that these correspondent banks offer a reasonable alternative service to noncash collection customers that are not DTC participants.

Finally, market participants can present directly to the paying agent as a substitute to using the noncash collection service or similar “pass-through” services. Depository institutions that present directly would avoid explicit fees, as paying agents do not charge presenters for the redemption of definitive municipal coupons and bonds; however, they may incur additional internal resource costs to present items directly rather than use a fee-based service provider. To facilitate the identification of paying agents, the Reserve Banks are considering making their paying agent database, current as of the last day of the service, available on the Internet. This database includes securities descriptions and associated paying agents, including phone numbers and addresses. With this and other tools, depository institutions would have a number of ways to identify the paying agents for direct presentment. First, a depository institution would probably start with the paying agent identified in the Reserve Banks' database or with the paying agent information printed on the original bond. Because paying agents sometimes change, a depository institution would next check with the identified paying agent to confirm the information. As an alternative, a depository institution could use an on-line service such as the Bond Buyer or Bloomberg, or it could contact the issuing municipality to determine the current paying agent. Furthermore, it has become easier for depository institutions to identify paying agents as the number of paying agents has declined and the concentration of the business among the top few paying agents has increased. Discussions with several major paying agents indicate that these trends are expected to continue.

The Board has analyzed the proposal in the context of the factors for evaluating Reserve Banks requests to withdraw from a priced service line.  5 The evaluation against each factor is detailed below.

1. It is likely that other service providers would supply an adequate level of the same service (i.e. access, price, and quality) in the relevant market(s) if the Federal Reserve withdraws from the service.

The Board's analysis suggests that depository institutions have a number of options available for the processing of definitive municipal securities. DTC and some correspondent banks provide services similar to the Reserve Banks' noncash collection service. Noncash collection customers that are also participants in DTC would be able to use DTC's coupon collection service as an alternative. If a customer is not already a participant in DTC, the benefits of using DTC for its municipal securities processing may not outweigh the cost of becoming a participant.  6 These customers could use a correspondent bank to obtain noncash collection services. These correspondent institutions may, in turn, use DTC services, if they are participants, or they may present directly to the paying agents. These options should supply an adequate level of the same, or similar, service to customers that want to continue to use a service provider for a fee.

2. If other service providers are not likely to provide an adequate level of the same service in the relevant market(s), it is likely that users of the service could obtain other substitutable services that could reasonably meet their needs.

In addition to the alternate service providers available, depository institutions have the option of presenting directly to the paying agent for the redemption of their definitive municipal securities. While depository institutions may incur additional internal resource costs to present directly, paying agents do not charge presenters for the redemption of their coupons or bonds. This option should reasonably meet the needs of customers that want to use their own resources to process definitive municipal securities, rather than use a fee-based service provider.

3. Withdrawal from the service would not have a material, adverse effect on the Federal Reserve's ability to provide an adequate level of other services.

Withdrawal from the noncash collection service should have no material, adverse effect on the Federal Reserve's ability to provide an adequate level of any other service. The noncash collection service is a standalone business and is the smallest Reserve Bank priced service, representing less than 0.2 percent of the total budgeted priced financial services costs in 2004. In addition, the proposed withdrawal by the Reserve Banks from the municipal coupon and bond collection process does not include nor have any impact upon the redemption of Treasury coupons, currently handled by the Reserve Banks.

4. Withdrawal from the service would not have a material, adverse effect on the Federal Reserve's ability to discharge other responsibilities.

Withdrawal from the noncash collection service should have no material, adverse effect on the Federal Reserve's ability to discharge any other responsibilities. There are no material linkages between this service and any other Federal Reserve responsibilities, with the exception of a small amount of definitive municipal securities being held in safekeeping for the Treasury Tax and Loan and Discount collateral programs. This linkage is minimal and only occurs with coupons that are deposited and collected by the Reserve Banks on behalf of the depository institutions holding collateral for these programs. For example, Reserve Banks deposited only 4 of the 23,787 coupon envelopes processed by the noncash collection service in January 2004, which is historically one of the highest-volume months.

5. The public benefits of continued Federal Reserve provision of the service do not outweigh the benefits of withdrawing from the service. [The Board would consider whether there was any other public benefit, not addressed under the previous factors, that could be achieved through continued provision of the service.]

As discussed in detail in this notice, the Reserve Banks expect that the substantial decline in volume and customers for the noncash collection service will make it difficult for the Reserve Banks to recover the costs of the service in the coming years. The availability of other reasonable options for depository institutions to collect definitive municipal securities and coupons is addressed under the previous factors. In addition, the public benefit that the Reserve Banks provide in identifying for customers the appropriate paying agent has diminished commensurate with the decline in the number of paying agents (from 3,500 to 100). The Board has not identified any other public benefits that could be achieved through continued provision of the service that would outweigh the benefits of withdrawing from the service.

The Board requests comment on the Reserve Banks' proposal to withdraw from the noncash collection service at the end of 2005 and the Board's analysis of the proposal. In addition, the Board requests specific comments in the following areas:

(1) Are there alternative service providers or substitutable services, in addition to DTC, correspondent banks, and direct presentment, that have not been identified in this notice?

(2) If presenting directly to paying agents, would customers find it useful to have access to the Reserve Banks' paying agent database, which would be current as of the last day of the service? This database includes securities descriptions and associated paying agents, including phone number and address.

(3) Are there other tools that customers would find useful to facilitate the transition?

(4) Are there any public benefits of continued provision of the service by the Reserve Banks that have not been identified in this notice?

