The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice to the Administrator of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration with respect to the implementation of the U.S. Grain Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 71 et seq. ).

The agenda will include Enterprise Architecture, Process Verification, ISO evaluation, Phytosanitary Certification, New Soybean Traits, Ethanol Co-Products/DDG Standards, Outsourcing: Rice Program, and general Agency issues. For a copy of the agenda please contact Terri Henry, (202) 205-8281 (telephone); (202) 690-2755 (facsimile) or by e-mail Terri.L.Henry@usda.gov .

Public participation will be limited to written statements, unless permission is received from the Committee Chairman to orally address the Committee. The meeting will be open to the public.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication of program information or related accommodations should contact Terri Henry, at the telephone number listed above.

The reporting requirements contained in this notice have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0575-0045.

The Military Construction Appropriations and Emergency Hurricane Supplemental Appropriations, 2005, Public Law 108-324 (October 13, 2004), made available $5,000,000 for the provision of low-rent housing and related facilities for domestic farm labor, as authorized by Section 516 of the Housing Act of 1949. Of this amount, up to $3,000,000 may be used for emergency services to assist low-income migrant and seasonal farmworkers, as authorized by section 2281 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990.

This RFP requests applications from eligible applicants for grants to construct or repair section 516 off-farm FLH. The Agency's Farm Labor Housing Program is authorized by the Housing Act of 1949. Grants for the construction or repair of off-farm FLH are authorized by section 516 (42 U.S.C. 1486) of the Housing Act of 1949. Agency regulations for the Farm Labor Housing Program are published at 7 CFR part 1944, subpart D. Eligibility for section 516 off-farm FLH grants is limited to broad-based nonprofit organizations, nonprofit organizations of farmworkers, federally recognized Indian tribes, agencies or political subdivisions of State or local government, and public agencies (such as housing authorities). Housing that is constructed or repaired with these grants must meet the Agency design and construction standards contained in 7 CFR part 1924, subparts A and C. Once constructed, section 516 off-farm FLH must be managed in accordance with the program's management regulation, 7 CFR part 1930, subpart C. Tenant eligibility is limited to “domestic farm laborer”, as defined by 7 CFR part 1944, subpart D, at 7 CFR 1944.153. That definition is “a person who receives a substantial portion of his or her income performing farm labor employment (not self-employed) in the United States, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands and either is a citizen of the United States or resides in the United States, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands after being legally admitted for permanent residence. This definition may include the immediate family members residing with such a person.” The term “farm labor”, as used in the definition of domestic farm labor, includes services in connection with cultivating the soil, raising or harvesting any agriculture or aquaculture commodity; or in catching, netting, handling, planting, drying, packing, grading, storing, or preserving in its unmanufactured state any agriculture or aquaculture commodity; or delivering to storage, market, or a carrier for transportation to market or to processing any agricultural or aquacultural commodity. In addition, section 516 off-farm FLH must be operated on a non-profit basis and tenancy must be open to all qualified domestic farm laborers, regardless of which farm they work at. Rental assistance is not available through this Notice.

This RFP also requests applications for the purpose of providing emergency services to low-income migrant and seasonal farmworkers. Grants for emergency services will be awarded separate and apart from the grants for the construction and repair of section 516 housing and is not subject to the same limitations. Eligibility for grants for emergency services is limited to public agencies or private organizations with tax exempt status under section 501(c)(3) of Title 26 United States Code that have experience in providing emergency services to low-income migrant and seasonal farmworkers where the Secretary of Agriculture determines that a local, state, or national emergency or disaster has caused low-income migrant or seasonal farmworkers to lose income, be unable to work, or to stay at home or return home in anticipation of work shortages. The types of service could include, but are not limited to, assistance in meeting rent or mortgage payments, utility bills, child care, transportation, school supplies, food, repair or rehabilitation of farmworker housing (not restricted to units financed by the Agency), facilities related to farmworker housing such as an infirmary for emergency care of a child care facility, and the construction of new farmworker housing units. A low-income migrant or seasonal farmworker is defined by section 2281 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 as an individual:

(1) Who has, during any consecutive 12 month period within the preceding 24 month period, performed farm work for wages;

(2) Who has received not less than one-half of such individual's total income, or been employed at least one-half of total work time in farm work; and

(3) Whose annual family income within the 12 month period referred to in paragraph (1) does not exceed the higher of the poverty level or 70 percent of the lower living standard income level.

The “lower living standard income level” referred to in paragraph (3) was defined in a Department of Labor, Federal Register Notice entitled “Workforce Investment Act; Lower Living Standard Income Level,” dated June 25, 2004, (69 FR 35679-35685). Copies of that Notice shall be made available on request.

Applicants who seek funding for both the construction or repair of section 516 off-farm FLH and to provide emergency services to low-income migrant and seasonal farmworkers, must submit separate, individual applications for each grant purpose.

The Military Construction Appropriations and Emergency Hurricane Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2005, Public Law 108-324 (October 13, 2004), made available $5,000,000 for the provision of low-rent housing and related facilities for domestic farm labor, as authorized by section 516 of the Housing Act of 1949. Of this amount, up to $3,000,000 may be used for emergency services to assist low-income migrant and seasonal farmworkers, as authorized by section 2281 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990.

Grants to provide emergency services may not exceed $500,000 and may be limited by geographic area so that multiple grant recipients are not providing similar services to the same service areas. Grants for the construction or repair of section 516 off-farm FLH are not limited to $500,000, but the grant may not exceed 90 percent of the total development cost of the housing.

(1) To be eligible to receive a grant for the construction or repair of section 516 off-farm FLH, the applicant must be a broad-based nonprofit organization, a nonprofit organization of farmworkers, a federally recognized Indian tribe, or an agency or political subdivision of a State or local government, or a public agency (such as a housing authority) and:

(a) Be an organization, as defined in 7 CFR 1944.153 with an assured life over a period of years sufficient to carry out the purpose of providing low-rent housing for domestic farm labor. This should not be less than the anticipated useful life of the project as suitable housing for domestic farm labor, assuming proper maintenance and repair of the property. Ordinarily, this should not be less than 50 years.

(b) When the grant is closed, be the owner of the housing and related facilities, including the site.

(c) Be unable to provide the necessary housing from its own resources, including any power to levy taxes, assessments, or charges, and be unable to obtain the necessary credit through a labor housing loan or from other sources upon terms and conditions the applicant could reasonably be expected to fulfill.

(d) Possess the legal and actual capacity, ability, and experience to incur and carry out the undertakings and obligations required, including the obligations to maintain and operate the housing and related facilities for the purpose for which the grant is made.

(e) Legally obligate itself not to divert income from the housing to any other business, enterprise, or purpose.

(f) In addition, eligibility is limited to projects in communities affected by hurricanes and tropical storms in calendar year 2003 or 2004. Applicants must provide documentation to evidence that they meet all of these eligibility requirements.

(2) To be eligible to receive a grant to provide emergency services to low-income migrant and seasonal farmworkers, the applicant must:

(a) Be either a public agency or private organization with tax exempt status under section 501(c)(3) of Title 26 United States Code.

(b) Have experience in providing emergency services to low-income migrant and seasonal farmworkers where the Secretary of Agriculture determines that a local, state, or national emergency or disaster has caused low-income migrant or seasonal farmworkers to lose income, be unable to work, or to stay at home or return home in anticipation of work shortages.

(c) Be limited to projects in communities affected by hurricanes and tropical storms in calendar year 2003 or 2004. Applicants must provide documentation to evidence that they meet all of these eligibility requirements.

Cost sharing or matching. Grants for the construction or repair of section 516 off-farm FLH may not exceed 90 percent of the total development cost. There are no cost sharing or matching requirements for grants for emergency services.

(1) The following policies and regulations apply to grants made in response to this RFP:

(a) The policies and regulations contained in 7 CFR part 1901, subpart E regarding equal opportunity requirements.

(b) The requirements of 7 CFR part 3015, and 7 CFR part 3016 or 7 CFR part 3019 (as applicable), which establish the uniform administrative requirements for grants and cooperative agreements to state and local governments and to non-profit organizations.

(c) The policies and regulations contained in 7 CFR part 1901, subpart F regarding historical and archaeological properties.

(d) The policies and regulations contained in 7 CFR part 1940, subpart G regarding environmental assessments.

(2) The following additional policies and regulations also apply to grants for the construction or repair of section 516 off-farm FLH:

(a) The policies and regulations contained in 7 CFR part 1944, subpart D regarding the grant authorities of the Farm Labor Housing Program.

(b) The policies and regulations contained in 7 CFR part 1924, subpart A regarding planning and construction.

(c) The policies and regulations contained in 7 CFR part 1924, subpart C regarding the planning and performing of site development work.

(e) The policies and regulations contained in 7 CFR part 1930, subpart C regarding the management and supervision of section 516 off-farm FLH.

Applicants who seek funding for both the construction or repair of section 516 off-farm FLH and for emergency services to low-income migrant and seasonal farmworkers, must submit separate, individual applications for each grant purpose.

The application process will be in two phases: the initial preapplication (or proposal) and the submission of a formal application. Only those proposals that are selected for funding will be invited to submit formal applications. In the event that a proposal is selected for further processing and the applicant declines, the next highest ranked unfunded preapplication may be selected. If a preapplication is accepted for further processing, the applicant will be expected to submit the additional information prior to the obligation of grant funds. At the time of final grant approval, the Agency and grant recipients shall enter into a grant agreement.

The preapplication must contain the following:

(1) A summary page listing the following items. This information should be double-spaced between items and not be in narrative form.

(a) Identification of the grant purpose ( i.e., for the construction or repair of section 516 off-farm FLH or for providing emergency services to low-income migrant and seasonal farmworkers). As stated in this Notice, separate, individual applications must be submitted for each grant purpose.

(b) Applicant's name.

(c) Applicant's Taxpayer Identification Number.

(d) Applicant's address.

(e) Applicant's telephone number.

(f) Name of applicant's contact person, telephone number, and address.

(g) Amount of grant requested.

(h) Applicant's Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number. As required by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), all grant applicants must provide a DUNS number when applying for Federal grants, on or after October 1, 2003. Organizations can receive a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS Number request line at 1-866-705-5711. Additional information concerning this requirement is provided in a policy directive issued by OMB and published in the Federal Register on June 27, 2003 (68 FR 38402-38405).

(2) A narrative describing the applicant's ability to meet the eligibility requirements stated in this Notice.

(3) A detailed Statement of Work.

(4) An organizational plan that includes a staffing chart complete with name, job title, salary, hours, timelines, and descriptions of employee duties to achieve the objectives of the grant program.

(5) Organizational documents to evidence the applicant's status as a properly organized private or public nonprofit agency which meets the applicant eligibility requirements and financial statements to evidence the applicant's financial ability to carry out the objectives of the grant program.

(6) A detailed budget plan projecting the monthly and annual expenses the grantee will incur. Costs will be limited to those that are allowed under 7 CFR part 3015, and 7 CFR part 3016 or 3019, as applicable.

(7) Applicants must submit documentation that the community was affected by a hurricane or tropical storm in calendar year 2003 or 2004.

(8) Applicants for grants to provide emergency services to low-income migrant and seasonal farmworkers must include a narrative describing its knowledge, demonstrated ability, or practical experience in delivering direct emergency assistance to low-income migrant and seasonal farmworkers. In addition, to ensure that funds are equitably distributed, and that there is no duplication of efforts on related projects, applicants must clearly identify the geographic area that they intend to serve and provide documentation that they have the experience and ability to service those areas.

(9) Applications for grants to construct or repair section 516 off-farm FLH must also include all of the information, materials, forms, and exhibits required by 7 CFR part 1944, subpart D, as well as comply with the requirements of this Notice. Each application must also include an estimate of development cost utilizing Form RD 1924-13, “Estimate and Certificate of Actual Cost,” and a proposed operating budget utilizing Form RD 1930-7, “Multiple Family Housing Project Budget.” Applicants must provide documentation that there is a pressing need for such facilities and that there is a reasonable doubt that the housing can be provided without the grant assistance.

(10) A separate one-page information sheet listing each of the “Application Scoring Criteria” contained in this Notice, followed by the page numbers of all relevant material and documentation that is contained in the proposal that supports these criteria. Applicant's are also encouraged, but not required, to include a checklist of all of the application requirements and to have their application indexed and tabbed to facilitate the review process.

Grants to provide emergency services may not exceed $500,000 and may be limited by geographic area so that multiple grant recipients are not providing similar services to the same service areas. Grants for emergency services may not be used for pre-award costs.

Grants for the construction or repair of section 516 off-farm FLH are not limited to $500,000, but the grant may not exceed 90 percent of the total development cost of the housing. Grants for the construction or repair of section 516 off-farm FLH is subject to the limitations and conditions listed at 7 CFR 1944.164.

All grants made in response to this Notice are subject to the restrictions contained in 7 CFR parts 3015, 3016, and 3019.

Intergovernmental review. The construction of new section 516 off-farm FLH is subject to the Intergovernmental Review provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.

Submission address. Preapplications should be submitted to USDA—Rural Housing Service; Attention: Douglas H. MacDowell, Multi-Family Housing Processing Division—STOP 0781 (Room 1263-S), 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250-0781.

All applications will be evaluated by a grant committee. The grant committee will make recommendations to the Agency Administrator concerning preliminary eligibility determinations and for the selection of applications for further processing based on the selection criteria contained in this RFP and the availability of funds. The Administrator will inform applicants of the status of their application within 30 days of the closing date of the RFP.

Applications for grants to construct or repair section 516 off-farm FLH will compete against other applications to construct or repair section 516 off-farm FLH. Likewise, applications for grants to provide emergency services to low-income migrant and seasonal farmworkers will compete against other applications for grants for emergency services.

Applications for grants to provide emergency services to low-income migrant and seasonal farmworkers will be evaluated by the types of assistance to be provided. Because the types of assistance may differ depending on the geographic area to be served and the nature of the disaster or emergency experienced, equal weight will be applied to each form of assistance to be rendered.

(1) Applications to provide emergency services to low-income migrant and seasonal farmworkers will be scored on the following basis:

(a) Experience of applicant providing emergency services.

(b) The number of low-income migrant and seasonal farmworkers (as defined in this Notice) affected by the emergency.

(c) The number of low-income migrant and seasonal farmworkers (as defined in this Notice) to be assisted by the proposal.

(d) Economic and social benefits to low-income migrant and seasonal farmworkers (as defined in this Notice) and their families from the services to be provided.

(2) Proposals for construction or repair of section 516 off-farm FLH for domestic farm laborers will be scored on the following basis:

(a) The number of domestic farm laborers (as defined in 7 CFR part 1944, subpart D) that will be provided with decent, safe and sanitary housing as a result of the proposed use of the grant funds.

(b) The degree to which health and safety issues will be addressed through the use of the grant funds.

We preliminarily determine that bottle-grade polyethylene terephthalate resin (“PET resin”) from Thailand is being sold, or is likely to be sold, in the United States at less than fair value, as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The preliminary margin assigned to Thai Shinkong Industry Corporation Ltd. (“Thai Shinkong”) is based on adverse facts available (“AFA”). The estimated margins of sales at less than fair value are shown in the Suspension of Liquidation section of this notice

Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. Since we are postponing the final determination, we will make our final determination not later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination in the Federal Register .

The petitioner in this investigation is the United States PET Resin Producers Coalition (“the petitioner”).

On April 20, 2004, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the initiation of the antidumping duty investigations of imports of PET resin from India, Indonesia, Taiwan, and Thailand. See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Bottle-Grade Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Resin from India, Indonesia, Taiwan, and Thailand, 69 FR 21082 (April 20, 2004) (“ Initiation Notice ”). Since the initiation of the investigation, the following events have occurred.

On May 17, 2004, the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable indication that imports of the products subject to this investigation are materially injuring an industry in the United States producing the domestic like product. See United States International Trade Commission Report on Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from India, Indonesia, Taiwan, and Thailand, Nos. 701-TA-439-440 and 731-TA-1077-1080 (May 17, 2004).

On May 10, 2004, the Department solicited comments from interested parties in all of the concurrent PET Resin antidumping investigations, providing an opportunity to comment on the criteria to be used for model matching. Between May 17 and June 3, 2004, the Department received comments and/or rebuttal comments on model matching from the petitioner, Far Eastern Textiles, Reliance Industries Ltd., South Asian Petrochem Ltd. and P.T. Indorama Synthetics. the Department took these comments into consideration by the Department in developing the model matching characteristics and hierarchy for all of the PET Resin antidumping investigations. See June 9, 2004, memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, Senior Office Director, “Selection of Model Matching Criteria for Purposes of the Antidumping Questionnaire” (“ Model Match Memorandum ”).

On May 20, 2004, the Department selected the two largest producers/exporters of PET resin from Thailand, Bangkok Polyester Public Company Ltd. (“Bangkok Polyester”) and Thai Shinkong, as mandatory respondents in this investigation. 1

On June 9, 2004, the antidumping questionnaire 2 was issued to Thai Shinkong and Bangkok Polyester. During the period July through October 2004, the Department received responses to sections A, B and C of the Department's original and supplemental questionnaires from Bangkok Polyester and Thai Shinkong. See the Use of Facts Otherwise Available section of this notice regarding the Department's rejection of Thai Shinkong's responses. On May 18, 2004, Indo Pet (Thailand) Ltd. (“Indo Pet”) formally requested to be treated as a voluntary respondent in this investigation in response to the Department's invitation to do so in the Respondent Selection Memorandum . On July 26, 2004, Indo Pet withdrew its request for individual examination as a voluntary respondent.

On July 30, 2004, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner made a timely request to postpone the preliminary determination. We granted this request and postponed the preliminary determination until no later than October 20, 2004. See Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Antidumping Duty Determinations: Bottle-Grade Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Resin from India, Indonesia, Taiwan, and Thailand, 69 FR 48842 (August 11, 2004).

On August 10, 2004, the petitioner made an allegation that sales by Bangkok Polyester in Thailand were below the cost of production (“COP”). On August 26, 2004, pursuant to section 7773(b) of the Act, the Department initiated a cost investigation for Bangkok Polyester's Thailand sales of PET Resin. 3 On August 26, 2004, the Department issued a section D questionnaire to Bangkok Polyester. Responses to the questionnaire and supplemental questionnaires were received in September and October 2004.