The Board has established procedures for assessing the competitive impact of changes that have a direct and material adverse effect on the ability of other service providers to compete effectively with the Federal Reserve in providing similar services, due to differing legal powers or constraints or due to a dominant market position of the Federal Reserve deriving from such differences.  7 The proposed withdrawal by the Reserve Banks from the noncash collection service will leave the provision of this service to private-sector providers; therefore, it will have no material, adverse effect on the ability of other service providers to compete effectively with the Federal Reserve Banks in providing similar services.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. ch. 3506; 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1), the Board has reviewed the proposal under the authority delegated to the Board by the Office of Management and Budget. No collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act are contained in the proposal.

On September 1, 2004, the Coast Guard recertified the Cook Inlet Regional Citizen's Advisory Council (CIRCAC) through August 31, 2005. Under the Oil Terminal and Oil Tanker Environmental Oversight Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2732), the Coast Guard may certify, on an annual basis, an alternative voluntary advisory group in lieu of a regional citizens' advisory council for Cook Inlet, Alaska. This advisory group monitors the activities of terminal facilities and crude oil tankers under the Cook Inlet Program established by Congress, 33 U.S.C. 2732 (b).

On September 16, 2002, the Coast Guard published a notice of policy on revised recertification procedures for alternative voluntary advisory groups in lieu of councils at Prince William Sound and Cook Inlet, AK (67 FR 58440, 58441). This revised policy indicated that applicants seeking recertification in 2003 and 2004 need only submit a streamlined application and public comments would not be solicited prior to recertification.

Response and Recovery Directorate Policy No. 9122.1 provides that FEMA will adjust the countywide per capita impact indicator under the Public Assistance program to reflect annual changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the Department of Labor.

FEMA gives notice of an increase in the countywide per capita impact indicator to $2.84 for all disasters declared on or after October 1, 2004.

FEMA bases the adjustment on an increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers of 2.7 percent for the 12-month period ended in August 2004. The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor released the information on September 16, 2004.

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Alabama is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 15, 2004:

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated October 7, 2004, the President amended the cost-sharing arrangements concerning Federal funds provided under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (Stafford Act), in a letter to Michael D. Brown, Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, as follows:

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated October 7, 2004, the President amended the cost-sharing arrangements concerning Federal funds provided under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (Stafford Act), in a letter to Michael D. Brown, Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, as follows:

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated October 7, 2004, the President amended the cost-sharing arrangements concerning Federal funds provided under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. §§5121-5206 (Stafford Act), in a letter to Michael D. Brown, Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, as follows:

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated October 7, 2004, the President amended the cost-sharing arrangements concerning Federal funds provided under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (Stafford Act), in a letter to Michael D. Brown, Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, as follows:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Georgia is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 24, 2004:

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated September 30, 2004, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Thomas Costello, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.

I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of Kansas to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated October 7, 2004, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Thomas J. Costello, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.

I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of Minnesota to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated October 1, 2004, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Peter J. Martinasco, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.

I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of New Jersey to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated October 1, 2004, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Theodore A. Monette, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.

I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of New York to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated October 1, 2004, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Theodore A. Monette, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.

I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of New York to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of North Carolina is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 10, 2004:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of North Carolina is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 18, 2004:

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is now July 27, 2004, through and including August 25, 2004.

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective October 1, 2004.

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 19, 2004:

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated October 7, 2004, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Michael Bolch, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.

I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of South Carolina to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated October 7, 2004, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Carlos Mitchell, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.

I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of Tennessee to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated October 7, 2004, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Peter J. Martinasco, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.

I do hereby determine the following islands of the Territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of West Virginia is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 20, 2004:

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is now May 7, 2004, through and including July 3, 2004.

The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act) prescribes that FEMA must annually adjust the maximum grant amount made under section 422, Small Project Grants, Simplified Procedure, relating to the Public Assistance program, to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the Department of Labor.

FEMA gives notice of an increase of the maximum amount of any Small Project Grant made to the State, local government, or to the owner or operator of an eligible private nonprofit facility, under section 422 of the Stafford Act, to $55,500 for all disasters declared on or after October 1, 2004.

FEMA bases the adjustment on an increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers of 2.7 percent for the 12-month period ended in August 2004. The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor released the information on September 16, 2004.

Section 408 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the “Act”), 42 U.S.C. 5174, prescribes that FEMA must annually announce the maximum amounts for assistance provided under the Individuals and Households (IHP) Program. FEMA gives notice that the maximum amount of IHP financial assistance provided to an individual or household under section 408 of the Act with respect to any single emergency or major disaster is $26,200. The maximum amount of Repair Assistance is $5,200, and the maximum amount of Replacement Assistance is $10,500. The increases in award amounts as stated above are for any single emergency or major disaster declared on or after October 1, 2004.

FEMA bases the adjustments on an increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers of 2.7 percent for the 12-month period ended in August 2004. The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor released the information on September 16, 2004.

44 CFR 206.48 provides that FEMA will adjust the statewide per capita impact indicator under the Public Assistance program to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the Department of Labor.

FEMA gives notice that the statewide per capita impact indicator will be increased to $1.14 for all disasters declared on or after October 1, 2004.

FEMA bases the adjustment on an increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers of 2.7 percent for the 12-month period ended in August 2004. The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor released the information on September 16, 2004.

All aircraft operators that are not otherwise regulated under title 49 CFR and that are certificated by the FAA under 14 CFR part 125 must comply with the security requirements contained in § 1544.101 (e) or (f) of title 49 as explained below. TSA is issuing this notice pursuant to 49 CFR 1550.7 in response to vulnerabilities in civil aviation security.