On October 6, 2004, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(i), the petitioner requested that the Department postpone the final determination in the investigation of PET Resin from Thailand in the event of a negative preliminary determination.

Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), the Department requires that exporters requesting postponement of the final determination also request an extension of the provisional measures referred to in section 733(d) of the Act from a four-month period until not more than six months.

On September 29, 2004, we received a request to postpone the final determination from Bangkok Polyester. In its request, Bangkok Polyester consented to the extension of provisional measures to no longer than six months. Since this preliminary determination is affirmative, and the request for postponement is made by an exporter that accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, and there is no compelling reason to deny the respondent's request, we have extended the deadline for issuance of the final determination until the 135th day after the date of publication of this preliminary determination in the Federal Register and have extended provisional measures to no longer than six months.

The period of investigation (“POI”) is January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003. This period corresponds to the four most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of filing of the petition in March 2004 in accordance with 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

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

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

In accordance with the preamble to our regulations ( see Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage and encouraged all parties to submit comments within 20 calendar days of publication of the Initiation Notice. We did not receive any scope comments from interested parties within the comment period.

Sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), and (D) of the Act provide that the Department shall use facts available when a party withholds information that has been requested by the administering authority under this subtitle; does not provide the Department with information by the established deadline or in the form and manner requested by the Department; significantly impedes a proceeding; or provides such information but the information cannot be verified. In addition, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds that an interested party “has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,” the Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of that party as facts otherwise available in selecting from among the facts available. Such adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from: (1) The petition; (2) A final determination in the investigation under this title; (3) Any previous review under section 751 or determination under 753; or (4) Any other information placed on the record. See 19 CFR 351.308(c).

On June 9, 2004, the Department sent an antidumping questionnaire to Thai Shinkong. Although Thai Shinkong did, as discussed below, submit several questionnaire responses in July and August 2004, on August 31, 2004, the Department informed Thai Shinkong that it was rejecting Thai Shinkong's latest attempt to submit a response to the Department's questionnaire because Thai Shinkong's submission was not in compliance with the filing requirements of the statute and regulations. See letter to Thai Shinkong from John Brinkmann dated August 31, 2004. On the basis of our findings in this investigation, which are detailed below, we have determined that the use of facts otherwise available is appropriate for Thai Shinkong because it has not provided certain information in the form and manner requested.

The Department received Thai Shinkong's first section A response on July 1, 2004. This submission was rejected by the Department because: (1) It was not filed by the Department's deadline of June 30, 2004; (2) The submission was not properly bracketed and marked as either a public or proprietary version; and (3) Thai Shinkong did not include with its submission the correct number of copies of the public and proprietary versions of the submission and the required certificates of service and accuracy. The Department extended the deadline for submitting the section A response until July 16, 2004.

Thai Shinkong resubmitted its section A response on July 16, 2004. This submission was also rejected by the Department because: (1) It was filed under the incorrect case number; (2) It did not contain the correct number of proprietary versions; (3) It did not contain the required public version of section A; (4) Bracketing of business proprietary information was incorrectly identified both on the top of the page and in the text of the actual document; and (5) The Certificate of Service did not list the names of the parties on whom the response was served. The Department further extended the deadline for the section A response to July 26, 2004, to coincide with the due date for Thai Shinkong's responses to sections B and C of the questionnaire.

The Department did not receive an official submission of sections A-C from Thai Shinkong until July 30, 2004, four days after the July 26 deadline. While the Department did receive e-mails on July 24 and 26, 2004, from Thai Shinkong with attached copies of the section A-C submissions, e-mailing is not an acceptable format for filing submissions. The sections A-C responses received by the Department on July 30, 2004, had further problems with correct filing and formatting procedures. While the Department notes that some earlier problems had been corrected, such as filing the correct number of proprietary versions for section A and fixing previously noted bracketing errors, we noted that there were still several consistent errors with the filing of sections A-C: (1) There was no cover page to each section (A, B or C) identifying the case number and whether the attached section was public or proprietary; (2) The Certificates of Service and Accuracy were not provided; (3) Only one copy each of both the public version and proprietary version of Thai Shinkong's responses were submitted to the Department for sections B and C; (4) Page C-32 of what appears to be the public version of section C contained bracketed proprietary information; and (5) The required electronic databases for sections B and C sales were not submitted.

On August 4, 2004, the Department advised Thai Shinkong that it was rejecting Thai Shinkong's July 30, 2004, sections A-C submission as improperly filed, and that it would not be able to consider a revised response in the preliminary determination, then scheduled for August 31, 2004. The Department also informed Thai Shinkong that it would not be able to consider a revised response in the final determination unless received by August 16, 2004. The Department's August 4 letter did note that if the preliminary determination were to be postponed, it may be possible for the Department to consider Thai Shinkong's factual information in that postponed preliminary determination, if any factual information was properly filed with the Department no later than August 16, 2004.

On August 13, 2004, the Department received a timely submission of the sections A-C response from Thai Shinkong. Since the Department had extended the preliminary determination on August 11, 2004, to October 20, 2004, the Department reviewed Thai Shinkong's August 13, 2004, submission for consideration in the extended preliminary determination. While this submission appeared to have corrected some of the filing and bracketing problems previously identified by the Department, several filing problems still remained. Most significantly, while Thai Shinkong did certify that the public version of sections A-C was served to those parties on the administrative protective order service list, it failed to certify that the proprietary version had been served to the parties on that list. The Department was also unable to ascertain by what means these parties had been served, i.e., first class mail or express mail.

On August 16, 2004, the Department sent an e-mail to Thai Shinkong inquiring whether the parties on the APO service list had been served with the August 13 submission and how these documents were sent. 4 The Department received an e-mail response  5 from Thai Shinkong on August 23, 2004, in which Thai Shinkong stated that it only sent the public version of the response to interested parties because its proprietary version contained confidential information. It stated that for that reason, Thai Shinkong only provided the public version of its August 13, 2004, submission to the parties. Thai Shinkong also asserted that it sent the public version of that submission to the petitioner. However, we note that as of August 26, 2004, the petitioner stated it had not received any service of Thai Shinkong's sections A-C response. On August 31, 2004, the Department advised Thai Shinkong that it was rejecting Thai Shinkong's August 13, 2004, submission because of its failure to serve parties on the administrative protective order service list with a proprietary version of the response. The Department also advised Thai Shinkong that it was unable to further extend the deadline for filing the questionnaire responses due to the statutorily mandated deadlines that govern the investigation.

The Department is applying facts available to calculate a dumping margin for Thai Shinkong because Thai Shinkong failed to serve the Proprietary Version of its most recent submission on parties to this proceeding that were authorized to receive this information under an administrative protective order. By failing to provide this information to the interested parties, Thai Shinkong has not provided the requested information in the form and manner requested by the Department's August 16 due date for filing factual information. As a consequence, the petitioner would not have had adequate time to conduct its own analysis and submit comments on Thai Shinkong's factual submission. Moreover, the Department was unable to further extend the filing deadline because there was no longer sufficient time to evaluate interested party comments on Thai Shinkong's response, follow-up with supplemental questions, and conduct a margin analysis by the October 20, 2004, preliminary determination. Therefore, we determine that the Department's calculation of an antidumping margin for Thai Shinkong should be based on facts otherwise available, in accordance with section 776(a)(2) of the Act.

In applying facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use an inference adverse to the interests of a party that has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's requests for information. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (August 30, 2002). Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” See Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, at 870 (1994) (“SAA”). Furthermore, “{a}ffirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.” See Antidumping Countervailing Duties: Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997).

We find that the application of adverse facts available is appropriate because Thai Shinkong has failed to comply with the Department's requests for information and has not acted to the best of its ability. After each of the submissions by Thai Shinkong, the Department sent a detailed letter to Thai Shinkong, which not only specified the deficiencies in the filing, but also provided examples and citations to appropriate sources for rectifying the deficiencies. Filing deadlines were also extended to the maximum extent practicable. However, as described in detail above, each subsequent filing by Thai Shinkong contained significant deficiencies that caused the Department to reject each submission. Therefore, we find that, despite being provided ample opportunities to do so, by not remedying the deficiencies in its responses, Thai Shinkong failed to act to the best of its ability to provide the information requested by the Department.

Where the Department applies adverse facts available because a respondent failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to rely on information derived from the petition, a final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record. See also 19 CFR 351.308(c); SAA at 829-831. Because there are no prior administrative reviews and no other information has been placed on the record, as adverse facts available, we are assigning Thai Shinkong the higher of: (1) The highest margin listed in the notice of initiation; or (2) The margin calculated for any respondent in this investigation.

For adverse facts available, we have selected the margin from the petition, since the margin derived from information in the petition exceed the margin calculated for the mandatory respondent. When using facts otherwise available, section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information (such as the petition) in using facts otherwise available, it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. The SAA clarifies that “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. See SAA at 870. The Department's regulations state that independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. See 19 CFR 351.308(d); see also SAA at 870. As discussed in the October 20, 2004, memorandum from Susan Kuhbach, Senior Office Director to Jeffrey May, Deputy Assistant Secretary, “Preliminary Determination of Polyethylene Terephthalate (“PET”) Resin from Thailand: Corroboration Memorandum” (“ Corroboration Memorandum ”) regarding the corroboration of facts available, we find that the margin of 41.28 percent has probative value. Accordingly, we find that the highest margin, based on petition information and adjusted as described in the Corroboration Memorandum, of 41.28 percent is corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act.

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, all products produced by the respondents covered by the description in the Scope of Investigation section, above, and sold in Thailand during the POI, are considered to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We have relied on four criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison-market sales of the foreign like product: Intrinsic viscosity, blend, copolymer/homopolymer, and additives. See Model Match Memorandum. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed above.

To determine whether sales of PET resin from Thailand were made in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), we compared the export price (“EP”) to the normal value (“NV”), as described in the Export Price and Normal Value sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(I) of the Act, we calculated weighted-average EPs. We compared these to weighted-average home market prices in Thailand. For Bangkok Polyester, we compared all U.S. and home market sales made during the POI, based on the date of issuance of Bangkok Polyester's invoices. We determined this to be the appropriate date of sale because, based on the description of the sales process provided by Bangkok Polyester, the quantity, sales price, and product specifications were frequently renegotiated after the purchase order.

For Bangkok Polyester's price to the United States, we used EP. Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold before the date of importation by the producer or exporter outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, as adjusted under subsection 722(c) of the Act. We calculated Bangkok Polyester's EP based on the packed prices charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. These sales are properly classified as EP sales because they were made outside the United States by the exporter or producer to unaffiliated customers in the United States prior to the date of importation.

In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses where appropriate. These included inland freight and brokerage and handling fees. In accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we have preliminarily added to the starting price the amount of import duties imposed by the Government of Thailand that were rebated upon export of the subject merchandise to the United States. We will verify the terms and conditions of this duty drawback claim for the final determination.

Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price at which the foreign like product is sold in the home market, provided that the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if quantity is inappropriate), that the time of the sales reasonably corresponds to the time of the sale used to determine EP, and that there is no particular market situation that prevents a proper comparison with the EP or CEP. The statute contemplates that quantities (or value) will normally be considered insufficient if they are less than five percent of the aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the subject merchandise to the United States.

We found that Bangkok Polyester had a viable home market for PET resin. As such, Bangkok Polyester submitted home market sales data for purposes calculating NV.

In deriving NV, we made adjustments as detailed in the Calculation of Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices section, below.

Based on allegations contained in the petitioner's August 10, 2004, sales-below-cost allegation with respect to Bangkok Polyester ( See August 10, 2004, letter from the petitioner, “Bangkok Polyester Public Company Limited Sales Below Cost Allegation”), and in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, we found reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that PET resin sales were made in Thailand at prices below the cost of production (“COP”). See August 26, 2004, memorandum to Susan Kubach, Senior Office Director, “Petitioner's Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Bangkok Polyester Public Company Limited.” As a result, the Department has conducted an investigation to determine whether Bangkok Polyester made home market sales at prices below their respective COPs during the POI within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. We conducted the COP analysis described below.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a weighted-average COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for the home market general administrative (“G&A”) expenses, including interest expenses, and packing expenses. We relied on the COP data submitted by Bangkok Polyester in its cost questionnaire response, with the following adjustments: (1) We revised the financial expense ratio to include the net exchange gains; (2) For both the G&A and financial expense ratios, we subtracted Bangkok Polyester's packing expenses from the cost of goods sold denominator. See “Bangkok Polyester Cost Calculation Memorandum,” from Gina Lee to Neal Halper, dated October 20, 2004.

We compared the adjusted weighted-average COP for Bangkok Polyester to its home-market sales prices of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time (i.e., a period of one year) in substantial quantities and whether such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time.

On a model-specific basis, we compared the revised COP to the home market prices, less any applicable movement charges, and direct and indirect selling expenses (which were also deducted from COP).

Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POI were at prices less than the COP, we determined such sales to have been made in “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. In such cases, because we compared prices to POI average costs, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices that would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, we disregarded these home-market sales for Bangkok Polyester.

Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade (“LOT”) as the EP or CEP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. Id.; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997). In order to determine whether the comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market ( i.e., the “chain of distribution”), 6 including selling functions, 7 class of customer (“customer category”), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales ( i.e., NV based on either home market or third country prices,)  8 we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling expenses reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it practicable, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales only, if an NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP LOT and we are unable to make a LOT adjustment, the Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).

In conducting our LOT analysis for Bangkok Polyester, we examined the specific types of customers, the channels of distribution, and the company selling practices. Generally, if the reported LOTs are the same, the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party reports LOTs that are different for different categories of sales, the functions and activities may be dissimilar.

We found the following:

Bangkok Polyester reported that it sells PET resin to trading companies and converters (end users) in the home market, and to distributors in the United States. Bangkok Polyester claims that the selling function it performs are limited and do not materially differ among channels of trade or between the U.S. and home market. We examined the information reported by Bangkok Polyester and found that home market sales in both channels of distribution were similar with respect to sales process, freight services, warehouse/inventory maintenance, advertising activities, technical service, and warranty service. Accordingly, we preliminarily find that Bangkok Polyester had only one LOT for its home market sales.

Bangkok Polyester made only EP sales to the United States during the POI. All of Bangkok Polyester's EP sales were made through the same channel of distribution (i.e., sales from the manufacturer to distributors). The EP selling activities do not differ significantly from the home market selling activities. Therefore, we find that the U.S. LOT is similar to the home market LOT and a LOT adjustment is not appropriate. See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

We determined NV for Bangkok Polyester as follows. We made adjustments for any differences in packing and deducted home market movement expenses pursuant to sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. We also adjusted home market prices, where appropriate, by adding or subtracting billing adjustments to home market prices. In addition, where applicable in comparison to EP transactions, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We made COS adjustments for Bangkok Polyester's EP transactions by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales ( i.e. , credit expense) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (i.e., credit expenses).

We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with section 773A of the Act based on exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sale, as obtained from the Federal Reserve Bank (the Department's preferred source for exchange rates).

In accordance with section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify all information relied upon in making our final determination for Bangkok Polyester.

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing the U. S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of all entries of PET resin from Thailand, that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. We are also instructing CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average dumping margin as indicated in the chart below. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of the Department's preliminary affirmative determination. If the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether imports of PET resin from Thailand are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary determination. Interested parties may submit case briefs by the later of 50 days after the date of publication of this notice or one week after the issuance of the verification reports. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(I). Rebuttal briefs, the content of which is limited to the issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days after the deadline for the submission of case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). A list of authorities used, a table of contents, and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. Further, we request that parties submitting briefs and rebuttal briefs provide the Department with a copy of the public version of such briefs on diskette.

In accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, we will tentatively hold the hearing two days after the deadline for submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and in a room to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled date.

Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate in a hearing if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) The number of participants; and (3) A list of the issues to be discussed. At the hearing, oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

The Department will make its final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination.

This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

We preliminarily determine that bottle-grade polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin from India is being sold, or is likely to be sold, in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The preliminary margin assigned to Reliance Industries Limited (Reliance) is based on adverse facts available. The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the Suspension of Liquidation section of this notice.

Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. We will make our final determination not later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination in the Federal Register .

The petitioner in this investigation is the United States PET Resin Producers Coalition (the petitioner).

This investigation was initiated on April 20, 2004. See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Bottle-Grade Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from India, Indonesia, Taiwan, and Thailand , 69 FR 21082 (April 20, 2004) ( Initiation Notice ). Since the initiation of the investigation, the following events have occurred:

The Department of Commerce (the Department) set aside a period for all interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. See Initiation Notice , 69 FR 21083. No comments were received from respondents or the petitioner.

The Department issued a letter on May 10, 2004, to interested parties in all of the concurrent PET resin antidumping investigations, providing an opportunity to comment on the Department's proposed model match characteristics and its hierarchy of characteristics. On May 17, 2004, the Department received comments on model matching from the petitioner, Reliance, South Asia Petrochem Ltd. (SAPL), Far Eastern Textiles and P.T. Indorama Synthetics. The Department took these comments were taken into consideration in developing the model matching characteristics and hierarchy for all of the PET resin antidumping investigations. See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, Senior Director, Re: Selection of Model Matching Criteria for Purposes of the Antidumping Duty Questionnaire (June 9, 2004).

On May 17, 2004, the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable indication that imports of the products subject to this investigation are materially injuring an industry in the United States producing the domestic like product. See United States International Trade Commission Report on Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from India, Indonesia, Taiwan, and Thailand, Nos. 701-TA-439-440 and 731-TA-1077-1080 (May 17, 2004).

On June 9, 2004, the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaire (the questionnaire) to SAPL and Reliance, specifying that the responses to Section A and Sections B and C would be due on June 30 and July 16, 2004, respectively. 1 We received responses to Sections A-C of the questionnaire and issued supplementary questionnaires where appropriate. 2 On July 29, 2004, the petitioner requested that the Department revise the estimated antidumping duty margin used for purposes of initiation in this proceeding from 35.51 to 52.54 percent. On July 30, 2004, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner made a timely request to postpone the preliminary determination. We granted this request and postponed the preliminary determination until no later than October 20, 2004. See Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Antidumping Duty Determinations: Bottle-Grade Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Resin from India, Indonesia, Taiwan, and Thailand , 69 FR 48842 (August 11, 2004).