The U.S. Intelligence Community continues to receive and evaluate a high volume of reporting indicating possible threats against U.S. interests. This reporting, combined with recent terrorist attacks, has created an atmosphere of concern. While the ability to conduct multiple, near simultaneous attacks against several targets is not new for such terrorist groups as al-Qa'ida, aircraft that are not required to comply with TSA's security regulations provide an attractive target for terrorist organizations attempting to evade aviation security measures currently in place. The Department of Homeland Security remains concerned about al-Qa'ida's continued interest in aviation to carry out attacks on transportation and supporting infrastructure. In recognition of the current threat environment, TSA has made a determination that these circumstances require immediate action to ensure safety in air transportation.

Under 49 CFR 1550.7, each aircraft operation that is certificated by the FAA under part 125 and does not currently comply with a security program under 49 CFR part 1544 in an aircraft with a MTOW of more than 12,500 pounds, must conduct a search of the aircraft before departure and screen passengers, crew members and other persons, and all accessible property before boarding in accordance with security standards and procedures approved by TSA. TSA will require that for all-cargo operations conducted in an aircraft with a MTOW of more than 12,500 pounds and passenger operations conducted in an aircraft with a MTOW of more than 12,500 pounds and up to and including 45,500 kg (100,309.3 pounds), which are not currently operating under a TSA security program, such procedures and requirements as contained in 49 CFR 1544.101(e) and related security directives must be implemented. The requirements include, without limitation, a security program that provides for the security of persons and property traveling on flights, designation of an Aircraft Operator Security Coordinator, verification of the identity of flight crew members, security training, and procedures to respond to certain threats.

TSA will require that for all passenger operations with a MTOW greater than 45,500 kg (100,309.3 pounds) or with a passenger seating configuration of 61 or more, the security procedures must include the requirements listed in 49 CFR 1544.101(f) and related security directives. In addition to the requirements listed above, these operations must also screen individuals and their accessible property and provide for the use of metal detection devices and x-ray systems.

The size of the aircraft operating under part 125 certification, the number of passengers traveling on such aircraft, and the amount of cargo transported pose a significant threat to aviation security and require the application of security measures to these operations. Of particular concern to aviation security are part 125 operators that are functioning as private travel clubs. Such clubs, which are advertised on the Internet, solicit members who, after payment of initiation and membership fees, are able to purchase tour packages. These clubs transport members and their baggage all over the world without the security measures required by TSA. Given this period of heightened security concern, it is critical that such operations are in compliance with TSA's security procedures and requirements.

TSA will assist any aircraft operator affected by this notice. The specific security programs and related security directives may be obtained by contacting David Bernier at the Transportation Security Administration: e-mail aircarrierinspection@tsa.dot.gov, telephone (571) 227-2200, or facsimile (703) 603-0414. Affected aircraft operators should notify TSA of any questions or issues regarding the implementation of these requirements as soon as practicable.

This notice provides clarification and further guidance on the special provisions for domestic violence provider shelters (section 1.5.6.) in the Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS) Data and Technical Standards Final Notice (Final Notice), published on July 30, 2004 (69 FR 45888). This notice provides clarification and additional guidance on the timing of participation and data collection, submission, and aggregation requirements for HUD McKinney-Vento funded domestic violence shelters.

HUD supported the development of local HMISs in response to Congressional direction  1 on the need for improved data on and the analysis of the extent of homelessness and the effectiveness of the McKinney-Vento Act programs including: (1) Production of an unduplicated count of clients served at the local level; (2) analysis of patterns of use of people entering and exiting the homeless assistance system; and (3) evaluation of the effectiveness of the homeless assistance system. Broad-based participation of all homeless service providers at the local level in HMIS and the collection of longitudinal data are critical to meeting this directive.

Domestic violence programs play a critical role in many Continuums of Care (CoC) and constitute a large proportion of shelter beds and homeless service slots. Their absence from participation in an HMIS would prevent these communities from obtaining an unduplicated count of homeless persons in their community or understanding adequately the needs of the homeless population, including victims of domestic violence. In deciding whether domestic violence programs should be expected to participate in HMIS, HUD reviewed carefully the comments on the HMIS Data and Technical Standards Draft Notice, published on July 22, 2003 (68 FR 43430), and consulted with a wide range of stakeholders.

These stakeholders included local homeless assistance providers, domestic violence providers, national HMIS experts, national advocacy organizations, leading researchers and other federal agencies. Comments on the draft notice and subsequent stakeholder discussions led HUD to conclude that it was critical for domestic violence programs to participate in HMIS so as to fully understand homelessness at the local and national levels. It was also determined that safety concerns for domestic violence programs could be addressed effectively if:

• A distinction is made between (1) data that domestic violence providers collect from homeless persons and (2) data that domestic violence providers submit to a central server in order to produce an unduplicated count of homeless persons at the CoC level;

• Domestic violence programs are given ample time to implement technological, administrative, and other safeguards to participate in their community's HMIS;

• Adequate local privacy and security standards are developed to protect client information; and

• HUD offers extensive technical assistance support to communities and domestic violence programs.

To address the specific concerns regarding participation, HUD is providing the following clarification and additional guidance on the timing of participation and data collection, submission, and aggregation requirements for HUD McKinney-Vento funded domestic violence shelters.

HUD recognizes that communities and domestic violence programs need time to develop and implement methods to effectively address domestic violence provider participation in HMIS and, therefore, permits CoCs to stage the entry of domestic violence programs last, including after the October 2004, goal for HMIS implementation. The later staging of domestic violence providers will not affect HUD's assessment of CoC progress in HMIS implementation in the national CoC competitive ranking process.