On August 11, 2004, the petitioner alleged that sales made by SAPL in India were below the cost of production (COP). On September 1, 2004, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, the Department initiated a cost investigation for SAPL's Indian sales of PET Resin.

See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, Senior Office Director, Re: Investigation of Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from India: Petitioner's Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for South Asia Petrochem Ltd (September 1, 2004). On August 19, 2004, the petitioner alleged that sales made by Reliance in India were below the COP. On September 3, 2004, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, the Department initiated a cost investigation for Reliance's Indian sales of PET Resin. See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, Senior Office Director, Re: Investigation of Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from India: Petitioner's Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Reliance Industries Ltd (September 3, 2004). On September 24, 2004, Reliance withdrew from this proceeding and did not submit a response to Section D of the questionnaire.

Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if,

in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), the Department requires that exporters requesting postponement of the final determination also request an extension of the provisional measures referred to in section 733(d) of the Act from a four-month period until not more than six months.

On October 8, 2004, we received a request to postpone the final determination from SAPL. In its request, SAPL consented to the extension of provisional measures to no longer than six months. Since this preliminary determination is affirmative, the request for postponement is made by an exporter that accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, and there is no compelling reason to deny the respondent's request, we have extended the deadline for issuance of the final determination until the 135th day after the date of publication of this preliminary determination in the Federal Register and have extended provisional measures to no longer than six months.

Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the subject merchandise. Where it is not practicable to examine all known producer/exporters of subject merchandise, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act permits the Department to investigate either: 1) a sample of exporters, producers, or types of products that is statistically valid, based on the information available at the time of selection; or 2) exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume of the subject merchandise that can reasonably be examined.

In its petition, the petitioner identified five producers of PET resin in India. See Petition from the petitioner for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of PET resin from India (March 24, 2004) (the petition). Additionally, on May 28, 2004, the Embassy of India in Washington, D.C., provided the Department with a list of eight Indian producers and four Indian exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States. Based on the imported quantities reported by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), we are satisfied that the record supports the conclusion that SAPL and Reliance are the largest Indian producers that exported the subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation (POI). See Memorandum from Shane Subler, Trade Analyst to the File, Re: Customs and Border Protection Statistics Considered for Purpose of Respondent Selection (May 25, 2004); See , also, Memorandum from Constance Handley, Program Manager to Susan Kuhbach, Senior Office Director, Re: Selection of Respondents (May 12, 2004).

The POI is January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003. This period corresponds to the four most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of filing of the petition in March, 2004, and is in accordance with our regulations. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

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

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

In accordance with the preamble to our regulations, we set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage and encouraged all parties to submit comments within 20 calendar days of publication of the Initiation Notice. See Initiation Notice; See, also, Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule , 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). We did not receive any scope comments from interested parties within the comment period.

Since the initiation of this investigation ( Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Bottle-Grade Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Resin from India, Indonesia, Taiwan, and Thailand , 69 FR 21082 (April 20, 2004) (“ Initiation Notice ”)), the following events have occurred:

On May 10, 2004, we solicited comments from interested parties regarding the criteria to be used for model-matching purposes. We received comments on our proposed matching criteria from the United States PET Resin Producers Coalition (“the petitioner”) and P.T. Indorama Synthetics Tbk (“Indorama”) on May 17, and May 20, 2004, respectively.

On May 24, 2004, we asked the petitioner for clarification of its model-matching comments and its response was provided to the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) on May 26, 2004. On June 9, 2004, the Department adopted the model match criteria and hierarchy for this proceeding. See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, “Selection of Model Matching Criteria for Purposes of the Antidumping Duty Questionnaire,” dated June 9, 2004, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”) in room B-099 of the main Department building. On May 19, 2004, the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable indication that imports of PET resin from Indonesia are materially injuring the United States PET resin industry ( see ITC Investigation Nos. 701-TA-439-440 and 731-TA-1077-1080 (Preliminary) 69 FR 28948 (May 19, 2004)).

On June 4, 2004, we selected the three largest producers/exporters of PET resin from Indonesia (Indorama, P.T. Polypet Karyapersada (“Polypet”), and P.T. SK Keris (“SK Keris”)) as the mandatory respondents in this proceeding. For further discussion, see Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, “Issuance of Questionnaire to Respondents,” dated June 4, 2004 (“ Respondent Selection Memorandum” ), which is on file in the Department's CRU. We subsequently issued the antidumping questionnaire to Indorama, Polypet, and SK Keris on June 9, 2004. 1

On June 25, 2004, the Department received a response from Polypet to section A of the Department's original questionnaire. On July 14, 2004, the Department rejected Polypet's section A response because it was improperly filed. See letter from Judith Wey Rudman to Polypet, dated July 14, 2004. Specifically, its submission lacked certain markings and specifications required by the Department to ensure proper filing. Furthermore, the submission was neither properly bracketed nor marked as either a public or proprietary version. The Department also noted that Polypet did not include the correct number of copies of the public and proprietary versions of the submission, and that the required certificates of service and accuracy were not correctly filed with its submission. Additionally, the submission was not served on the other interested parties in this proceeding.

The Department received the revised section A and original sections B and C of the response on July 21, 2004, but again rejected the submission due to deficiencies in the treatment of business proprietary information. See letter from Judith Wey Rudman to Polypet, dated July 29, 2004. First, we noted that the responses continued to be improperly bracketed under 19 CFR 351.304(b)(1) of the Department's regulations. Second, a “clear and compelling” explanation for Polypet's request to exempt certain information from disclosure under an administrative protective order (“APO”) was not provided in its cover letter, as required by 19 CFR 351.304(b)(2)(i). Third, the responses did not contain a summary of bracketed information in the public version of Polypet's response, as required by 19 CFR 351.304(c)(1). Finally, Polypet did not provide the Department with a copy of the business proprietary version served on parties with APO access.

The Department received the revised sections A-C response from Polypet on August 5, 2004. On August 11, 2004, we called Polypet to explain that the August 5, 2004, submission failed to incorporate the instructions set forth in the Department's July 29, 2004, letter. See Memo to the File, “Telephone Conversation with Polypet,” dated August 11, 2004. On August 12, 2004, the Department rejected as improperly filed Polypet's August 5, 2004, sections A-C submission. See letter from Julie H. Santoboni to Polypet, dated August 12, 2004. In that letter, the Department also notified Polypet that it had until August 23, 2004, to file a proper submission, including an explanation for its request for proprietary treatment, appropriate bracketing of business proprietary information, and service of the proprietary and correctly summarized public versions of its submission on parties included on the APO service list. The Department advised Polypet that failure to file a response in accordance with the Department's regulations might lead to the use of adverse facts available under section 776 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) and section 351.308 of the Department's regulations for the preliminary determination, as well as the final determination.

The Department received Polypet's revised sections A-C response on August 24, 2004. On August 31, 2004, we spoke with Polypet's chief executive officer and explained that the Department was rejecting Polypet's latest submission. See Memo to the File, “Telephone Conversation with Polypet,” dated August 31, 2004. On August 31, 2004, we again rejected Polypet's response citing the company's failure to bracket certain business proprietary information in accordance with the Department's regulations. Specifically, Polypet did not agree to release certain sales information under an APO to interested parties in this proceeding. Moreover, Polypet again did not provide a clear and compelling explanation of the need to withhold such information from disclosure under an APO. We informed Polypet that the Department was unable to further extend the deadline for filing the questionnaire responses because, due to statutorily mandated deadlines that govern the investigation, there was no longer sufficient time to evaluate a properly filed response, follow up with supplemental questions, and conduct a margin analysis by the October 20, 2004, preliminary determination. Moreover, the petitioner would not have adequate time to conduct its own analysis and submit comments on Polypet's factual submission. See letter from Susan Kuhbach to P.T. Polypet Karyapersada, dated August 31, 2004. On September 15, 2004, at the request of Polypet, a meeting was held with Department officials and a representative of Polypet to discuss the rejection by the Department of Polypet's questionnaire response. See Memorandum to the File, dated September 15, 2004.

In July 2004, the Department received responses to sections A, B, and C of the Department's original questionnaire from Indorama. The Department did not receive a response to the questionnaire from SK.

On July 30, 2004, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner made a timely request to postpone the preliminary determination. We granted this request and postponed the preliminary determination until no later than October 20, 2004. See Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Antidumping Duty Determinations: Bottle-Grade Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Resin from India, Indonesia, Taiwan, and Thailand , 69 FR 48842 (August 11, 2004).

On August 10, 2004, the petitioner made an allegation of sales below the cost of production (“COP”) against sales of PET resin from Indonesia with respect to Indorama. On August 25, 2004, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, the Department initiated a cost investigation of Indorama's Indonesian sales of PET resin. See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, “United States PET Resin Producers Coalition's Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for P.T. Indorama Synthetics Tbk,” dated August 25, 2004, which is on file in the CRU. Also, on August 25, 2004, the Department informed Indorama that it was required to respond to section D of the Department's questionnaire. The Department received Indorama's response to section D of the Department's questionnaire on September 13, 2004.

The Department issued supplemental questionnaires for sections A, B, and C in August and September 2004, and received responses from Indorama in August, September, and October 2004. A supplemental section D questionnaire was issued on September 21, 2004, and Indorama's response was received on October 5, 2004.

On October 12, 2004, the petitioner submitted comments with respect to the upcoming preliminary determination.

Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination under section 733(b), a request can be made by the petitioner. On October 6, 2004, the petitioner requested that the Department postpone its final determination until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination in the Federal Register in the event of a negative determination or de minimis margins. In accordance with 735(a)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(i) and (ii) of the Department's regulations, (1) because our preliminary determination is affirmative, and (2) the Department has not received a request for postponement from exporters or producers who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, we are not granting the petitioner's request to postpone the final determination.

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

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

In accordance with our regulations, we set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage and encouraged all parties to submit comments within 20 calendar days of publication of the Initiation Notice.

We received no comments from the interested parties.

The period of investigation (“POI”) is January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003. This period corresponds to the four most recent fiscal quarters prior to the filing of the petition on March 24, 2004.

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party withholds information requested by the Department, fails to provide such information by the deadline or in the form or manner requested, significantly impedes a proceeding, or provides information which cannot be verified, the Department shall use, subject to sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Section 782(d) of the Act provides that if the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the Department's request, the Department shall promptly inform the responding party and provide an opportunity to remedy the deficient submission. Section 782(e) of the Act further states that the Department shall not decline to consider submitted information if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The information is submitted by the established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can be used without undue difficulties.

Section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act requires the Department to use facts otherwise available when a party does not provide the Department with information by the established deadline or in the form and manner requested by the Department. In applying facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use an inference adverse to the interests of a party that has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's requests for information. See , e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil , 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (August 30, 2002). Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” See Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, at 870 (1994) (“SAA”). Furthermore, “affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.” See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule , 62 FR 27355 (May 19, 1997) and Nippon Steel v. U.S., 337 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Where the Department applies adverse facts available (“AFA”) because a respondent failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to rely on information derived from the petition, a final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record. See also 19 CFR 351.308(c); SAA at 829-831.

As explained in the “Background” section of this notice, SK Keris did not respond to our June 9, 2004, antidumping questionnaire. Pursuant to 776(a) of the Act, in reaching our preliminary determination, we have used total facts available for SK Keris because it is a mandatory respondent and did not respond to our June 9, 2004, antidumping questionnaire. Moreover, because SK Keris failed to respond, in whole, or in part, to our request for information and thus did not put forth its maximum effort as required by the questionnaire, we have found that it failed to cooperate to best to its ability. Therefore, pursuant to 776(b) of the Act, we have used an adverse inference in selecting from the facts available the margin for this company. See Memorandum from Susan Kuhbach to Jeffery May, “Preliminary Determination of Polyethylene Terephthalate (“PET”) Resin from Indonesia: Corroboration Memorandum,” dated October 20, 2004 (“ Corroboration Memorandum ”).

Regarding Polypet, the Department rejected its questionnaire responses because Polypet failed to meet the filing requirements of the statute and the Department's regulations. Specifically, the company failed to serve parties on the APO service list with a proper business proprietary version of the questionnaire response. Additionally, Polypet repeatedly filed questionnaire responses with double brackets, without providing a clear and compelling reason why the information could not be released under an APO. Despite our repeated attempts to allow Polypet to correct for the filing deficiencies, the company failed to do so. See “Background” section, above. Therefore, in accordance with section 776(a) of the Act and section 351.308(c) of the Department's regulations, in reaching our preliminary determination, we have used total facts available for Polypet because the information necessary to calculate a margin for Polypet is not on the record. See Corroboration Memorandum.

The Department also finds that Polypet did not cooperate to the best of its ability because it did not seek our guidance in its attempts to provide us with acceptable responses and it ignored the instructions we provided the company on how to file its response. Moreover, Polypet did not put forth its maximum effort to answer the questionnaire and therefore, pursuant to 776(b) of the Act, we have used an adverse inference in selecting from the facts available for the margin for Polypet.

Because there are no prior administrative reviews and no other information has been placed on the record, as AFA, we are assigning Indorama and SK Keris the higher of: (1) The highest margin listed in the notice of initiation; or (2) the margin calculated for any respondent in this investigation. For AFA, we have selected the margin from the petition, since the margin derived from information in the petition exceeds the margin calculated for the remaining mandatory respondent. When using facts otherwise available, section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information (such as the petition), it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. The SAA clarifies that “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. See SAA at 870.

Our analysis of the petitioner's methodology for calculating the export price (“EP”) and normal value (“NV”) in the petition is discussed in the initiation notice. See Initiation Notice. To corroborate the petitioner's EP and NV calculations, we compared the prices and expenses used to the source documents upon which the petitioner's methodology was based as well as information submitted in Indorama's questionnaire response.

As discussed in the Corroboration Memorandum, we found that the EP and NV information in the petition was reasonable and, therefore, we preliminarily determine that the information has probative value. Accordingly, we find that the highest margin based on that information, 27.61 percent, is corroborated within the meaning of 776(c) of the Act. Therefore, for the preliminary determination, we have applied a margin of 27.61 percent to SK Keris and Polypet. Because these are preliminary margins, the Department will consider all margins on the record at the time of the final determination for the purpose of determining the most appropriate margin for these companies.

To determine whether sales of PET resin from Indonesia to the United States were made at less than fair value (“LTFV”), we compared the EP and constructed export price (“CEP”) to the NV, as described in the “Export Price and Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we compared POI weighted-average EPs and CEPs to NVs. Any specific changes to the EP, CEP, or NV calculations are discussed in the October 20, 2004, calculation memorandum for Indorama, which is on file in the CRU (“ Calculation Memorandum ”).

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced and sold by the respondent in the home market during the POI that fit the description in the “Scope of Investigation” section of this notice to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We compared U.S. sales to sales of identical merchandise made in the home market, where possible. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade.

We have relied on four criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison-market sales of the foreign like product: (1) Intrinsic viscosity; (2) blend; (3) copolymer/homopolymer; and (4) additives.

In its questionnaire responses, Indorama reported home market sales using invoice date as the date of sale. For U.S. sales with selling terms of free on board (FOB”) and cost, insurance and freight (“CIF”), Indorama reported the invoice date as the date of sale. For U.S. sales with selling terms of delivered duties paid (“DDP”), Indorama reported the sales contract date as the date of sale, because of the time lag between sales contract date (where the quantity and price were established) and the invoice date. Based on the description of the sales process provided by Indorama, we have used invoice date as the date of sale for all sales, with the exception of U.S. DDP sales. For U.S. DDP sales, we preliminarily determine that price and quantity ( i.e., the material terms of sale) are established at the time of the sales contract. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i), we have relied on the sales contract date for U.S. DDP sales.

For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, EP or CEP, as defined in sections 772(a) and 772(b) of the Act, respectively. Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold before the date of importation by the producer or exporter outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, as adjusted under subsection 722(c) of the Act.

Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under subsections 772(c) and (d) of the Act.

We calculated EP and CEP, as appropriate, based on the prices charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. We classified certain sales as EP sales because they were made outside the United States by the exporter or producer to unaffiliated customers in the United States prior to the date of importation. We also found that the respondent made CEP sales during the POI. These sales are properly classified as CEP sales because these sales were made to unaffiliated customers after importation into the United States.

We based EP on the DDP, CIF, or FOB price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We identified the starting price, where appropriate, by accounting for rebates, where applicable. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight (plant to port), international freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. inland freight from port to warehouse, U.S. warehousing expense, U.S. inland freight from warehouse to unaffiliated customer. See Calculation Memorandum.

We based CEP on the DDP price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We identified the starting price, by accounting for rebates, where applicable. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight (plant to port), international freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. inland freight from port to warehouse, U.S. warehousing expense, U.S. inland freight from warehouse to unaffiliated customer. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses (commissions and credit expenses), and inventory carrying costs. Where applicable, we made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.

Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price at which the foreign like product is sold in the home market, provided that the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if quantity is inappropriate), that the time of the sales reasonably corresponds to the time of the sale used to determine EP or CEP, and that there is no particular market situation that prevents a proper comparison with the EP or CEP. The statute contemplates that quantities (or value) will normally be considered insufficient if they are less than five percent of the aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the subject merchandise to the United States. Because Indorama's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we preliminarily determine that the home market was viable.

In deriving NV, we made adjustments as detailed in the “Calculation of Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices” and “Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value” sections, below.

As noted above, based on our analysis of an allegation made by the petitioner on August 10, 2004, we found that there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of PET resin in the home market were made at prices below the COP. Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, we initiated a company-specific sales-below-cost investigation to determine whether sales of PET resin were made at prices below the COP.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a weighted-average COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and administrative (“G&A”) expenses, interest expenses, and home market packing costs.

We relied on COP information submitted by Indorama in its cost questionnaire responses, except for the following adjustments:

We recalculated the G&A expense rate based upon Indorama's unconsolidated income statement. See Cost Analysis Memorandum from Trinette Ruffin to Neal Halper, dated October 20, 2004 (“ Indorama's Cost Analysis Memorandum ”). We also recalculated the net financial expense rate based upon Indorama's consolidated income statement. See Indorama's Cost Analysis Memorandum.

On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-average COP for Indorama to its home market sales of PET resin, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether the sale prices were below the COP. The prices were adjusted for any applicable billing adjustments, rebates, movement charges, and indirect selling expenses. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices less than the COP, we examined whether such sales were made (1) within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and (2) at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(1), where less than 20 percent of the respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product, because we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we determine that the below-cost sales represent “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, we also determine whether such sales were made at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act. If so, we disregard the below-cost sales.

We found that, because less than 20 percent of Indorama's home market sales within an extended period of time were made at prices below the COP, we are not excluding any sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade (“LOT”) as the EP or CEP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. Id. ; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa , 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997). In order to determine whether the comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market ( i.e. , the “chain of distribution”), 2 including selling functions, 3 class of customer (“customer category”), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying LOTs for EP and comparison market sales ( i.e. , NV based on either home market or third country prices  4 ), we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling expenses reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States , 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it practicable, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales only, if an NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP LOT and we are unable to make an LOT adjustment, the Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa , 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).

We obtained information from Indorama regarding the marketing stages involved in making the reported home market and U.S. sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by Indorama for each channel of distribution. Indorama reported that it sells to different types of customers in the home market, and to end users and traders to the United States. Indorama reported a single LOT in the home market and has not requested an LOT adjustment. We examined the information reported by Indorama and found that home market sales to all customer categories were identical with respect to sales process, freight services, warehouse/inventory maintenance, advertising activities, technical service, and warranty service. Accordingly, we preliminarily find that Indorama had only one LOT for its home market sales.

Indorama made both EP and CEP sales to the United States during the POR. Both the EP and CEP sales were made through the same channel of distribution ( i.e. , sales from the manufacturer directly to the customer). The EP and CEP selling activities do not differ from the home market selling activities. Therefore, we find that the U.S. LOT is similar to the home market LOT and an LOT adjustment or a CEP offset is not necessary. See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

We calculated NV based on ex-factory or delivered prices to unaffiliated customers. We identified the correct starting price, where appropriate, by accounting for billing adjustments and rebates. We made adjustments for differences in packing in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act. We also made adjustments for the following movement expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act: foreign inland freight (from plant to customer) expenses and inland insurance expenses. In addition, where appropriate, we made adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act for differences in circumstances of sale for imputed credit expenses and imputed inventory carrying costs. We also made adjustments, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses incurred in the comparison market or on U.S. sales where commissions were granted on sales in one market but not in the other (the commission offset).

We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the home market sales and U.S. sales, where appropriate, as certified by the Federal Reserve.

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we will verify all information to be used in making our final determination.

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise from Indonesia, except imports of subject merchandise produced and exported by Indorama which has a de minimis rate, that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds the EP or CEP, as indicated in the chart below. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

All companies that we examined have either a de minimis margin or rates based on total AFA. Therefore, for purposes of determining the all-others rate and pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act, we have calculated a simple average of the three margin rates we have determined in the investigation.

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our determination. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Case briefs for this investigation must be submitted to the Department no later than 50 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination or one week after the issuance of the last verification report, whichever is later. Rebuttal briefs must be filed five days after the deadline for submission of case briefs. A list of authorities used, a table of contents, and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes.

Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will hold a public hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a hearing is requested by an interested party. If a request for a hearing is made in this investigation, the hearing will tentatively be held two days after submission of the rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.

Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days of the publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs.

If this investigation proceeds normally, we will make our final determination within 75 days of this preliminary determination.

This determination is published pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i) of the Act.

On September 27, 2004, the Department received a timely request from CST, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), for a new shipper review of the AD order on certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon quality steel products from Brazil, which has a September semiannual anniversary month. See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from Brazil, 67 FR 11093 (March 12, 2002).

As required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i) and (iii)(A), CST certified that it did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”), and that it has never been affiliated with any exporter or producer who exported subject merchandise during the POI. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), the company submitted documentation establishing the date on which it first shipped the subject merchandise to the United States. CST indicated in its request that because it sold the subject merchandise to an unaffiliated customer, it could not provide the Department with documentation establishing the exact date of entry. See submission from Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP on behalf of Companhia Siderrgica de Tubaro to the Department regarding Request for New Shipper Review, dated September 27, 2004 (“NSR Request”). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), CST also submitted documentation establishing the volume of the shipment and the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. Both the date of shipment and the date of sale of the subject merchandise fall in the March 1, 2004, through August 31, 2004, period of review. See NSR Request.

In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d), and based on record information and our analysis of proprietary import data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), we find that CST has met the Department's requirements for initiating an AD new shipper review. See New Shipper Initiation Checklist on file in Import Administration's Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Herbert H. Hoover Building, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW. Therefore, we are initiating a new shipper review for CST. We intend to issue the preliminary results of this new shipper review not later than 180 days after initiation of this review. See 19 CFR 351.214(i).

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(B), the POR for a new shipper review, initiated in the month following the semiannual anniversary month, will be the six-month period immediately preceding the semiannual anniversary month. Therefore, the POR for this new shipper review is:

We will instruct CBP to allow the importer, until the completion of the review, to post a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for each entry of the subject merchandise produced and exported by the above-listed company, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(e). Because CST certified that it both produced and exported the subject merchandise, the sale of which is the basis for this new shipper review request, we will permit the bonding privilege only with respect to entries of subject merchandise for which CST is both the producer and exporter.

Interested parties that need access to proprietary information in this new shipper review should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306.

This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d).

We preliminarily determine that imports of PET Resin from Taiwan are not being sold, or are not likely to be sold, in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the Suspension of Liquidation section of this notice.

Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. Since we are postponing the final determination, we will make our final determination not later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination in the Federal Register .

The petitioner in this investigation is the United States PET Resin Producers Coalition (the petitioner). 1

This investigation was initiated on April 13, 2004. See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Bottle-Grade Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Resin from India, Indonesia, Taiwan, and Thailand , 69 FR at 21082 (April 20, 2004) ( Initiation Notice ). Since the initiation of the investigation, the following events have occurred.

The Department of Commerce (the Department) set aside a period for all interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. See Initiation Notice , 69 FR at 21083. No responses were received.

On May 10, 2004, the Department issued a letter providing interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Department's proposed model match characteristics and its hierarchy of characteristics. Between May 17, 2004, and June 3, 2004, the Department received comments and/or rebuttal comments on model matching from the petitioner, Far Eastern Textiles, Reliance Industries Ltd., South Asian Petrochem Ltd. and P.T. Indorama Synthetics. The Department took these comments into consideration in developing the model matching characteristics and hierarchy for all of the PET Resin antidumping investigations.

On May 19, 2004, the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable indication that imports of the products subject to this investigation are materially injuring an industry in the United States producing the domestic like product. See Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Resin from India, Indonesia, Taiwan, and Thailand , 69 FR at 28948 (May 19, 2004) (ITC Preliminary Determination).

On June 9, 2004, the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaire to Far Eastern Textile Ltd. (Far Eastern), specifying that the responses to Section A and Sections B-C would be due on June 30, 2004, and July 16, 2004, respectively. 2 We received responses to Sections A-C of the antidumping questionnaire and issued supplemental questionnaires where appropriate. On August 3, 2004, we received an allegation of sales below cost from the petitioner. On September 1, 2004, pursuant to section 732(e) of the Act, the Department initiated a cost investigation for Far Eastern's Taiwanese sales of PET Resin. 3 Far Eastern submitted its response to Section D on September 24, 2004.

On June 30, 2004, the petitioner requested that the Department postpone the preliminary determination in this investigation. Because there were no compelling reasons to deny the request, we postponed the preliminary determination to October 20, 2004, under section 733(c)(1) of the Act. See Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Antidumping Duty Determinations: Bottle-Grade Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Resin from India, Indonesia, Taiwan, and Thailand , 69 FR 48842, (August 11, 2004).

Section 735(a)(2)(B) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. On October 6, 2004, we received a request to postpone the final determination from the petitioner, the United States PET Resin Producers Coalition. Since this preliminary determination is negative, and there is no compelling reason to deny the petitioner's request, we have extended the deadline for issuance of the final determination until the 135th day after the date of publication of this preliminary determination in the Federal Register .

Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the subject merchandise. Where it is not practicable to examine all known producers/exporters of subject merchandise, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act permits the Department to investigate either: 1) a sample of exporters, producers, or types of products that is statistically valid, based on the information available at the time of selection; or 2) exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume of the subject merchandise that can reasonably be examined. In the petition, the petitioner identified three potential producers and exporters of PET Resin in Taiwan: Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corporation, Far Eastern, and Hualon Corporation.

The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 7, 2004, that the meeting of the Judges Panel will be closed pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, as amended by section 5(c) of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409. The meeting, which involves examination of Award applicant data from U.S. companies and a discussion of this data as compared to the Award criteria in order to recommend Award recipients, may be closed to the public in accordance with section 552b(c)(4) of Title 5, United States Code, because the meetings are likely to disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person which is privileged or confidential.

The Federal Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries regulations at 50 CFR 648.75(b) authorize the Regional Administrator of the Northeast Region, NMFS, to specify in the Federal Register a vendor from whom cage tags, required under the fishery management plan, shall be purchased. Notice is hereby given that National Band and Tag Company of Newport, Kentucky, is the authorized vendor of cage tags required for the year 2005 Federal surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries. Detailed instructions for purchasing these cage tags will be provided in a letter to allocation owners in these fisheries within the next several weeks.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0501.

Title: Section 76.206, Candidate Rates; Section 76.1611, Political Cable Rates and Classes of Time.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 5,375.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 to 10 hours.

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

Total Annual Burden: 139,750 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: Section 315 of the Communications Act directs cable operators to charge political candidates the “lowest unit charge of the station” for the same class and amount of time for the same period, during the 45 days preceding a primary or runoff election and the 60 days preceding a general or special election.

47 CFR 76.206 and 76.1611 require cable system operators to disclose and make available to candidates all discount privileges available to commercial advertisers. In addition, §§ 76.206 and 76.1611 require cable systems to disclose any station practices offered to commercial advertisers that enhance the value of advertising spots and different classes of time: immediately preemptible, preemptible with notice, fixed, fire sale, and make good. Section 76.206 also requires cable systems to calculate the lowest unit charge. Furthermore, cable systems are required to review their advertising records throughout the election period to determine whether compliance with this section requires that candidates receive rebates or credits.

The disclosures assure candidates that they are receiving the same lowest unit charge as other commercial advertisers.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0502.

Title: Section 73.1942, Candidate Rates.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 12,977.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 to 20 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping; On occasion, semi-annual, and annual reporting requirements; Third party disclosure.

Total Annual Burden: 733,201 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: Section 315(b) of the Communications Act directs broadcast stations to charge political candidates the “lowest unit charge of the station” for the same class and amount of time for the same period, during the 45 days preceding a primary or runoff election and the 60 days preceding a general or special election.

47 CFR 73.1942 requires broadcast licensees to disclose and make available to candidates all discount privileges available to commercial advertisers. In addition, § 73.1942 requires broadcast licensees to disclose any station practices offered to commercial advertisers that enhance the value of advertising spots and different classes of time (immediately preemptible, preemptible with notice, fixed, fire sale, and make good). Section 73.1942 also requires licensees to calculate the lowest unit charge. Stations are also required to review their advertising records throughout the election period to determine whether compliance with this section requires that candidates receive rebates or credits.

The disclosures assure candidates that they are receiving the same lowest unit charge as other commercial advertisers.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0184.

Title: Section 73.1740, Minimum Operating Schedule.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 368.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 184 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: 47 CFR section 73.1740 requires licensees of commercial broadcast stations to notify the FCC in Washington, DC, when events beyond their control make it impossible to continue operation or to adhere to the required operating schedules set forth in this section. In addition, the FCC must be notified when normal operation is resumed. No further authority is needed for limited operation or discontinued operation for a period not exceeding 30 days. Should events beyond the licensees control make it impossible for compliance within the required 30-day time period, an informal written request shall be submitted to the FCC requesting the amount of additional time that the licensee deems necessary. The data is used by FCC staff to authorize temporarily a limited operation or a discontinuance of operation.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0798.

Title: FCC Application for Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Radio Service Authorization.

Form No.: FCC Form 601.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions, individuals or household, and State, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 250,520.

Estimated Time per Response: 1.25 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement, recordkeeping requirement, third party disclosure requirement, and other 10 years reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 219,205 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $50,104,000.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: Yes.

Needs and Uses: FCC Form 601 is a consolidated, multi-part application or “long form” for market-based licensing and site-by-site licensing in the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's (WTB) Radio Services' Universal Licensing System (ULS).

The information is used by the Commission to determine whether the applicant is legally, technically and financially qualified to be licensed.

The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau will be making changes to FCC Form 601 based on:

(1) FCC 04-135—Adopted 6/10/2004—Released 7/29/2004.

(a) Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74 and 101 of the Commission's rules to Facilitate the Provision of Fixed and Mobile Broadband Access, Educational and Other Advanced Services in the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands, WT Docket No. 03-66, RM-10586.

(b) Part 1 of the Commission's Rules—Further Competitive Bidding Procedures, WT Docket No. 03-67.

(c) Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and the Instructional Television Fixed Service Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions, MM Docket no. 97-217.

(d) Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission's Rules with Regard to Licensing in the Multipoint Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service for the Gulf of Mexico, WT Docket No. 02-68, RM-9718.

(e) Promoting Efficient Use of Spectrum through Elimination of Barriers to the Development of Secondary Markets, WT Docket No. 00-230.

(2) FCC 04-168—Adopted 7/8/2004—Released 8/6/2004.

(a) Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, WT Docket 02-55.

(b) Consolidating the 800 and 900 MHz Industrial/Land Transportation and Business Pool Channels, ET Docket No. 00-258.

(c) Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, including Third Generation Wireless Systems, RM-9498.

(d) Petition for Rule Making of the Wireless Information Networks Forum Concerning the Unlicensed Personal Communications Service, RM-10024.

(e) Petition for Rule Making of UT Starcom, Inc., concerning the Unlicensed Personal Communications Service, ET Docket No. 95-18.

(f) Amendment of Section 2.106 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate Spectrum at 2 GHz for use by the Mobile Satellite Service, ET Docket No. 95-18.

(3) FCC 04-23—Adopted 2/4/2004—Released 2/12/2004.

(a) Review of Quiet Zones Application Procedures, WT Docket No. 01-319. There is no change to the estimated average burden and number of respondents at this time as it is unknown as to how many additional respondents may partake in the changes required due to the adoptions of the above noted Report & Orders.

This is a summary of the Auction No. 58 Procedures Public Notice released on September 16, 2004, and the public notice released October 15, 2004, rescheduling the upcoming auction and certain pre-auction events and deadlines. In light of the Commission's decision in the Memorandum Opinion and Order , FCC 04-249, released October 15, 2004, the Bureau rescheduled the start date and the pre-auction dates and deadlines for Auction No. 58 in order to provide additional time for bidder preparation and planning. The Bureau originally provided more than six months for bidders to prepare for Auction No. 58, which normally should provide more than sufficient time for planning purposes. Requests to amend or waive the Commission's eligibility rules for certain broadband PCS licenses, however, created some uncertainty regarding whether such licenses would be available in open or closed bidding. Now that a final decision has been made on those matters, the Commission therefore believes a slight modification to its auction schedule is warranted. The complete text of the Auction No. 58 Procedures Public Notice , including attachments, as well as related Commission documents, are available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The Auction No. 58 Procedures Public Notice and related Commission documents may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (“BCPI”), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20554, telephone 202-488-5300, facsimile 202-488-5563, or you may contact BCPI at its Web site: http://www.BCPIWEB.com . The Auction No. 58 Procedures Public Notice and related documents are also available on the Internet at the Commission's Web site: http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/58/ .

1. The Auction No. 58 Procedures Public Notice , announces the procedures and minimum opening bids for the upcoming auction of licenses in the broadband personal communication services (“PCS”) scheduled for January 26, 2005 (Auction No. 58). On June 18, 2004, in accordance with the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (“WTB”) released a public notice seeking comment on reserve prices or minimum opening bids and the procedures to be used for the auction of broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 58. The Bureau released a second public notice on August 3, 2004, revising the list of licenses available and seeking comment on procedures for the auction of those licenses. The Bureau received 19 comments and five reply comments in response to the Auction No. 35 Comment Public Notice , 65 FR 55243, September 13, 2000, and no comments in response to the Auction No. 58 Revised Inventory Public Notice , 69 FR 49897, August 12, 2004.

2. Auction No. 58 includes licenses for A, C, D, E, and F blocks of broadband PCS spectrum. This auction will be the fifth auction of C block broadband PCS spectrum and the fourth auction of F block broadband PCS spectrum. The Commission initially designated the C and F block licenses to be held only by those entities that qualified as “entrepreneurs” under the Commission's rules. Specifically, only those entities that qualified as entrepreneurs could bid on the C and F block licenses and hold the licenses for the first five years following the date of the initial license grant. The initial C block licenses were awarded through two auctions, Auction No. 5, which ended on May 6, 1996, and Auction No. 10, which concluded on July 16, 1996. Auction No. 11, the initial F block auction, ended on January 14, 1997, and also included D and E block licenses. Auction No. 22, which concluded on April 15, 1999, made available C, E and F block licenses that had been returned to, or reclaimed by, the Commission.

3. In 2000, the Commission revised certain service and auction rules for the C and F block licenses. Among the modifications to the Commission's rules, the C/F Block Sixth Report and Order , 65 FR 53624, September 5, 2000, reconfigured the size of 30 megahertz C block licenses available for auction, creating three 10 megahertz licenses. The Commission also removed the entrepreneur eligibility restrictions for some C block licenses. It did so by first establishing two categories for licenses: Tier 1 being comprised of those Basic Trading Areas (BTAs) with populations that, according to the 1990 census, are equal to or greater than 2.5 million and Tier 2 being comprised of the remaining BTAs. The Commission then established “open bidding” ( i.e. , bidding without entrepreneur eligibility restrictions) for two of the three newly reconfigured 10 megahertz C block licenses in Tier 1 and for one of the three newly reconfigured 10 megahertz C block licenses in Tier 2. The remaining 10 megahertz C block licenses in Tier 1 and 2 were reserved for entrepreneurs. Finally, with respect to available 15 megahertz C block licenses, the Commission eliminated eligibility restrictions for such licenses in Tier 1, but maintained the eligibility requirements in Tier 2.