HUD did not state a deadline for domestic violence provider participation in the HMIS and recommended the staging of their addition to the HMIS implementation last to allow for adequate time for planning, discussion, investigation, and development of local participation policies. HUD acknowledges the privacy and security concerns of domestic violence providers and has given discretion to each CoC to work with their domestic violence providers to identify methods of participation that will maximize the safety of persons served by those providers. The Final Notice also recognizes stronger state confidentiality provisions. In the event that state laws conflict with the Final Notice, as determined by an appropriate state government entity, state law will prevail (see Section 4 of the Final Notice).

The Final Notice states that domestic violence programs that receive HUD McKinney-Vento funds are expected to implement the universal and those program-specific data elements required for generation of an Annual Progress Report and Emergency Shelter Grant reporting (see section Sections 1.5.3. and 1.5.6. of the Final Notice). To clarify and provide additional guidance concerning the implementation, the following elaborates on the requirements for data collection, data submission, and data aggregation for domestic violence providers participating in HMIS.

Data Collection: All recipients of McKinney-Vento funds collect client-specific information at the program level to meet aggregate reporting requirements for the Annual Progress Report. This includes the following programs: Supportive Housing, Shelter Plus Care, Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy, and Emergency Shelter Grants. Accordingly, domestic violence programs that receive McKinney-Vento funds must collect the universal and program-specific data elements required for reporting. HUD does not require domestic violence providers to collect or report an address for a client served by a domestic violence provider.

Data Submission: HUD understands the concerns regarding submission of client-identified data from domestic violence programs to a central location. HUD will not require the submission of personal identifiers (name and Social Security Number (SSN)) from these programs to the CoC. Domestic violence programs can choose to use a proxy, coded, encrypted, or hashed unique identifier—in lieu of name and SSN—that is appended to the full service record of each client served and submitted to the central server at least once annually for purposes of unduplication and data analysis. The coded unique identifier would need to include, but is not limited to, characters and digits from a portion of a client's name, date of birth, and gender. This unique identifier can be generated either manually or through the use of an advanced technological encryption algorithm. Programs participating in HMIS are not required to share client data with any other organization besides the central coordinating entity identified by the CoC as described below.

Data Aggregation: CoCs should decide how they will use coded unique identifiers in consultation with their domestic violence programs and determine how to produce an unduplicated count of homeless clients at the CoC level using these coded identifiers. CoCs must have or designate a coordinating body responsible for collection and storage of data to a central location at least once a year (see Section 5.2.1. of the Final Notice). HUD fully supports alternative methods of participation by domestic violence providers. Domestic violence programs are charged to meet with CoC representatives to identify administrative solutions, such as delaying entry of data into the HMIS until after the client has exited the domestic violence program, or other technological or administrative solutions that adequately protect data and allow for an accurate unduplicated count of homeless persons and analysis of homeless data throughout the CoC to meet the goals of the congressional directive.

HUD recognizes that the privacy and security concerns of domestic violence victims are unlike those of other homeless clients. In response to these concerns, HUD has developed HMIS privacy and security standards that are improvements to current practices, set high baseline standards for all users of HMIS data, and adequately protect personal information collected from domestic violence victims as well as all homeless clients.

As stated in the Final Notice, the baseline privacy and security standards are based on principles of fair information practice and on security standards recognized by the information technology and privacy communities. The privacy standards were developed after careful review of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) standards for protecting patient information. The HIPAA privacy rule establishes a national baseline of privacy standards for most health information. For some key provisions in the HMIS privacy standards, HUD set baseline standards that exceeded those in HIPAA, especially for provisions that are important to domestic violence programs.

HUD also developed multi-layered security provisions that meet or surpass current Information Technology (IT) industry standards requiring: (1) User authentication; (2) industry standard encryption (128-bit Secure Socket Layer) of all HMIS data that are electronically transmitted over the Internet, publicly accessible networks, or phone lines; and (3) strict limitations to physical and network access to systems with HMIS data. In addition to these baseline standards, HUD recommends additional privacy and security standards that CoCs and programs could implement to further increase the security of the system. The baseline privacy and security standards for HMIS required by the Final Notice far exceed the requirements for many other systems into which these client data are entered. HUD continues to encourage organizations to apply these additional protections as they deem appropriate.

HUD recognizes that the development of an HMIS with adequate technological and/or administrative solutions to protect client data can be challenging. HUD will continue to provide technical assistance to local CoCs to help them develop solutions that meet the needs of domestic violence victims and the programs that serve this population.

Research is currently underway to document successful methods of participation of domestic violence providers in existing HMIS implementations. Some of these methods use coded unique client identifiers that do not require providers to submit name, SSN, or other identifying information to the central server, but do allow for an unduplicated count at the CoC level. Other methods currently in use include delayed entry of data into the HMIS until after the client has exited the program or HMIS system administration/hosting by the domestic violence provider agency. Information about the specific methods will be posted on HUD's HMIS page and also distributed via the hmisinfo@hud.gov list-serve.

HUD will exempt domestic violence providers from submission of client identifiers (name and SSN) to the CoC for unduplication and data analysis. Those programs electing this exemption are required to use either a proxy, coded, encrypted, or hashed unique identifier—in lieu of name and SSN—that is appended to the full service record of each client served and submitted to the CoC central server at least once annually for purposes of unduplication and data analysis. Domestic violence providers may also choose to adopt a delayed data entry protocol whereby client records are not entered into the HMIS system until a set period of time after exit.