4. Following the adoption of the C/F Block Sixth Report and Order , the Commission held Auction No. 35, which included 422 C and F block broadband PCS licenses. Certain of the licenses won at auction, however, were not granted because the spectrum was the subject of litigation and/or bankruptcy proceedings. Recent settlement in a number of those matters has made C and F block spectrum available again for licensing. This spectrum, along with spectrum associated with other licenses that cancelled or were otherwise returned to the Commission, is now included in the inventory for Auction No. 58.

5. Additionally, following the announcement of Auction No. 58, CTIA—The Wireless Association  TM (“CTIA”) filed a petition for rulemaking, or in the alternative, a request for waiver of the eligibility restrictions placed on certain C block licenses (“CTIA Petition”). This petition was placed on public notice and will be addressed in a proceeding separate from the instant one which is intended to establish procedures for the conduct of Auction No. 58. The eligibility issue raised in the CTIA Petition was also addressed in nearly all of the comments filed pursuant to the Auction No. 58 Comment Public Notice , as well as in the Verizon Wireless petition for reconsideration. As explained in more detail below, this issue is beyond the scope of that public notice and will be addressed separately. Accordingly, unless the Commission decides otherwise, the current eligibility structure for C block licenses ( i.e. , closed bidding for certain C block licenses by only those entities that qualify as entrepreneurs) will remain in effect for Auction No. 58.

6. Auction No. 58 will offer 242 broadband PCS licenses. A complete list of the licenses available in Auction No. 58 and their description is included in Attachment A of the Auction No. 58 Procedures Public Notice .

7. While most licenses are available to all bidders in open bidding, 119 C block licenses are available only to entrepreneurs in closed bidding. In order to qualify as an “entrepreneur,” an applicant, together with its affiliates and persons or entities that hold interests in the applicant and their affiliates, must have had gross revenues of less than $125 million in each of the last two years and must have less than $500 million in total assets.

8. For C and F block licenses available in open bidding, bidding credits are available to small and very small businesses, or consortia thereof, as defined in the Commission's rules. Specifically, an entity will be considered a small business if it, together with its affiliates, has less than $40 million in average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years. An entity will be considered a very small business if it, together with its affiliates, has less than $15 million in average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years. Small business and very small business bidding credits are not available for C block licenses won in closed bidding or for licenses in the A, D, or E blocks.

9. The following table contains the block/eligibility status/frequency cross-reference list for Auction No. 58:

10. In some cases, licenses are available for only part of a market or may not include all of the spectrum associated with a particular frequency block in Auction No. 58. Dark gray boxes indicate that no license of the particular tier/frequency block combination will be available in Auction No. 58. See Attachment A of the Auction No. 58 Procedures Public Notice to determine which licenses will be offered.

11. Prospective applicants must familiarize themselves thoroughly with the Commission's rules relating to broadband PCS, contained in Title 47, part 24, of the Code of Federal Regulations, and those relating to application and auction procedures, contained in Title 47, part 1, of the Code of Federal Regulations. Prospective applicants must also be thoroughly familiar with the procedures, terms and conditions (collectively, “terms”) contained in the Auction No. 58 Procedures Public Notice; the Auction No. 58 Comment Public Notice; the Auction No. 58 Revised Inventory Public Notice; the C/F Block Sixth Report and Order, (as well as any other prior and subsequent Commission proceedings regarding competitive bidding procedures).

12. The terms contained in the Commission's rules, relevant orders, and public notices are not negotiable. The Commission may amend or supplement the information contained in our public notices at any time, and will issue public notices to convey any new or supplemental information to applicants. It is the responsibility of all applicants to remain current with all Commission rules and with all public notices pertaining to this auction.

13. To ensure the competitiveness of the auction process, § 1.2105(c) of the Commission's rules prohibits applicants for any of the same geographic license areas from communicating with each other during the auction about bids, bidding strategies, or settlements unless such applicants have identified each other on their FCC Form 175 applications as parties with whom they have entered into agreements under § 1.2105(a)(2)(viii). Thus, applicants for any of the same geographic license areas must affirmatively avoid all discussions with each other that affect, or in their reasonable assessment have the potential to affect, bidding or bidding strategy. This prohibition begins at the short-form application filing deadline and ends at the down payment deadline after the auction. This prohibition applies to all applicants regardless of whether such applicants become qualified bidders or actually bid. For purposes of this prohibition, § 1.2105(c)(7)(i) defines applicant as including all controlling interests in the entity submitting a short-form application to participate in the auction, as well as all holders of partnership and other ownership interests and any stock interest amounting to 10 percent or more of the entity, or outstanding stock, or outstanding voting stock of the entity submitting a short-form application, and all officers and directors of that entity.

14. Applicants for licenses in any of the same geographic license areas are encouraged not to use the same individual as an authorized bidder. A violation of the anti-collusion rule could occur if an individual acts as the authorized bidder for two or more competing applicants, and conveys information concerning the substance of bids or bidding strategies between the applicants he or she is authorized to represent in the auction. A violation could similarly occur if the authorized bidders are different individuals employed by the same organization ( e.g. , law firm or consulting firm). In such a case, at a minimum, applicants should certify on their applications that precautionary steps have been taken to prevent communication between authorized bidders and that applicants and their bidding agents will comply with the anti-collusion rule. However, the Bureau cautions that merely filing a certifying statement as part of an application will not outweigh specific evidence that collusive behavior has occurred, nor will it preclude the initiation of an investigation when warranted.

15. The Commission's anti-collusion rules allow applicants to form certain agreements during the auction, provided the applicants have not applied for licenses covering the same geographic areas. In addition, applicants that apply to bid for all markets will be precluded from communicating with all other applicants until after the down payment deadline. However, all applicants may enter into bidding agreements before filing their FCC Form 175, as long as they disclose the existence of the agreement(s) in their Form 175. If parties agree in principle on all material terms prior to the short-form filing deadline, those parties must be identified on the short-form application pursuant to § 1.2105(c), even if the agreement has not been reduced to writing. If the parties have not agreed in principle by the filing deadline, an applicant would not include the names of those parties on its application, and may not continue negotiations. By signing their FCC Form 175 short-form applications, applicants are certifying their compliance with § 1.2105(c).

16. Section 1.65 of the Commission's rules requires an applicant to maintain the accuracy and completeness of information furnished in its pending application and to notify the Commission within 30 days of any substantial change that may be of decisional significance to that application. Thus, § 1.65 requires auction applicants that engage in communications of bids or bidding strategies that result in a bidding agreement, arrangement or understanding not already identified on their short-form applications to promptly disclose any such agreement, arrangement or understanding to the Commission by amending their pending applications. In addition, § 1.2105(c)(6) requires all auction applicants to report prohibited discussions or disclosures regarding bids or bidding strategy to the Commission in writing immediately but in no case later than five business days after the communication occurs, even if the communication does not result in an agreement or understanding regarding bids or bidding strategy that must be reported under § 1.65.

17. A summary listing of documents issued by the Commission and the Bureau addressing the application of the anti-collusion rules may be found in Attachment G of the Auction No. 58 Procedures Public Notice .

18. The FCC makes no representations or warranties about the use of this spectrum for particular services. Applicants should be aware that an FCC auction represents an opportunity to become an FCC licensee in this service, subject to certain conditions and regulations. An FCC auction does not constitute an endorsement by the FCC of any particular services, technologies or products, nor does an FCC license constitute a guarantee of business success. Applicants should perform their individual due diligence before proceeding as they would with any new business venture.

19. Applicants are reminded that private and common carrier fixed microwave services (“FMS”) operating in the 1850-1990 MHz band (and other bands) are being relocated to available frequencies in higher bands or to other media. Applicants should become familiar with the status of FMS operation and relocation, and applicable Commission rules and orders, in order to make a reasoned, appropriate decision about their participation in Auction No. 58 and their bidding strategy.

20. Applicants are solely responsible for identifying associated risks and for investigating and evaluating the degree to which such matters may affect their ability to bid on, otherwise acquire, or make use of licenses available in Auction No. 58.

21. Applicants should also be aware that certain pending and future applications (including those for modification), petitions for rulemaking, requests for special temporary authority (“STA”), waiver requests, petitions to deny, petitions for reconsideration, informal oppositions, and applications for review before the Commission may relate to particular applicants or incumbent licensees or the licenses available in Auction No. 58. In addition, pending and future judicial proceedings may relate to particular applicants or incumbent licensees, or the licenses available in Auction No. 58. Applicants are responsible for assessing the likelihood of the various possible outcomes, and considering their potential impact on spectrum licenses available in this auction.

22. Applicants should perform due diligence to identify and consider all proceedings that may affect the spectrum licenses being auctioned. We note that resolution of such matters could have an impact on the availability of spectrum for Auction No. 58. In addition, although the Commission may continue to act on various pending applications, informal objections petitions, and other requests for Commission relief, some of these matters may not be resolved by the time of the auction or by the time of license grant.

23. Applicants may obtain information about licenses available in Auction No. 58 through the Bureau's licensing databases on the World Wide Web at http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls . Applicants may query the database online and download a copy of their search results if desired. Detailed instructions on using License Search (including frequency searches and the GeoSearch capability) and downloading query results are available online by selecting the “?” button at the upper right-hand corner of the License Search screen. Applicants should direct questions regarding the search capabilities to the FCC Technical Support hotline at (202) 414-1250 (voice) or (202) 414-1255 (TTY), or via e-mail at ulscomm@fcc.gov .

24. The Commission makes no representations or guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of information in its databases or any third party databases, including, for example, court docketing systems. To the extent the Commission's databases may not include all information deemed necessary or desirable by an applicant, applicants may obtain or verify such information from independent sources or assume the risk of any incompleteness or inaccuracy in said databases. Furthermore, the Commission makes no representations or guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of information that has been provided by incumbent licensees and incorporated into the database. Applicants are strongly encouraged to physically inspect any sites located in, or near, the service area(s) for which they plan to bid.

25. As is the case with many business investment opportunities, some unscrupulous entrepreneurs may attempt to use Auction No. 58 to deceive and defraud unsuspecting investors. Information about deceptive telemarketing investment schemes is available from the FTC at (202) 326-2222 and from the SEC at (202) 942-7040. Complaints about specific deceptive telemarketing investment schemes should be directed to the FTC, the SEC, or the National Fraud Information Center at (800) 876-7060. Consumers who have concerns about specific proposals regarding Auction No. 58 may also call the FCC Consumer Center at (888) CALL-FCC ((888) 225-5322).

26. Licensees must comply with the Commission's rules regarding the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). The construction of a wireless antenna facility is a federal action and the licensee must comply with the Commission's NEPA rules for each such facility.

27. The auction will begin on Wednesday, January 26, 2005. The initial schedule for bidding will be announced by public notice at least one week before the start of the auction. Unless otherwise announced, bidding on all licenses will be conducted on each business day until bidding has stopped on all licenses.

28. Auction No. 58—Broadband PCS.

29. The bidding methodology for Auction No. 58 will be simultaneous multiple round bidding. The Commission will conduct this auction over the Internet, and telephonic bidding will be available as well. As a contingency plan, bidders may also dial in to the FCC Wide Area Network. Qualified bidders are permitted to bid telephonically or electronically.

30. Listed are important dates associated with Auction No. 58:

Auction Seminar—November 1, 2004.

Short-Form Application (FCC Form 175) Filing Window Opens—November 16, 2004; 9 a.m. ET.

Short-Form Application (FCC Form 175) Filing Window Deadline—November 30, 2004; 6 p.m. ET.

Upfront Payments (via wire transfer)—December 29, 2004; 6 p.m. ET.

Mock Auction—January 21, 2005.

Auction Begins—January 26, 2005.

31. Those wishing to participate in the auction must:

• Submit a short-form application (FCC Form 175) electronically by 6 p.m. ET, November 30, 2004.

• Submit a sufficient upfront payment and an FCC Remittance Advice Form (FCC Form 159) by 6 p.m. ET, December 29, 2004.

• Comply with all provisions outlined in the Auction No. 58 Procedures Public Notice and applicable Commission rules.

32. An electronic copy of any filings that are submitted to the Commission related to Auction No. 58, including filings made with the Commission's Office of the Secretary, should also be submitted by electronic mail to the following address: auction58@fcc.gov.

33. The following is a list of general contact information relating to Auction 58.

34. Guidelines for completion of the short-form (FCC Form 175) are set forth in Attachment D of the Auction No. 58 Procedures Public Notice. All applicants must certify on their FCC Form 175 applicants under penalty of perjury that they are legally, technically, financially and otherwise qualified to hold a license.

35. All applicants must comply with the uniform Part 1 ownership disclosure standards and provide information required by §§ 1.2105 and 1.2112 of the Commission's rules. Specifically, in completing FCC Form 175, applicants will be required to file an “Exhibit A” providing a full and complete statement of the ownership of the bidding entity. The ownership disclosure standards for the short-form are set forth in § 1.2112 of the Commission's rules.

36. Applicants will be required to identify on their short-form applications any parties with whom they have entered into any consortium arrangements, joint ventures, partnerships or other agreements or understandings that relate in any way to the licenses being auctioned, including any agreements relating to post-auction market structure. Applicants will also be required to certify on their short-form applications that they have not entered into any explicit or implicit agreements, arrangements or understandings of any kind with any parties, other than those identified, regarding the amount of their bids, bidding strategies, or the particular licenses on which they will or will not bid.

37. A party holding a non-controlling, attributable interest in one applicant will be permitted to acquire an ownership interest in, form a consortium with, or enter into a joint bidding arrangement with other applicants for licenses in the same geographic license area provided that (i) the attributable interest holder certifies that it has not and will not communicate with any party concerning the bids or bidding strategies of more than one of the applicants in which it holds an attributable interest, or with which it has formed a consortium or entered into a joint bidding arrangement; and (ii) the arrangements do not result in a change in control of any of the applicants. While the anti-collusion rules do not prohibit non-auction related business negotiations among auction applicants, applicants are reminded that certain discussions or exchanges could touch upon impermissible subject matters because they may convey pricing information and bidding strategies.

38. In order to be eligible to bid for one or more closed C block licenses, an applicant must demonstrate that it meets the eligibility requirements of § 24.709(a) of the Commission's rules. 47 CFR 24.709(a). Specifically, as of the FCC Form 175 filing deadline, the applicant, together with its affiliates and persons or entities that hold interests in the applicant and their affiliates, must have combined total assets of less than $500 million and must have had combined gross revenues of less than $125 million in each of the last two years. Id. Applicants should make this showing in “Exhibit C” to the FCC Form 175.

39. The majority of comments filed in response to the Auction No. 58 Comment Public Notice address the eligibility restrictions placed on the C block licenses, referred to as set-aside licenses, reserved to only entities that qualify as entrepreneurs. Some parties advocate a change in the current rules to allow all entities to bid on the set-aside licenses. On the other hand, a number of commenters oppose any change to the eligibility structure, and at least one party advocates a change in the current structure to increase the number of licenses limited to entrepreneurs. The requests made in comments filed to the Auction No. 58 Comment Public Notice to change the eligibility rules are beyond the scope of this public notice regarding the procedures for Auction No. 58. As noted above, the eligibility issue was also raised in a petition for rulemaking and a request for waiver filed by CTIA, and in the Verizon Wireless petition for reconsideration. Those petitions have been addressed separately.

40. Included in its Auction No. 58 comments, another commenter also seeks a waiver of the Commission's rules to extend the expired entrepreneur eligibility provisions of § 24.709(a)(5)(i) to allow it and other entities to participate in closed bidding in Auction No. 58. This matter has also been addressed separately.

41. Bidding credits are available to small and very small businesses, or consortia thereof, (as defined in 47 CFR 24.720(b)) that win C and F block licenses in open bidding. A bidding credit represents the amount by which a bidder's winning bids are discounted. The size of the bidding credit depends on the average of the aggregated annual gross revenues for each of the preceding three years of the bidder, its affiliates, its controlling interests, and the affiliates of its controlling interests.

42. For Auction No. 58, bidding credits will be available to small businesses or consortia thereof, as follows:

• A bidder with attributable average annual gross revenues of not more than $40 million for the preceding three years (“small business”) will receive a 15 percent discount on its winning bids for C and F block licenses;

• A bidder with attributable average annual gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three years (“very small business”) will receive a 25 percent discount on its winning bids for C and F block licenses.

43. Small business bidding credits are not cumulative; a qualifying applicant receives the 15 percent or 25 percent bidding credit on its winning bid, but only one credit per license. No small and very small business bidding credits are provided for licenses in the A, E and D blocks or C block licenses available only to entrepreneurs in closed bidding.

44. To encourage the growth of wireless services in federally recognized tribal lands the Commission has implemented a tribal land bidding credit. See section V.E. of the Auction No. 58 Procedures Public Notice.

45. Controlling interest standard. On August 14, 2000, the Commission released the Part 1 Fifth Report and Order, 65 FR 52323, August 29, 2000, in which the Commission, inter alia, adopted a “controlling interest” standard for attributing to auction applicants the total assets and/or gross revenues of their investors and affiliates in determining entrepreneur and small business eligibility for future C and F block auctions. The Commission observed that the rule modifications adopted in the various Part 1 orders would result in discrepancies and/or redundancies between certain of the new Part 1 rules and existing service-specific rules, and the Commission delegated to the Bureau the authority to make conforming edits to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) consistent with the rules adopted in the Part 1 proceeding. More recently, the Commission made further modifications to its rules governing the attribution of gross revenues for purposes of determining small business eligibility. These changes included exempting the gross revenues of the affiliates of a rural telephone cooperative's officers and directors from attribution to the applicant if certain specified conditions are met. The Commission also clarified that in calculating an applicant's gross revenues under the controlling interest standard, the personal net worth, including personal income, of its officers and directors will not be attributed to the applicant.

46. The Commission will thoroughly review the information provided in applicants' FCC Form 175 in determining eligibility for designated entity status. Eligibility for small business preferences will be determined based on the attribution rules in effect at the short-form application deadline. Accordingly, the “controlling interest” standard, as recently modified, and the Part 1 rules that superseded inconsistent service-specific rules, will apply in Auction No. 58.

47. “Control” for purposes of controlling interest standard. The term “control” includes both de facto and de jure control of the applicant. Typically, ownership of at least 50.1 percent of an entity's voting stock indicates de jure control. De facto control is determined on a case-by-case basis. The following are some common indicia of de facto control:

• The entity constitutes or appoints more than 50 percent of the board of directors or management committee;

• The entity has authority to appoint, promote, demote, and fire senior executives that control the day to-day activities of the licensee; or

• The entity plays an integral role in management decisions.

48. Attribution for entrepreneur eligibility. For purposes of determining which entities qualify as entrepreneurs for closed bidding, the Commission will consider the total assets and gross revenues of the applicant, its controlling interest holders, the affiliates of the applicant, and their controlling interest holders. The Commission does not impose specific equity requirements on parties with controlling interests. Once principals or entities with a controlling interest are determined, only the assets and revenues of those principals or entities, the applicant, and their affiliates will be counted in determining entrepreneur eligibility. Applicants for closed bidding in Auction No. 58 should not include existing C and F block licenses in their calculations of total assets; however, all other Commission licenses must be included in such calculations.

49. Attribution for small business and very small business eligibility. Similarly, in determining which entities qualify as small businesses or very small businesses, the Commission will consider the gross revenues of the applicant, its affiliates, its controlling interests, and the affiliates of its controlling interests. The Commission does not impose specific equity requirements on controlling interest holders. Once the principals or entities with a controlling interest are determined, only the revenues of those principals or entities, the affiliates of those principals or entities, and the applicant and its affiliates, will be counted in determining small business eligibility.

50. A consortium of small businesses or very small businesses is a “conglomerate organization formed as a joint venture between or among mutually independent business firms,” each of which individually must satisfy one of the definitions of small business or very small business in § 24.720(b) of the Commission's rules.

51. Applicants should note that they will be required to file supporting documentation to their FCC Form 175 short-form applications to establish that they satisfy the eligibility requirements to qualify as entrepreneurs and/or small business or very small business (or consortia of small businesses or very small businesses) for this auction.

52. Applicants should further note that submission of an FCC Form 175 application constitutes a representation by the certifying official that he or she is an authorized representative of the applicant, has read the form's instructions and certifications, and that the contents of the application and its attachments are true and correct. Submission of a false certification to the Commission may result in penalties, including monetary forfeitures, license forfeitures, ineligibility to participate in future auctions, and/or criminal prosecution.

53. Entrepreneur eligibility (Exhibit C). Entities applying to bid on closed licenses will be required to disclose on Exhibit C to their FCC Form 175 short-form applications, separately and in the aggregate , the gross revenues for the preceding two years and the total assets of each of the following: (i) The applicant, (ii) the applicant's affiliates, (iii) the applicant's controlling interest holders, and (iv) the affiliates of the applicant's controlling interest holders. Certification that the gross revenues for each of the preceding two years or the total assets do not exceed the applicable limit is not sufficient. The applicant must provide separately for itself, its affiliates, its controlling interest holders, and their affiliates a schedule of gross revenues for each of the preceding two years.

54. Small business or very small business eligibility (Exhibit D). Entities applying to bid as small businesses or very small businesses (or consortia of small businesses or very small businesses) will be required to disclose on Exhibit D to their FCC Form 175 short-form applications, separately and in the aggregate, the gross revenues for the preceding three years of each of the following: (i) The applicant, (ii) its affiliates, (iii) its controlling interests, and (iv) the affiliates of its controlling interests. Certification that the average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years do not exceed the applicable limit is not sufficient. A statement of the total gross revenues for the preceding three years is also insufficient. The applicant must provide separately for itself, its affiliates, its controlling interests, and the affiliates of its controlling interests, a schedule of gross revenues for each of the preceding three years, as well as a statement of total average gross revenues for the three-year period. If the applicant is applying as a consortium of small businesses or very small businesses, this information must be provided for each consortium member.

55. Each applicant must certify on its FCC Form 175 application under penalty of perjury that the applicant, its controlling interests, its affiliates, and the affiliates of its controlling interests, as defined by § 1.2110, are not in default on any payment for Commission licenses (including down payments) and not delinquent on any non-tax debt owed to any Federal agency. In addition, each applicant must attach to its FCC Form 175 application a statement made under penalty of perjury indicating whether or not the applicant, its affiliates, its controlling interests, or the affiliates of its controlling interests, as defined by § 1.2110, have ever been in default on any Commission licenses or have ever been delinquent on any non-tax debt owed to any Federal agency. Applicants must include this statement as Exhibit E to the FCC Form 175.

56. “Former defaulters”— i.e. , applicants, including their attributable interest holders, that in the past have defaulted on any Commission licenses or been delinquent on any non-tax debt owed to any Federal agency, but that have since remedied all such defaults and cured all of their outstanding non-tax delinquencies—are eligible to bid in Auction No. 58, provided that they are otherwise qualified. However, as discussed infra in section III.D.iii, former defaulters are required to pay upfront payments that are fifty percent more than the normal upfront payment amounts.

57. Licenses won in closed bidding generally may be transferred or assigned only to an entity that meets the entrepreneur financial caps or that holds another C or F block license that it acquired while meeting the entrepreneur financial caps. This restriction ends five years after the date of the initial license grant or upon notification by the licensee that it has satisfied its five-year construction requirement under 47 CFR 24.203(c), whichever comes first. Licenses won in open bidding are not subject to this restriction and may be transferred or assigned any time after grant to any qualified entity, subject to Commission consent.

58. C or F block licensees that use a small or very small business bidding credit, and during the first five years of their license term seek to assign or transfer control of a license to an entity that does not meet the eligibility criteria for a small or very small business bidding credit, or that is eligible for a lower bidding credit, will have to reimburse the U.S. Government for a percentage of the amount of the bidding credit, plus interest.

59. Installment payment plans will not be available in Auction No. 58.

60. Applicants owned by minorities or women, as defined in 47 CFR 1.2110(c)(2), may attach an exhibit (Exhibit F) regarding this status. This applicant status information is collected for statistical purposes only and assists the Commission in monitoring the participation of “designated entities” in its auctions. Applicants wishing to submit additional information may do so on Exhibit G.

61. After the short-form filing deadline (6 p.m. ET November 30, 2004), applicants may make only minor changes to their FCC Form 175 applications. Applicants will not be permitted to make major modifications to their applications ( e.g. , change their license selections, change the certifying official, change control of the applicant, or change bidding credits). See 47 CFR 1.2105. Permissible minor changes include, for example, deletion and addition of authorized bidders (to a maximum of three) and revision of exhibits. Applicants should make these modifications to their FCC Form 175 electronically and submit a letter, briefly summarizing the changes, by electronic mail to the attention of Margaret Wiener, Chief, Auctions and Spectrum Access Division, at the following address: auction58@fcc.gov . The electronic mail summarizing the changes must include a subject or caption referring to Auction No. 58. The Bureau requests that parties format any attachments to electronic mail as Adobe® Acrobat® (pdf) or Microsoft® Word documents.

62. Section 1.65 of the Commission's rules requires an applicant to maintain the accuracy and completeness of information furnished in its pending application and to notify the Commission within 30 days of any substantial change that may be of decisional significance to that application. Amendments reporting substantial changes of possible decisional significance in information contained in FCC Form 175 applications, as defined by 47 CFR 1.2105(b)(2), will not be accepted and may in some instances result in the dismissal of the FCC Form 175 application. An electronic copy of any filings that are submitted to the Commission related to Auction No. 58, including filings made with the Commission's Office of the Secretary, should also be submitted by electronic mail to the following address: auctions58@fcc.gov .

63. On Monday, November 1, 2004, the FCC will sponsor a seminar for Auction No. 58 at the Federal Communications Commission, located at 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The seminar will provide attendees with information about pre-auction procedures, auction conduct, the FCC Automated Auction System, auction rules, and the broadband PCS rules.

64. For individuals who are unable to attend, Audio/Video of this seminar will be Web cast live from the FCC's Audio/Video Events page at http://www.fcc.gov/realaudio/ . A recording of the Web cast will also be available for playback from the FCC's A/V Archives Page following the meeting.

65. In order to be eligible to bid in this auction, applicants must first submit an FCC Form 175 application. This application must be submitted electronically and received at the Commission no later than 6 p.m. ET on November 30, 2004. Late applications will not be accepted.

66. There is no application fee required when filing an FCC Form 175. However, to be eligible to bid, an applicant must submit an upfront payment. See section III.D.

67. Applicants must file their FCC Form 175 applications electronically. Applications may generally be filed at any time beginning at 9 a.m. ET on November 16, 2004, until 6 p.m. ET on November 30, 2004. Applicants are strongly encouraged to file early and are responsible for allowing adequate time for filing their applications. Applicants may update or amend their electronic applications multiple times until the filing deadline on November 30, 2004.

68. Applicants must press the “SUBMIT Application” button on the “Submission” page of the electronic form to successfully submit their FCC Form 175s. Any form that is not submitted will not be reviewed by the FCC. Information about accessing the FCC Form 175 is included in Attachment C of the Auction No. 58 Procedures Public Notice . Technical support is available at (202) 414-1250 (voice) or (202) 414-1255 (text telephone (TTY)); hours of service are Monday through Friday, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. ET. In order to provide better service to the public, all calls to the hotline are recorded .

69. Applicants should carefully review 47 CFR 1.2105, and must complete all items on the FCC Form 175. Instructions for completing the FCC Form 175 are in Attachment D of the Auction No. 58 Procedures Public Notice .

70. The FCC Form 175 electronic review system may be used to locate and print applicants' FCC Form 175 information. There is no fee for accessing this system. See Attachment C of the Auction No. 58 Procedures Public Notice for details on accessing the review system.

71. Applicants may also view other applicants' completed FCC Form 175s after the filing deadline has passed and the FCC has issued a public notice explaining the status of the applications.

72. After the deadline for filing the FCC Form 175 applications has passed, the FCC will process all timely submitted applications to determine which are acceptable for filing, and subsequently will issue a public notice identifying: (i) Those applications accepted for filing; (ii) those applications rejected; and (iii) those applications which have minor defects that may be corrected, and the deadline for filing such corrected applications.

73. In order to be eligible to bid in the auction, applicants must submit an upfront payment accompanied by an FCC Remittance Advice Form (FCC Form 159). After completing the FCC Form 175, filers will have access to an electronic version of the FCC Form 159 that can be printed and faxed to Mellon Bank in Pittsburgh, PA. All upfront payments must be received at Mellon Bank by 6 p.m. ET on December 29, 2004. Failure to deliver the upfront payment by the December 29, 2004, deadline will result in dismissal of the application and disqualification from participation in the auction.

74. Wire transfer payments must be received by 6 p.m. ET on December 29, 2004. To avoid untimely payments, applicants should discuss arrangements (including bank closing schedules) with their banker several days before they plan to make the wire transfer, and allow sufficient time for the transfer to be initiated and completed before the deadline.

75. Applicants must fax a completed FCC Form 159 (Revised 2/03) to Mellon Bank at (412) 209-6045 at least one hour before placing the order for the wire transfer (but on the same business day). On the cover sheet of the fax, write “Wire Transfer—Auction Payment for Auction Event No. 58.” In order to meet the Commission's upfront payment deadline, an applicant's payment must be credited to the Commission's account by the deadline. Applicants are responsible for obtaining confirmation from their financial institution that Mellon Bank has timely received their upfront payment and deposited it in the proper account.

76. In the Part 1 Order, 62 FR 13540 (March 21, 1997), the Commission delegated to the Bureau the authority and discretion to determine appropriate upfront payment(s) for each auction. In addition, in the Part 1 Fifth Report and Order, the Commission ordered that “former defaulters,” i.e. , applicants that have ever been in default on any Commission license or have ever been delinquent on any non-tax debt owed to any Federal agency, be required to pay upfront payments 50 percent greater than non-“former defaulters.” For purposes of this calculation, the “applicant” includes the applicant itself, its affiliates, its controlling interests, and affiliates of its controlling interests, as defined by § 1.2110 of the Commission's rules (as amended in the Part 1 Fifth Report and Order ).

77. The amount of the upfront payment will determine the number of bidding units on which a bidder may place bids. In order to bid on a license, otherwise qualified bidders that applied for that license on Form 175 must have an eligibility level that meets or exceeds the number of bidding units assigned to that license. At a minimum, therefore, an applicant's total upfront payment must be enough to establish eligibility to bid on at least one of the licenses applied for on Form 175, or else the applicant will not be eligible to participate in the auction. An applicant does not have to make an upfront payment to cover all licenses for which the applicant has applied on Form 175, but rather to cover the maximum number of bidding units that are associated with licenses on which the bidder wishes to place bids and hold high bids at any given time.

78. For Auction No. 58 the Commission adopts upfront payments on a license-by-license basis using a formula based on bandwidth and license area population: $0.05 * MHz * License Area Population.

79. The specific upfront payments and bidding units for each license are set forth in Attachment A of the Auction No. 58 Procedures Public Notice.

80. In calculating its upfront payment amount, an applicant should determine the maximum number of bidding units on which it may wish to be active (bidding units associated with licenses on which the bidder has the standing high bid from the previous round and licenses on which the bidder places a bid in the current round) in any single round, and submit an upfront payment covering that number of bidding units. In order to make this calculation, an applicant should add together the upfront payments for all licenses on which it seeks to bid in any given round. Applicants should check their calculations carefully, as there is no provision for increasing a bidder's maximum eligibility after the upfront payment deadline.

81. Former defaulters should calculate their upfront payment for all licenses by multiplying the number of bidding units they wish to purchase by 1.5. In order to calculate the number of bidding units to assign to former defaulters, the Commission will divide the upfront payment received by 1.5 and round the result up to the nearest bidding unit.

82. The Commission will use wire transfers for all Auction No. 58 refunds. To ensure that refunds of upfront payments are processed in an expeditious manner, the Commission is requesting that all pertinent information as listed be supplied to the FCC. Applicants can provide the information electronically during the initial short-form filing window after the form has been submitted. Wire Transfer Instructions can also be manually faxed to the FCC, Financial Operations Center, Auctions Accounting Group, ATTN: Gail Glasser, at (202) 418-2843 by December 29, 2004. All refunds will be returned to the payer of record as identified on the FCC Form 159 unless the payer submits written authorization instructing otherwise.

83. Approximately ten days before the auction, the FCC will issue a public notice announcing all qualified bidders for the auction. Qualified bidders are those applicants whose FCC Form 175 applications have been accepted for filing and have timely submitted upfront payments sufficient to make them eligible to bid on at least one of the licenses for which they applied.

84. All qualified bidders are automatically registered for the auction. Registration materials will be distributed prior to the auction by two separate overnight mailings, one containing the confidential bidder identification number (BIN) and the other containing the SecurID cards, both of which are required to place bids. These mailings will be sent only to the contact person at the contact address listed in the FCC Form 175.

85. Qualified bidders that do not receive both registration mailings will not be able to submit bids. Therefore, any qualified bidder that has not received both mailings by noon on Wednesday, January 5, 2005, should contact the Auctions Hotline at (717) 338-2888. Receipt of both registration mailings is critical to participating in the auction, and each qualified bidder is responsible for ensuring it has received all of the registration material.

86. Qualified bidders should note that lost bidder identification numbers or SecurID cards can be replaced only by appearing in person at the FCC headquarters, located at 445 12th St., SW., Washington, DC 20554. Only an authorized representative or certifying official, as designated on an applicant's FCC Form 175, may appear in person with two forms of identification (one of which must be a photo identification) in order to receive replacements. Qualified bidders requiring replacements must call technical support prior to arriving at the FCC.

87. The Commission will conduct this auction over the Internet, and telephonic bidding will be available as well. As a contingency plan, bidders may also dial in to the FCC Wide Area Network. Qualified bidders are permitted to bid telephonically or electronically. Each applicant should indicate its bidding preference—electronic or telephonic—on the FCC Form 175. In either case, each authorized bidder must have its own SecurID card, which the FCC will provide at no charge. Each applicant with one authorized bidder will be issued two SecurID cards, while applicants with two or three authorized bidders will be issued three cards. For security purposes, the SecurID cards and the FCC Automated Auction System user manual are only mailed to the contact person at the contact address listed on the FCC Form 175. Please note that each SecurID card is tailored to a specific auction; therefore, SecurID cards issued for other auctions or obtained from a source other than the FCC will not work for Auction No. 58. The telephonic bidding phone number will be supplied in the first overnight mailing, which also includes the confidential bidder identification number.

88. All qualified bidders will be eligible to participate in a mock auction on Friday, January 21, 2005. The mock auction will enable applicants to become familiar with the FCC Automated Auction System prior to the auction. Participation by all bidders is strongly recommended.

89. The first round of bidding for Auction No. 58 will begin on Wednesday, January 26, 2005. The initial bidding schedule will be announced in a public notice listing the qualified bidders, which is released approximately 10 days before the start of the auction.

90. The Bureau will award all licenses in Auction No. 58 in a simultaneous multiple round auction. The Bureau concludes that it is operationally feasible and appropriate to auction the PCS licenses through a simultaneous multiple round auction. Unless otherwise announced, bids will be accepted on all licenses in each round of the auction. This approach, we believe, allows bidders to take advantage of synergies that exist among licenses and is administratively efficient.

91. The amount of the upfront payment submitted by a bidder would determine the initial (maximum) eligibility (as measured in bidding units) for each bidder.

92. Note again that each license is assigned a specific number of bidding units equal to the upfront payment listed in Attachment A of the Auction No. 58 Procedures Public Notice on a bidding unit per dollar basis. The total upfront payment defines the maximum number of bidding units on which the applicant will be permitted to bid and hold high bids in a round. As there is no provision for increasing a bidder's eligibility after the upfront payment deadline, applicants are cautioned to calculate their upfront payments carefully. The total upfront payment does not affect the total dollar amount a bidder may bid on any given license.

93. In order to ensure that the auction closes within a reasonable period of time, an activity rule requires bidders to bid actively throughout the auction, rather than wait until late in the auction before participating.