CoC representatives are instructed to meet with domestic violence providers to develop and implement a method by which the CoC can unduplicate data across all providers in the HMIS. HUD fully supports alternative methods of participation by domestic violence providers including those that incorporate technological or administrative solutions that adequately protect data and allow for an accurate unduplicated local count of homeless persons and analysis of homeless data to meet the goals of the Congressional directive.

The Plat representing the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 10 North, Range 26 East, of the Arkansas River and Historic Riverbed, accepted September 28, 2004, for Group 61 Oklahoma.

If a protest against a survey, as shown on any of the above plats is received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat will not be officially filed until the day after all protests have been dismissed and become final or appeals from the dismissal affirmed.

A person or party who wishes to protest against any of these surveys must file a written protest with the New Mexico State Director, Bureau of Land Management, stating that they wish to protest.

A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of protest to the State Director, or the statement of reasons must be filed with the State Director within thirty (30) days after the protest is filed.

Title: 30 CFR part 218, subpart A—General Provisions, § 218.42 Cross-lease netting in calculation of late-payment interest; subpart B—Oil and Gas, General, § 218.52 How does a lessee designate a Designee? (Form MMS-4425, Designation Form for Royalty Payment Responsibility) and § 218.53 Recoupment of overpayments on Indian mineral leases; and subpart E—Solid Minerals—General, § 218.203 Recoupment of overpayments on Indian mineral leases.

OMB Control Number: 1010-0107.

Bureau Form Number: Form MMS-4425.

Abstract: The Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior is responsible for collecting royalties from lessees who produce minerals from leased Federal and Indian lands. The Secretary is required by various laws to manage mineral resources production on Federal and Indian lands, collect the royalties due, and distribute the funds in accordance with those laws. The Secretary also has an Indian trust responsibility to manage Indian lands and seek advice and information from Indian beneficiaries. The MMS performs the royalty management functions and assists the Secretary in carrying out the Department's Indian trust responsibility.

When a company or an individual enters into a lease to explore, develop, produce, and dispose of minerals from Federal or Indian lands, that company or individual agrees to pay the lessor a share (royalty) of the value received from production from the leased lands. The lease creates a business relationship between the lessor and the lessee. The lessee is required to report various kinds of information to the lessor relative to the disposition of the leased minerals. Such information is similar to data reported to private and public mineral interest owners and is generally available within the records of the lessee or others involved in developing, transporting, processing, purchasing, or selling of such minerals. The information collected includes data necessary to ensure that the royalties are paid appropriately.

This ICR includes unique reporting circumstances including designation of designee, cross-lease netting in calculation of late-payment interest, and tribal permission for recoupment on Indian leases.

Applicable citations of the laws pertaining to mineral leases include Public Law 97-451—Jan. 12, 1983 (Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 [FOGRMA]), Public Law 104-185—Aug. 13, 1996 (Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Simplification and Fairness Act of 1996 [RFSA]) as corrected by Public Law 104-200—Sept. 22, 1996), and the Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982 (25 U.S.C. 2101 et seq. ). Public laws pertaining to mineral royalties are located on our Web site at http://www.mrm.mms.gov/Laws_R_D/PublicLawsAMR.htm.

The RSFA established that owners of, primarily, operating rights or, secondarily, lease record title (both referred to as “lessees”) are responsible for making royalty and related payments on Federal oil and gas leases. These RSFA requirements were promulgated in regulations at 30 CFR 218.52. It is common, however, for a payor rather than a lessee to make these payments. When a payor makes payments on behalf of a lessee, RSFA section 6(g) requires that the lessee designate the payor as its designee and notify MMS of this arrangement in writing. The MMS designed Form MMS-4425, Designation Form for Royalty Payment Responsibility, to request all the information necessary for lessees to comply with these RSFA requirements when they choose to designate an agent to pay for them. The MMS requires this information to ensure proper mineral revenue collection.

Regulations at 30 CFR 218.54 require MMS to assess interest on unpaid or underpaid amounts. The MMS distributes these interest revenues to states, Indians, and the U.S. Treasury, based on financial lease distribution information. Current regulations at 30 CFR 218.42 provide that an overpayment on a lease or leases may be offset against an underpayment on a different lease or leases to determine the net payment subject to interest, when certain conditions are met. This is called cross-lease netting.

However, RSFA sections 6(a), (b), and (c) require MMS to pay interest on lessees' Federal oil and gas overpayments made on or after the February 13, 1997, enactment of RSFA. The MMS implemented this RSFA provision in 1997, and began calculating interest on both underpayments and overpayments for Federal oil and gas leases, making the cross-lease netting provisions at 30 CFR 218.42 no longer applicable for these leases. The MMS is currently developing regulations to amend 30 CFR 218.42 to limit its applicability to payments made under Indian tribal leases and Federal leases for minerals other than oil and gas. The MMS estimates that in about 7 cases per year, lessees must comply with the provisions of 30 CFR 218.42(b) and (c) for Indian tribal leases or Federal leases other than oil and gas, demonstrating that cross-lease netting is correct by submitting production reports, pipeline allocation reports, or other similar documentary evidence. This information is necessary for MMS to determine the correct amount of interest owed by the lessee, and to ensure proper value is collected.