94. A bidder's activity level in a round is the sum of the bidding units associated with licenses on which the bidder is active. A bidder is considered active on a license in the current round if it is either the high bidder at the end of the previous bidding round and does not withdraw the high bid in the current round, or if it submits a bid in the current round ( see “Minimum Acceptable Bids and Bid Increments” in section IV.B.iii). The minimum required activity is expressed as a percentage of the bidder's current bidding eligibility, and increases by stage as the auction progresses. Because these procedures have proven successful in maintaining the pace of previous auctions (as set forth under “Auction Stages” in section IV.A.iii and “Stage Transitions” in section IV.A.iv), we adopt them for Auction No. 58.

95. The Commission will conduct the auction in two stages and employ an activity rule. In each round of Stage One, a bidder desiring to maintain its current eligibility would be required to be active on licenses encompassing at least 80 percent of its current bidding eligibility. Finally, in each round of Stage Two, a bidder desiring to maintain its current eligibility would be required to be active on at least 95 percent of its current bidding eligibility.

96. The Bureau reserves the discretion to further alter the activity requirements before and/or during the auction. We also note that the Bureau has other mechanisms by which it may influence the speed of an auction. When determining the bidding schedule, the Bureau takes into consideration the desirability of concluding the auction reasonably swiftly, and the Bureau also attempts to ensure that bidders have sufficient time for placing bids during rounds and for analysis between rounds. For Auction No. 58, the Bureau has already taken steps to adjust bid increments in a manner that should help speed the auction: the Bureau has proposed a maximum percentage increment of 0.3 (30%). This relatively high maximum percentage increment will allow licenses for which there is greater demand— i.e. , those receiving many bids—to rise in price faster than if a lower maximum percentage increment were used. Additionally, the minimum opening bids adopted by the Bureau should help to avoid a protracted auction.

97. The Commission adopts its proposals for the activity rules and stages. Listed are the activity levels for each stage of the auction. The Bureau reserves the discretion to further alter the activity percentages before and/or during the auction.

Stage One: During the first stage of the auction, a bidder desiring to maintain its current eligibility will be required to be active on licenses encompassing at least 80 percent of its current bidding eligibility in each bidding round. Failure to maintain the required activity level will result in a reduction in the bidder's bidding eligibility in the next round of bidding (unless an activity rule waiver is used). During Stage One, reduced eligibility for the next round will be calculated by multiplying the bidder's current activity (the sum of bidding units of the bidder's standing high bids and bids during the current round) by five-fourths (5/4).

Stage Two: During the second stage of the auction, a bidder desiring to maintain its current eligibility is required to be active on 95 percent of its current bidding eligibility. Failure to maintain the required activity level will result in a reduction in the bidder's bidding eligibility in the next round of bidding (unless an activity rule waiver is used). During Stage Two, reduced eligibility for the next round will be calculated by multiplying the bidder's current activity (the sum of bidding units of the bidder's standing high bids and bids during the current round) by twenty-nineteenths (20/19).

Caution: Since activity requirements increase in each auction stage, bidders must carefully check their current activity during the bidding period of the first round following a stage transition. This is especially critical for bidders that have standing high bids and do not plan to submit new bids. In past auctions, some bidders have inadvertently lost bidding eligibility or used an activity rule waiver because they did not re-verify their activity status at stage transitions. Bidders may check their activity against the required activity level by using the bidding system's bidding module.

98. Because the foregoing procedures have proven successful in maintaining proper pace in previous auctions, we adopt them for Auction No. 58.

99. The auction will generally advance to the next stage ( i.e. , from Stage One to Stage Two) when the auction activity level, as measured by the percentage of bidding units receiving new high bids, is below 20 percent for three consecutive rounds of bidding in each Stage. The Bureau will retain the discretion to change stages unilaterally by announcement during the auction.

100. Thus, the Bureau will retain the discretion to regulate the pace of the auction by announcement. This determination will be based on a variety of measures of bidder activity, including, but not limited to, the auction activity level, the percentages of licenses (as measured in bidding units) on which there are new bids, the number of new bids, and the percentage increase in revenue. The Commission believes that these stage transition rules are appropriate for use in Auction No. 58.

101. Each bidder in the auction will be provided three activity rule waivers that may be used in any round during the course of the auction. Use of an activity rule waiver preserves the bidder's current bidding eligibility despite the bidder's activity in the current round being below the required level. An activity rule waiver applies to an entire round of bidding and not to a particular license.

102. The FCC Automated Auction System assumes that bidders with insufficient activity would prefer to use an activity rule waiver (if available) rather than lose bidding eligibility. Therefore, the system will automatically apply a waiver (known as an “automatic waiver”) at the end of any round where a bidder's activity level is below the minimum required unless: (i) There are no activity rule waivers available; or (ii) the bidder overrides the automatic application of a waiver by reducing eligibility, thereby meeting the minimum requirements. If a bidder has no waivers remaining and does not satisfy the required activity level, the current eligibility will be permanently reduced, possibly eliminating the bidder from further bidding in the auction.

103. A bidder with insufficient activity that wants to reduce its bidding eligibility rather than use an activity rule waiver must affirmatively override the automatic waiver mechanism during the round by using the reduce eligibility function in the bidding system. In this case, the bidder's eligibility is permanently reduced to bring the bidder into compliance with the activity rules as described in “Auction Stages” ( see section IV.A.iii discussion). Once eligibility has been reduced, a bidder will not be permitted to regain its lost bidding eligibility.

104. Finally, a bidder may proactively use an activity rule waiver as a means to keep the auction open without placing a bid. If a bidder submits a proactive waiver (using the proactive waiver function in the FCC Automated Auction System) during a round in which no bids are submitted, the auction will remain open and the bidder's eligibility will be preserved. However, an automatic waiver triggered during a round in which there are no new bids or withdrawals will not keep the auction open.

105. For Auction No. 58, the Bureau will employ a simultaneous stopping rule, and retain discretion to invoke a modified version of the stopping rule. The modified version of the stopping rule would close the auction for all licenses after the first round in which no bidder submits a proactive waiver, a withdrawal, or a new bid on any license on which it is not the standing high bidder.

106. In addition, the Bureau reserves the right to declare that the auction will end after a designated number of additional rounds (“special stopping rule”). If the Bureau invokes this special stopping rule, it will accept bids in the final round(s) only for licenses on which the high bid increased in at least one of the preceding specified number of rounds. The Bureau may exercise this option only in circumstances such as where the auction is proceeding very slowly, where there is minimal overall bidding activity or where it appears likely that the auction will not close within a reasonable period of time.

107. By public notice or by announcement during the auction, the Bureau may delay, suspend, or cancel the auction in the event of natural disaster, technical obstacle, evidence of an auction security breach, unlawful bidding activity, administrative or weather necessity, or for any other reason that affects the fair conduct of competitive bidding. In such cases, the Bureau, in its sole discretion, may elect to resume the auction starting from the beginning of the current round, resume the auction starting from some previous round, or cancel the auction in its entirety. Network interruption may cause the Bureau to delay or suspend the auction. We emphasize that exercise of this authority is solely within the discretion of the Bureau, and its use is not intended to be a substitute for situations in which bidders may wish to apply their activity rule waivers.

108. The initial schedule of bidding rounds will be announced in the public notice listing the qualified bidders, which is released approximately 10 days before the start of the auction. Each bidding round is followed by the release of round results. Multiple bidding rounds may be conducted in a given day. Details regarding round results formats and locations will also be included in the qualified bidders public notice.

109. The FCC has discretion to change the bidding schedule in order to foster an auction pace that reasonably balances speed with the bidders' need to study round results and adjust their bidding strategies. The Bureau may increase or decrease the amount of time for the bidding rounds and review periods, or the number of rounds per day, depending upon the bidding activity level and other factors.

110. In establishing minimum opening bids for Auction No. 58, the Bureau adopts the following license-by license formulas based on bandwidth and license area population.

111. The Bureau adopts the minimum opening bids proposed in the Auction No. 58 Comment Public Notice and the Auction No. 58 Revised Inventory Public Notice. By comparing the minimum opening bids proposed in Auction No. 58 only to those of Auction No. 35, commenters have not adequately substantiated their argument that the minimum opening bids are excessive. On average, for the licenses for spectrum that was available in Auction No. 35, the Auction No. 58 minimum opening bids are significantly lower than the net amount of winning bids from Auction No. 35.

112. The minimum opening bids we adopt for Auction No. 58 are reducible at the discretion of the Bureau. We emphasize, however, that such discretion will be exercised, if at all, sparingly and early in the auction, i.e. , before bidders lose all waivers and begin to lose substantial eligibility. During the course of the auction, the Bureau will not entertain requests to reduce the minimum opening bid on specific licenses.

113. The specific minimum opening bids for each license available in Auction No. 58 are set forth in Attachment A of the Auction No. 58 Procedures Public Notice.

114. In Auction No. 58 we will use a smoothing methodology to calculate minimum acceptable bids. The smoothing methodology is designed to vary the increment for a given license between a maximum and minimum percentage based on the bidding activity on that license. This methodology allows the increments to be tailored to the activity on a license, decreasing the time it takes for licenses receiving many bids to reach their final prices. The formula used to calculate this increment is included as Attachment F of the Auction No. 58 Procedures Public Notice. We will initially set the weighting factor at 0.5, the minimum percentage increment at 0.1 (10%), and the maximum percentage increment at 0.3 (30%). Hence, at these initial settings, the percentage increment will fluctuate between 10% and 30% depending upon the number of bids for the license. The Bureau will retain the discretion to change the minimum acceptable bids and bid increments if circumstances so dictate.

115. In each round, each eligible bidder will be able to place a bid on a particular license for which it applied in any of nine different amounts. The FCC Automated Auction System will list the nine bid amounts for each license.

116. Once there is a standing high bid on a license, the FCC Automated Auction System will calculate a minimum acceptable bid for that license for the following round, as described in Attachment F of the Auction No. 58 Procedures Public Notice. The difference between the minimum acceptable bid and the standing high bid for each license will define the bid increment— i.e. , bid increment = (minimum acceptable bid)−(standing high bid). The nine acceptable bid amounts for each license consist of the minimum acceptable bid (the standing high bid plus one bid increment) and additional amounts calculated using multiple bid increments ( i.e. , the second bid amount equals the standing high bid plus two times the bid increment, the third bid amount equals the standing high bid plus three times the bid increment, etc .).

117. At the start of the auction and until a bid has been placed on a license, the minimum acceptable bid for that license will be equal to its minimum opening bid. Corresponding additional bid amounts will be calculated using bid increments defined as the difference between the minimum opening bid times one plus the percentage increment, rounded as described in Attachment F of the Auction No. 58 Procedures Public Notice, and the minimum opening bid— i.e. , bid increment = (minimum opening bid) (1 + percentage increment) {rounded}−(minimum opening bid). At the start of the auction and until a bid has been placed on a license, the nine acceptable bid amounts for each license consist of the minimum opening bid and additional amounts calculated using multiple bid increments ( i.e. , the second bid amount equals the minimum opening bid plus the bid increment, the third bid amount equals the minimum opening bid plus two times the bid increment, etc ).

118. In the case of a license for which the standing high bid has been withdrawn, the minimum acceptable bid will equal the second highest bid received for the license. The additional bid amounts are calculated using the difference between the second highest bid times one plus the minimum percentage increment, rounded, and the second highest bid.

119. The Bureau retains the discretion to change the minimum acceptable bids and bid increments and the methodology for determining the minimum acceptable bids and bid increments if it determines that circumstances so dictate. The Bureau will do so by announcement in the FCC Automated Auction System. The Bureau may also use its discretion to adjust the minimum bid increment without prior notice if circumstances warrant.

120. At the end of each bidding round, the high bids will be determined based on the highest gross bid amount received for each license. A high bid from a previous round is sometimes referred to as a “standing high bid.” A “standing high bid” will remain the high bid until there is a higher bid on the same license at the close of a subsequent round. Bidders are reminded that standing high bids are counted as activity for purposes of the activity rule.

121. In the event of identical high bids on a license in a given round ( i.e. , tied bids) a Sybase® SQL pseudo-random number generator will be used to assign a random number to each bid. The remaining bidders, as well as the high bidder, will be able to submit a higher bid in a subsequent round. If no bidder submits a higher bid in a subsequent round, the high bid from the previous round will win the license. If any bids are received on the license in a subsequent round, the high bid will once again be determined on the highest gross bid amount received for the license.

122. During a round, a bidder may submit bids for as many licenses as it wishes (subject to its eligibility), withdraw high bids from previous bidding rounds, remove bids placed in the same bidding round, or permanently reduce eligibility. Bidders also have the option of making multiple submissions and withdrawals in each round. If a bidder submits multiple bids for a single license in the same round, the system takes the last bid entered as that bidder's bid for the round. Bidders should note that the bidding units associated with licenses for which the bidder has removed or withdrawn its bid do not count towards the bidder's activity at the close of the round.

123. Please note that all bidding will take place remotely either through the FCC Automated Auction System or by telephonic bidding. (Telephonic bid assistants are required to use a script when entering bids placed by telephone. Telephonic bidders are therefore reminded to allow sufficient time to bid by placing their calls well in advance of the close of a round. Normally, five to ten minutes are necessary to complete a bid submission).

124. A bidder's ability to bid on specific licenses in the first round of the auction is determined by three factors: (i) The licenses applied for on FCC Form 175 and (ii) the eligibility restrictions on those licenses, if any, and (iii) the upfront payment amount deposited. The bid submission screens will allow bidders to submit bids on only those licenses for which the bidder applied on its FCC Form 175.

125. In order to access the bidding function of the FCC Automated Auction System, bidders must be logged in during the bidding round using the bidder identification number provided in the registration materials, and the password generated by the SecurID card. Bidders are strongly encouraged to print bid confirmations for each round after they have completed all of their activity for that round.

126. In each round, eligible bidders will be able to place bids on a given license in any of nine different amounts. For each license, the FCC Automated Auction System interface will list the nine acceptable bid amounts in a drop-down box. Bidders may use the drop-down box to select from among the nine bid amounts. The FCC Automated Auction System also includes an import function that allows bidders to upload text files containing bid information.

127. Finally, bidders are cautioned to select their bid amounts carefully because, as explained in the following section, bidders that withdraw a standing high bid from a previous round, even if the bid was mistakenly or erroneously made, are subject to bid withdrawal payments.

128. For Auction No. 58 the Commission adopts bid removal and bid withdrawal procedures. With respect to bid withdrawals, the Commission will limit each bidder to withdrawals in no more than two rounds during the course of the auction. The two rounds in which withdrawals are used would be at the bidder's discretion.

129. Procedures. Before the close of a bidding round, a bidder has the option of removing any bids placed in that round. By using the “remove bid” function in the bidding system, a bidder may effectively “unsubmit” any bid placed within that round. A bidder removing a bid placed in the same round is not subject to withdrawal payments. Removing a bid will affect a bidder's activity for the round in which it is removed, i.e. , a bid that is removed does not count toward bidding activity. These procedures will enhance bidder flexibility during the auction.

130. Once a round closes, a bidder may no longer remove a bid. However, in later rounds, a bidder may withdraw standing high bids from previous rounds using the withdraw bid function in the FCC Automated Auction System (assuming that the bidder has not reached its withdrawal limit). A high bidder that withdraws its standing high bid from a previous round during the auction is subject to the bid withdrawal payments specified in 47 CFR 1.2104(g).

131. The Bureau will limit the number of rounds in which bidders may place withdrawals to two rounds. These rounds will be at the bidder's discretion and there will be no limit on the number of bids that may be withdrawn in either of these rounds. Withdrawals during the auction will be subject to the bid withdrawal payments specified in 47 CFR 1.2104(g). Bidders should note that abuse of the Commission's bid withdrawal procedures could result in the denial of the ability to bid on a market.

132. Calculation. Generally, the Commission imposes payments on bidders that withdraw high bids during the course of an auction. If a bidder withdraws its bid and there is no higher bid in the same or subsequent auction(s), the bidder that withdrew its bid is responsible for the difference between its withdrawn bid and the high bid in the same or subsequent auction(s). In the case of multiple bid withdrawals on a single license, within the same or subsequent auctions(s), the payment for each bid withdrawal will be calculated based on the sequence of bid withdrawals and the amounts withdrawn. No withdrawal payment will be assessed for a withdrawn bid if either the subsequent winning bid or any of the intervening subsequent withdrawn bids, in either the same or subsequent auctions(s), equals or exceeds that withdrawn bid. Thus, a bidder that withdraws a bid will not be responsible for any withdrawal payments if there is a subsequent higher bid in the same or subsequent auction(s).

133. In instances in which bids have been withdrawn on a license that is not won in the same auction, the Commission will assess an interim withdrawal payment equal to 3 percent of the amount of the withdrawn bids. The 3 percent interim payment will be applied toward any final bid withdrawal payment that will be assessed after subsequent auction of the license. The Part 1 Fifth Report and Order provides specific examples showing application of the bid withdrawal payment rule.

134. Bids placed during a round will not be made public until the conclusion of that bidding period. After a round closes, the Bureau will compile reports of all bids placed, bids withdrawn, current high bids, new minimum acceptable bids, and bidder eligibility status (bidding eligibility and activity rule waivers), and post the reports for public access. Reports reflecting bidders' identities for Auction No. 58 will be available before and during the auction. Thus, bidders will know in advance of this auction the identities of the bidders against which they are bidding.

135. The FCC will use auction announcements to announce items such as schedule changes and stage transitions. All FCC auction announcements will be available by clicking a link on the FCC Automated Auction System.

136. After bidding has ended, the Commission will issue a public notice declaring the auction closed and identifying winning bidders, down payments, final payments, and any withdrawn bid payments due.

137. Within ten business days after release of the auction closing notice, each winning bidder must submit sufficient funds (in addition to its upfront payment) to bring its total amount of money on deposit with the Commission for Auction No. 58 to 20 percent of the net amount of its winning bids (gross bids less any applicable small business or very small business bidding credits). In addition, by the same deadline, all bidders must pay any bid withdrawal payments due under 47 CFR 1.2104(g), as discussed in “Bid Removal and Bid Withdrawal,” section IV.B.vi. (Upfront payments are applied first to satisfy any withdrawn bid liability, before being applied toward down payments.)

138. Each winning bidder will be required to submit the balance of the net amount of its winning bids within ten business days after the deadline for submitting down payments.