In order to report cross-lease netting on Indian leases, lessees must also comply with regulations at 30 CFR 218.53(b) and 218.203(b), allowing only lessees with written permission from the tribe to recoup overpayments on one lease against a different lease for which the tribe is the lessor. The payor must furnish MMS with a copy of the tribe's written permission. Generally, a payor may recoup an overpayment against the current month's royalties or other revenues owed on the same tribal lease. For any month, a payor may not recoup more than 50 percent of the royalties or other revenues owed in that month under an individual allotted lease or more than 100 percent of the royalties or other revenues owed in that month under a tribal lease. Lessees use Form MMS-2014, Report of Sales and Royalty Remittance, for oil and gas lease recoupments (burden covered under ICR 1010-0140, expires October 31, 2006) and Form MMS-4430, Solid Mineral Production and Royalty Report, for solid mineral lease recoupments (burden covered under ICR 1010-0120, expires October 31, 2007). The MMS requires tribal permission to ensure tribes and individual Indian mineral owners receive correct revenues from production on their leases.

Frequency: On occasion.

Estimated Number and Description of Respondents: 1,613 Federal and Indian lessees.

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden: 1,220 hours.

The following chart shows the estimated burden hours by CFR section and paragraph:

We are revising this ICR to cover regulations at 30 CFR 218.42 (b) and (c), Cross-Lease Netting in Calculation of Late-Payment Interest and 30 CFR 218.203(b), Recoupment of Overpayments on Indian Mineral Leases. Previously addressed burden hours for 30 CFR 218.57 are currently covered in ICR 1010-0120 (expires October 31, 2007).

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

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

The PRA also requires agencies to estimate the total annual reporting “non-hour cost” burden to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. We have not identified non-hour cost burdens for this information collection. If you have costs to generate, maintain, and disclose this information, you should comment and provide your total capital and startup cost components or annual operation, maintenance, and purchase of service components. You should describe the methods you use to estimate major cost factors, including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, discount rate(s), and the period over which you incur costs. Capital and startup costs include, among other items, computers and software you purchase to prepare for collecting information; monitoring, sampling, and testing equipment; and record storage facilities. Generally, your estimates should not include equipment or services purchased: (i) Before October 1, 1995; (ii) to comply with requirements not associated with the information collection; (iii) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the Government; or (iv) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.

We will summarize written responses to this notice and address them in our ICR submission for OMB approval, including appropriate adjustments to the estimated burden. We will provide a copy of the ICR to you without charge upon request. The ICR also will be posted on our Web site at http://www.mrm.mms.gov/Laws_R_D/FRNotices/FRInfColl.htm .

Public Comment Policy: We will post all comments in response to this notice on our Web site at http://www.mrm.mms.gov/Laws_R_D/FRNotices/FRInfColl.htm . We also will make copies of the comments available for public review, including names and addresses of respondents, during regular business hours at our offices in Lakewood, Colorado. Upon request, we will withhold an individual respondent's home address from the public record, as allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you request that we withhold your name and/or address, state your request prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

MMS Information Collection Clearance Officer: Arlene Bajusz (202) 208-7744.

Title: 30 CFR Part 243, Suspensions Pending Appeal and Bonding—Minerals Revenue Management (Forms MMS-4435, Administrative Appeal Bond, and MMS-4436, Letter of Credit).

OMB Control Number: 1010-0122.

Bureau Form Number: Forms MMS-4435 and MMS-4436.

Abstract: The Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior is responsible for collecting royalties from lessees who produce minerals from leased Federal and Indian lands. The Secretary is required by various laws to manage mineral resources production on Federal and Indian lands, collect the royalties due, and distribute the funds in accordance with those laws. The MMS performs the royalty management functions for the Secretary.

Applicable citations of the laws pertaining to mineral leases include Public Law 97-451—Jan. 12, 1983 (Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 [FOGRMA]), Public Law 104-185—Aug. 13, 1996 (Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Simplification and Fairness Act of 1996 [RFSA]) as corrected by Public Law 104-200—Sept. 22, 1996), and the Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982 (25 U.S.C. 2101 et seq. ). Public laws pertaining to mineral royalties are located on our Web site at http://www.mrm.mms.gov/Laws_R_D/PublicLawsAMR.htm. Proprietary information submitted to MMS under the collection is protected.

Lessees or recipients of MMS's Minerals Revenue Management (MRM) orders may suspend compliance with an order if they appeal in accordance with 30 CFR 290, Subpart B. Pending appeal, MMS suspends the payment requirement if the appellant submits a formal agreement of payment in case of default, such as a bond or other surety. The MMS accepts the following surety types: Form MMS-4435, Administrative Appeal Bond; Form MMS-4436, Letter of Credit; Self-bonding; Certificate of Deposit; and U.S. Treasury Securities.

When one of the surety types is selected and put in place, appellants must maintain the surety until completion of the appeal. If the appeal is decided in favor of the appellant, MMS returns the surety to the appellant. If the appeal is decided in MMS's favor, we will take action to collect full royalty payment or draw down on the surety. The MMS draws down on a surety if the appellant fails to comply with requirements relating to amount due, time frame, or surety submission or resubmission. Whenever MMS must draw down on a surety, the total amount due is defined as unpaid principal plus interest accrued to the projected receipt date of the surety payment. The five surety types are discussed below.

Appellants may file Form MMS-4435, Administrative Appeal Bond, which MMS uses to secure the financial interests of the public and Indian lessors during the entire administrative and judicial appeal process. The bond must be issued by a qualified surety company that is approved by the Department of the Treasury (see Department of the Treasury Circular No. 570, revised periodically in the Federal Register ). The Associate Director for MRM (Associate Director) or the delegated bond-approving officer (officer) maintains these bonds in a secure facility. Once the appeal has concluded, MMS may release and return the bond to the appellant or collect royalty payment upon the bond. If collection is necessary for a remaining royalty payment balance, MMS will issue a demand for payment to the surety company with a notice to the appellant, including all interest accrued on the affected bill.

Appellants may choose to file Form MMS-4436, Letter of Credit, with no modifications. The Associate Director or officer maintains the Letter of Credit (LOC) in a secure facility. A bank must notarize and issue the LOC for appellants in which the bank has a minimum Fitch rating (formerly Bankwatch) of “C” for an LOC of less than $1 million, “B/C” for an LOC between $1 million and $10 million, or “B” for an LOC over $10 million. The LOC must have a minimum coverage period of 1 year and be automatically renewable for up to 5 years. The appellant is responsible for verifying that the bank provides a current rating to MMS. If the issuing bank's rating falls below the minimum acceptable level, a satisfactory replacement surety must be submitted within 14 days or MMS will draw down the existing LOC. If the bank issuing the LOC chooses not to renew the existing LOC, it must provide MMS with a notice of its decision not to renew 30 days prior to expiration of the LOC. Once the appeal has been concluded, MMS may release and return the LOC to the appellant or collect royalty payment upon the LOC. If collection is necessary for a remaining royalty payment balance, MMS will issue a demand for payment, which includes all interest assessed on the affected bill, to the bank with a notice to the appellant.

For Federal oil and gas leases only, RSFA Section 4(l), as promulgated in regulations at 30 CFR 243.201, provides that no surety instrument is required when a person representing the appellant periodically demonstrates, to the satisfaction of MMS, that the guarantor or appellant is financially solvent and otherwise able to pay the obligation. Appellants must submit a written request to “self-bond” every time a new appeal is filed. To evaluate the financial solvency and exemption from requirements of appellants to maintain a surety related to an appeal, MMS requires appellants to submit an audited, consolidated balance sheet. In some cases, MMS also requires copies of the most recent tax returns—up to 3 years—filed by appellants.

Appellants must submit audited financial statements annually to support their net worth. The MMS uses the audited, consolidated balance sheet or business information supplied to evaluate the financial solvency of a lessee, designee, or payor seeking a stay of payment obligation pending review. If appellants do not have an audited, consolidated balance sheet documenting their net worth, or they do not meet the $300 million net worth requirement, MMS selects a business information or credit reporting service to provide information concerning an appellant's financial solvency. We charge the appellant a $50 fee each time we need to review data from a business information or credit reporting service. We need the fee to recover our costs to determine an appellant's financial solvency. The Associate Director or officer uses this information to determine the financial solvency of a lessee, designee, or payor on the basis of their net worth.

Appellants may choose to secure their debts by requesting to use a CD from their bank. Appellants must file the request with MMS prior to the invoice due date. The MMS will accept a book-entry CD that explicitly assigns the CD to the Associate Director. A bank must issue the CD in which the bank has a minimum Fitch rating or is confirmed by a bank with an acceptable rating. The acceptable ratings for a CD are the same as for an LOC. If collection of the CD is necessary for a royalty payment balance, MMS will return unused CD funds to the appellant after total settlement of the appealed issues including applicable interest charges.

Appellants may choose to secure their debts by requesting to use a TS. Appellants must file the request with MMS prior to the invoice due date. The MMS only accepts a book-entry TS. The TS must be a U.S. Treasury note or bond with maturity equal to or greater than 1 year. The TS must equal 120 percent of the appealed amount plus 1 year of estimated interest (necessary to protect MMS against interest rate fluctuations).

Frequency of Response: Annually and on occasion.

Estimated Number and Description of Respondents: 300 Federal/Indian lessees.

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden: 300 hours.

There are approximately 300 respondents (Federal/Indian lessees). Responses are annually and on occasion. The MMS estimates that there will be 200 surety instruments (135 bonds, 63 LOCs, 1 CD, and 1 TS) and 100 self-bonding submissions each year. The MMS estimates the total annual burden is 300 reporting and recordkeeping hours, based on 1 hour per response, regardless of the type of surety. Based on a cost factor of $50 per hour, we estimate the total annual cost to industry is $15,000 ($50 x 300 hours = $15,000). We have not included in our estimates certain requirements performed in the normal course of business and considered usual and customary.

The following chart shows the breakdown of the estimated burden hours by CFR section and paragraph:

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-hour Cost” Burden: We have identified a $50 fee for reviewing data from a business information or credit reporting service as a “non-hour cost” burden. Over the past 3 years, MMS has only collected a $50 fee from 5 lessees.

Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) provides that 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.

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

The PRA also requires agencies to estimate the total annual reporting “non-hour cost” burden to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. We have identified a $50 fee for reviewing data from a business information or credit reporting service as a “non-hour cost” burden for this information collection. If you have costs to generate, maintain, and disclose this information, you should comment and provide your total capital and startup cost components or annual operation, maintenance, and purchase of service components. You should describe the methods you use to estimate major cost factors, including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, discount rate(s), and the period over which you incur costs. Capital and startup costs include, among other items, computers and software you purchase to prepare for collecting information; monitoring, sampling, and testing equipment; and record storage facilities. Generally, your estimates should not include equipment or services purchased: (i) Before October 1, 1995; (ii) to comply with requirements not associated with the information collection; (iii) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the Government; or (iv) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.

We will summarize written responses to this notice and address them in our ICR submission for OMB approval, including appropriate adjustments to the estimated burden. We will provide a copy of the ICR to you without charge upon request. The ICR also will be posted on our Web site at http://www.mrm.mms.gov/Laws_R_D/FRNotices/FRInfColl.htm.

Public Comment Policy: We will post all comments in response to this notice on our Web site at http://www.mrm.mms.gov/Laws_R_D/FRNotices/FRInfColl.htm. We also will make copies of the comments available for public review, including names and addresses of respondents, during regular business hours at our offices in Lakewood, Colorado. Upon request, we will withhold an individual respondent's home address from the public record, as allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you request that we withhold your name and/or address, state your request prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

MMS Information Collection Clearance Officer: Arlene Bajusz (202) 208-7744.

Each year Federal agencies create billions of records on paper, film, magnetic tape, and other media. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing retention periods for records and submit these schedules for NARA's approval, using the Standard Form (SF) 115, Request for Records Disposition Authority. These schedules provide for the timely transfer into the National Archives of historically valuable records and authorize the disposal of all other records after the agency no longer needs them to conduct its business. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent.

No Federal records are authorized for destruction without the approval of the Archivist of the United States. This approval is granted only after a thorough consideration of their administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private persons directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not they have historical or other value.

Besides identifying the Federal agencies and any subdivisions requesting disposition authority, this public notice lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records or indicates agency-wide applicability in the case of schedules that cover records that may be accumulated throughout an agency. This notice provides the control number assigned to each schedule, the total number of schedule items, and the number of temporary items (the records proposed for destruction). It also includes a brief description of the temporary records. The records schedule itself contains a full description of the records at the file unit level as well as their disposition. If NARA staff has prepared an appraisal memorandum for the schedule, it too includes information about the records. Further information about the disposition process is available on request.

1. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (N1-95-04-1, 7 items, 4 temporary items). Data files from the Rocky Mountain Research Station's Fire Regimes for Fuels Management and Fire Use Databases for the period 1986-2000. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing. Proposed for permanent retention are the 1999 versions of the National Fire Occurrence, Federal and State Lands Databases, and the Geographic Information System Data Layers, 2000, and the related system documentation.

2. Department of the Air Force, Agency-wide (N1-AFU-04-4, 6 items, 5 temporary items). Records relating to the disposition of remains of deceased foreign nationals, civilian employees of the agency, and family members of Air Force personnel. Included are such records as copies of death certificates, personal property inventories, instructions for the shipment of remains, and files relating to payments made for funerals and interments. Electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing are also included. Recordkeeping copies of files relating to Air Force military personnel are proposed for permanent retention.

3. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (N1-AU-04-7, 4 items, 4 temporary items). Quality of information program claims records. Included are such records as requests for information corrections, replies, appellants' requests for reviews of denials, and final adjudication notices. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing. This schedule also authorizes the agency to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping medium.

4. Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration (N1-560-04-10, 10 items, 6 temporary items). Routine correspondence, copies of Freedom of Information Act requests, background files relating to policy development, and project files accumulated by the Office of Operations Policy. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of such records as policy statements, SOPs, and security directives.

5. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Agency-wide (N1-207-04-3, 15 items, 13 temporary items). Records relating to Department-wide grant programs including selection process records, award agreement case files, working papers, program support files, general subject and chronological correspondence files, and reference copies of policy records. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of policy files and financial award deliverables.

6. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (N1-65-04-6, 8 items, 8 temporary items). Technical records relating to the administration and operation of the agency's public Web site. Included are such records as server of origin logs, snapshots of the site, templates that record how information was displayed, logs of site traffic, and technical policies and standards. Electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing are also included.

7. Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons (N1-129-04-8, 7 items, 7 temporary items). Inputs, outputs, master files, and documentation associated with the agency's Millennium System, an electronic system used to support business activities of Federal Prison Industries. This system contains information concerning such matters as schedules of deliveries from suppliers, returns of rejected orders, and the creation of production orders. Electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing are also included.

8. Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons (N1-129-04-9, 3 items, 3 temporary items). Inputs, outputs, and master files associated with an electronic system that is used for the display and evaluation of archived data generated by the Millennium System.

9. Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General (N1-174-03-3, 22 items, 14 temporary items). Records accumulated by the Inspector General, including such records as schedules of daily activities, telephone logs, routine Congressional correspondence, drafts and other transitory files used to create recordkeeping files, and electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of such records as Congressional testimony, minutes of meetings with Congressional committees, speeches, and publications.

10. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics (N1-398-04-2, 4 items, 4 temporary items). Files documenting assistance agreements with other entities, including other Federal agencies, academic institutions, and state and local governments. Records relate to grants, cooperative agreements, inter-agency agreements, and other types of program support agreements. Included are such records as documentation of significant actions and decisions, justifications, cost estimates, scope of work statements, applications, and close-out documentation for completed agreements. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing. This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping medium. Excluded are final products and deliverables, which are scheduled separately.

11. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics (N1-398-04-7, 6 items, 5 temporary items). Records relating to articles submitted to professional and trade journals. Included are such records as working papers and background materials, manuscripts that do not relate to the agency's mission or substantive programs, and electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of final mission-related manuscripts.

12. Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service (N1-425-04-4, 11 items, 11 temporary items). Records of the Debt Management Services Division relating to debt collection activities. Included are such records as delinquent debtor case files, notices sent to individuals and businesses concerning pending debt actions, and a database used to track inquiries about debt collection actions. Electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing are also included.

13. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (N1-412-04-13, 3 items, 3 temporary items). Test method evaluation records, including such records as methods reports, laboratory data and original test method data submitted by companies, and non-reportable data relating to the analysis of environmental samples and food, feed, and pesticide products. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing.

14. Tennessee Valley Authority, Fossil Power Group (N1-142-04-5, 4 items, 4 temporary items). Records relating to managing heavy equipment. Included are such records as rental and billing documents, requisitions, inventories, orders, and reports. Electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing are also included.