139. Within ten business days after release of the auction closing notice, winning bidders must electronically submit a properly completed long-form application (FCC Form 601) and required exhibits for each license won through Auction No. 58.

140. At the time it submits its long-form application (FCC Form 601), each winning bidder also must comply with the ownership reporting requirements as set forth in 47 CFR 1.913, 1.919, and 1.2112.

141. A winning bidder that intends to use its license(s) to deploy facilities and provide services to federally recognized tribal lands that are unserved by any telecommunications carrier or that have a telephone service penetration rate equal to or below 70 percent is eligible to receive a tribal land bidding credit as set forth in 47 CFR 1.2107 and 1.2110(f). A tribal land bidding credit is in addition, and separate from, any other bidding credit for which a winning bidder may qualifiy.

142. Any high bidder that defaults or is disqualified after the close of the auction ( i.e. , fails to remit the required down payment within the prescribed period of time, fails to submit a timely long-form application, fails to make full payment, or is otherwise disqualified) will be subject to the payments described in 47 CFR 1.2104(g)(2). In such event the Commission may re-auction the license or offer it to the next highest bidder (in descending order) at its final bid. In addition, if a default or disqualification involves gross misconduct, misrepresentation, or bad faith by an applicant, the Commission may declare the applicant and its principals ineligible to bid in future auctions, and may take any other action that it deems necessary, including institution of proceedings to revoke any existing licenses held by the applicant.

143. All applicants that submit upfront payments but are not winning bidders for a license in Auction No. 58 may be entitled to a refund of their remaining upfront payment balance after the conclusion of the auction. No refund will be made unless there are excess funds on deposit from the applicant after any applicable bid withdrawal payments have been paid. All refunds will be returned to the payer of record, as identified on the FCC Form 159, unless the payer submits written authorization instructing otherwise.

144. Bidders that drop out of the auction completely may be eligible for a refund of their upfront payments before the close of the auction. Qualified bidders that have exhausted all of their activity rule waivers, have no remaining bidding eligibility, and have not withdrawn a high bid during the auction must submit a written refund request. If you have completed the refund instructions electronically, then only a written request for the refund is necessary. If not, the request must also include wire transfer instructions, Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) and FCC Registration Number (FRN). Send refund request to: Federal Communications Commission, Financial Operations Center, Auctions Accounting Group, Gail Glasser, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 1-C864, Washington, DC 20554.

145. Bidders are encouraged to file their refund information electronically using the refund information portion of the FCC Form 175, but bidders can also fax their information to the Auctions Accounting Group at (202) 418-2843. Once the information has been approved, a refund will be sent to the party identified in the refund information.

GSAR clause 552.232-79 requires building services contractors to submit a release of claims before final payment is made. GSA Form 1142, Release of Claims, is the vehicle for this release and standardizes information that eliminates the necessity for contractors to prepare their own release of claims.

Respondents: 2000

Responses Per Respondent: 1

Hours Per Response: .1

Total Burden Hours: 200

OBTAINING COPIES OF PROPOSALS: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405,telephone (202) 208-7312. Please cite OMB Control No.3090-0080, Contract Financing, in all correspondence.

System name: Emergency Management Records (GSA/HRO-9).

System location: The system is the responsibility of the GSA Office of Emergency Management, located at 1800 F Street NW, Washington DC 20405. System records are located in the GSA Central Office and regional offices with assigned emergency management responsibilities.

Categories of individuals covered by the system: All GSA associates, contractor employees, and other key governmental and non-governmental persons essential to carrying out emergency activities or with a need to know of actions taken by GSA in an emergency.

Categories of records in the system: The records, composed of emergency notification rosters and files, may consist of paper records and/or electronic databases, including the Emergency Management Information Database (EMID), the Quick Notify database, and continuity of operations (COOP) files. The data may be consolidated into a centralized emergency contact database to expedite communication. Personal information in the system records includes name; office, cell, and home telephone numbers; out-of-area contact telephone numbers; home address: home e-mail address; and home fax number. System records also may include special needs information such as medical, mobility, and transportation requirements by individuals. Additional information may include official titles and emergency assignments for individuals in the system.

Authority for maintaining the system: The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended 40 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. ; E.O. Order 12565, Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities; and Presidential Decision Directive 67, Ensuring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations.

Purpose: To maintain current information on GSA associates and other persons covered by this system for use by persons with emergency management responsibilities to notify officials, employees, and other affected individuals of conditions that require their urgent attention during a public or personal emergency.

System information may be used by authorized individuals in the performance of duties associated with their emergency management responsibilities. Routine uses are:

a. To disclose needed information to a Federal, State, or local agency investigating, prosecuting, or enforcing a statute, rule, regulation, or order, where GSA becomes aware of a possible violation of civil or criminal law or regulation.

b. To disclose information to a Member of Congress or a congressional staff member at the request of the individual who is the subject of the record.

c. To disclose information to another Federal agency or to a court where the Government is a party to a judicial proceeding before the court.

d. To disclose information to a Federal agency, in response to its request, in connection with hiring or retaining an associate, issuing a security clearance, conducting a security or suitability investigation, classifying a job, letting a contract, or issuing a license, grant, or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the information is necessary to the agency's decision on the matter.

e. To disclose information to an appeal, grievance, or formal complaints examiner; equal employment opportunity investigator; arbitrator; or other authorized official engaged in investigating or adjudicating a grievance, complaint, or appeal.

f. To disclose information to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) when the information is required for evaluation of program activities.

g. To disclose information to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for records management purposes.

h. To disclose information to an expert, consultant, or contractor in the performance of a Federal government duty to which the information is relevant.

In the Federal Register of June 24, 2004 (69 FR 35379), the agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. 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. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0548. The approval expires on March 31, 2006. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets .

FDA is announcing the availability of a document entitled “Guidance for Industry: Use of Nucleic Acid Tests on Pooled and Individual Samples From Donors of Whole Blood and Blood Components to Adequately and Appropriately Reduce the Risk of Transmission of HIV-1 and HCV,” dated October 2004. FDA's final rule (66 FR 31146, June 11, 2001) entitled “Requirements for Testing Human Blood Donors for Evidence of Infection Due to Communicable Diseases” became effective on December 10, 2001. The regulations under § 610.40(b) (21 CFR 610.40(b)) require that establishments that collect or manufacture Whole Blood and blood components “must perform one or more screening tests to adequately and appropriately reduce the risk of transmission of communicable disease agents” (66 FR 31146 at 31162). As we noted in the preamble to the final rule, the standard for adequate and appropriate testing will change as new testing technology is approved by FDA. We explained, “* * * we intend to regularly issue guidance describing those tests that we believe would adequately and appropriately reduce the risk of transmission of communicable disease agents” (66 FR 31146 at 31149).

The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidances entitled “Use of Nucleic Acid Tests on Pooled Samples From Source Plasma Donors to Adequately and Appropriately Reduce the Risk of Transmission of HIV-1 and HCV,” dated December 2001, and “Use of Nucleic Tests on Pooled and Individual Samples From Donors of Whole Blood and Blood Components for Transfusion to Adequately and Appropriately Reduce the Risk of Transmission of HIV-1 and HCV,” dated March 2002. This guidance recommends that establishments implement these recommendations as soon as feasible, but not later than 6 months after publication of this notice.

The guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the agency's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

This guidance contains information collection provisions that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR 601.12 and § 610.40 of this guidance were approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0315 and 0910-0472.

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

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either http://www.fda.gov/cber/guidelines.htm or http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm .

FDA is announcing the availability of a draft document entitled “Guidance for Industry entitled Criteria for Safety and Efficacy Evaluation of Oxygen Therapeutics as Red Blood Cell Substitutes” dated October 2004. The draft guidance, when finalized, would supercede the “Points to Consider on the Safety Evaluation of Hemoglobin-Based Oxygen Carriers,” dated August 27, 1990, and replaces the draft “Guidance for Industry: Efficacy Evaluation of Hemoglobin- and Perfluorocarbon-Based Oxygen Carriers” dated September 1997. The draft guidance provides you, as a sponsor or investigator, with criteria for testing the efficacy and safety of oxygen therapeutics as substitutes for red blood cells, and guidance on the design of clinical trials to assess risk/benefit ratio of such use. While the draft guidance is restricted to use of oxygen therapeutics as substitutes for red blood cells, this may not be the only indication being evaluated for these investigational new drugs. The draft guidance should not discourage innovation in the development of appropriate endpoints for and the design of clinical trials for other uses of oxygen therapeutics.

The draft guidance was revised based on, in part, presentations and discussions obtained at a workshop entitled “Criteria for Safety and Efficacy Evaluation of Oxygen Therapeutics as Red Cell Substitutes” held on September 27 and 28, 1999, and public comments received on the September 1997 draft guidance. The workshop was sponsored by CBER, FDA, and co-sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institute of Health, the Department of Defense, U.S. Army Medical and Material Command, and the Armed Services Blood Program Office.

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

The draft guidance is being distributed for comment purposes only and is not intended for implementation at this time. Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments regarding this draft guidance. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in the brackets in the heading of this document. A copy of the draft guidance and received comments are available for public examination in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance at either http://www.fda.gov/cber/guidelines.htm or http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm .

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

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

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Third Round Designation of Seven Urban Empowerment Zones.

OMB Control Number, if applicable: 2506-0148.

Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use: The statutes require HUD to review periodically the progress of designated urban communities (Rounds I, II and III) in carrying out their implementation programs and achieving the goals of their strategic plans.

Agency Form Numbers, if applicable: N/A.

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

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

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

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Designation of Round III Empowerment Zones and Renewal Communities.

OMB Control Number if applicable: 2506-0173.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The statutes require HUD to review periodically the progress of designated Renewal Communities in carrying out their implementation programs and achieving the goals of their strategic plans.

Agency form numbers, if applicable: N/A.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response. An estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection is 2,080 hours, number of respondents is 40, the frequency of response is 3, and the hours per response on an average is 52.

Status of the proposed information collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.

This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. , permitting electronic submission of responses.

This notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Environmental Review Procedures for Entities Assuming HUD Environmental Review Responsibilities.

OMB Approval Number: 2506-0087.

Form Numbers: HUD-7015.15.

Description of the Need for the Information and Its Proposed Use: This is a request for approval to continue a currently approved information collection. Information provided by the grant recipients is used to document regulatory compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and related environmental statutes. Recipients maintain records, which serve to allow the use of grant funds or financial assistance already awarded under 24 CFR part 58.

Frequency of Submission: On occasion.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 11,271.

Status: Extension of a currently approved collection.

This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Allocation of Operating Subsidies Under the Operating Fund Formula: Data Collection.

OMB Approval Number: 2577-0029.

Form Numbers: HUD-52720-A, HUD-52720-B, HUD-52720-C, HUD-52722-A, HUD-52722-B, HUD-52723, and HUD-53087.

Description of the Need for the Information and Its Proposed Use: Public and Indian Housing Agencies submit this information in budget submissions from which HUD Field Offices calculate and obligate operating subsidies. The collection is revised to eliminate one form through automation.

Frequency Of Submission: Annually.

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

This notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Mortgage Seekers Survey.

OMB Approval Number: 2528-Pending.

Form Numbers: None.

Description of The Need For The Information And Its Proposed Use: This is a request for approval to continue to collect the subject information. This survey is designed to measure the experience of Americans, especially minorities, who have recently sought a mortgage.

Frequency of Submission: On occasion.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 773.

Status: New Collection.

This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. , permitting electronic submission of responses.

This notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Section 8 Random Digital Dialing Fair Market Rent Surveys.

OMB Approval Number: 2528-0142.

Form Numbers: None.

Description of the Need for the Information and Its Proposed Use: This is a request for approval to continue to collect the subject information. The information is used to determine Section 8 Fair Market Rents (FMR) in areas not covered by the AHS or CPI surveys.

Frequency of Submission: On occasion.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 26,775.

Status: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended.

The Department will submit the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended). This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g. , permitting electronic submission of responses.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Admission to, and Occupancy of Public Housing: Admission and Tenant Selection Policies, Verification, Notification, Preference, Waiting List, Exemption of Police Officers..

OMB Control Number: 2577-0220.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The Statue requires HUD to ensure the low-income character of public housing projects and to assure that sound management practices will be followed in the operation of the project. Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) enter into an Annual Contribution Contract (ACC) with HUD to assist low-income tenants. HUD regulations, Part 960, provide policies and procedures for PHAs to administer the low-income public housing program for admission and occupancy. PHAs must develop and keep on file the admission and occupancy policies including the plan for eligibility of police officers, which is approved by HUD. PHA compliance will support the stature; HUD can ensure that the low-income character of the project and that sound management practices will be followed.

Agency form number, if applicable: Not applicable.

Members of affected public: Individual or households, State, Local or Tribal Government.

Estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents:

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 5,600.

Status of the proposed information collection: Extension of currently approved collection.

The Department will submit the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended). This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g. , permitting electronic submission of responses.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Procedure for obtaining certificates of insurance for capital program projects.

OMB Control Number: 2577-0046.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: Public Housing Agencies must obtain certificates of insurance from contractors and subcontractors before beginning work under either the development of a new low-income public housing projects or the modernization of an existing project. The certificates of insurance provide evidence that worker's compensation and general liability, automobile liability insurance are in force before and construction work is started.

Agency form number, if applicable: Not applicable.

Members of affected public: Business or other For-Profit, State, Local or Tribal Government.

Estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents:

Estimation of total number of hours needed for record keeping: Number of respondents 3,000 × Frequency of Response 4 × Hours per Response .20 = 2,400.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 8,400.

Status of the proposed information collection: Extension of currently approved collection.

We are publishing this notice in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) (FACA). The Secretary of the Interior certifies that she has determined that the continuation of the Working Group is necessary and is in the public interest.

The Working Group conducts its operations in accordance with the provisions of FACA. It reports to the Secretary of the Interior through the Trinity River Management Council and functions solely as an advisory body. The Working Group provides recommendations and advice to the Trinity Management Council on (1) the effectiveness of management actions in achieving restoration goals and alternative hypotheses for study, (2) the priority of restoration projects, (3) funding priorities, and (4) other program components.

The Secretary will appoint members who can effectively represent the varied interests associated with the Trinity River Restoration Program. Members will represent stakeholders, Federal and State agencies, and tribes. Members will be senior representatives of their respective constituent groups with knowledge of the Trinity River Restoration Program including the Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management Program. The Secretary will appoint Working Group members based on nominations submitted by interested parties, including but not limited to Trinity County residents, recreational and commercial fishermen, commercial and recreational boaters, power utilities, water users, forestry, grazing/ranchers, public trust interests, tribal interests, and the general public.

The Working Group will meet at least two times per year. The Fish and Wildlife Service provides necessary support services to the Working Group. All Working Group meetings, as well as its subcommittee meetings, will be open to the public. A notice announcing each Working Group meeting will be published in the Federal Register at least 15 days before the date of the meeting. The public will have the opportunity to provide input at all meetings.

We expect the Working Group to continue for the duration of the Trinity River Restoration Program. Its continuation is, however, subject to biennial renewal.

Fifteen days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register , we will file a copy of the Working Group's charter with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration; Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate; Committee on Resources, United States House of Representatives; and the Library of Congress.

The Certification for renewal is published below.

I hereby certify that the Trinity River Adaptive Management Working Group is necessary and is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Department of the Interior by Public Laws 84-386 and 96-335 (Trinity River Stream Rectification Act), 98-541 and 104-143 (Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Management Act of 1984, and 102-575 (The Central Valley Improvement Act). The Working Group will assist the Department of the Interior by providing advice and recommendations on all aspects of implementation of the Trinity River Restoration Program.

Notice is hereby given that on the dates below, as authorized by the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq. ), and/or the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361, et seq. ), the Fish and Wildlife Service issued the requested permits subject to certain conditions set forth therein. For each permit for an endangered species, the Service found that (1) the application was filed in good faith, (2) the granted permit would not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species, and (3) the granted permit would be consistent with the purposes and policy set forth in Section 2 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.

Notice is hereby given that on the dates below, as authorized by the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq. ), and/or the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361, et seq. ), the Fish and Wildlife Service issued the requested permits subject to certain conditions set forth therein. For each permit for an endangered species, the Service found that (1) the application was filed in good faith, (2) the granted permit would not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species, and (3) the granted permit would be consistent with the purposes and policy set forth in Section 2 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.

The public is invited to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq. ). Written data, comments, or requests for copies of these complete applications should be submitted to the Director (address above).

The applicant requests an amendment and renewal of their permit to import and/or introduce from the sea, biological samples collected from wild Kemp's ridley sea turtle ( Lepidochelys kempii ), hawksbill sea turtle ( Eretmochelys imbricata ), and leatherback sea turtle ( Dermochelys coriacea ) for the purpose of scientific research. The amendment request is for biopsy samples to be collected from incidentally captured live specimens and the renewal is for samples collected opportunistically from salvaged specimens. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a five-year period.

The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( Damaliscus pygargus pygargus ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

The following is a summary of the amended and restated application. The complete amended and restated application is available for a fee from the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0102 (telephone 202-942-8090).

1. The Company is a stock life insurance company organized under Wisconsin law in 1957. The Company conducts a conventional life insurance business and is authorized to transact the business of life insurance, including annuities, in seventeen states.

2. Each of the Accounts is a segregated asset account of the Company, is a “separate account” as defined by Rule 0-1(e) under the Act, and is registered with the Commission as a unit investment trust. Income, gains and losses, realized or unrealized, from the assets of each Account are credited to or charged against that Account without regard to other income, gains or losses of the Company. Purchase payments made under the Contracts are allocated to one or more subaccounts of each Account.

3. The Life Account currently is divided into 11 subaccounts, each of which invests exclusively in a specific investment portfolio of an underlying mutual fund. The assets of the Life Account support variable life insurance contracts issued by the Company, and interests in the Life Account offered through such Contracts have been registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “1933 Act”) on Form N-6 (File No. 333-44956).

4. The Annuity Account currently is divided into 11 subaccounts, each of which invests exclusively in a specific investment portfolio of an underlying mutual fund. The assets of the Annuity Account support variable annuity contracts issued by the Company, and interests in the Annuity Account offered through such contracts have been registered under the 1933 Act on Form N-4 (File No. 333-45592).

5. The Contracts are flexible premium variable annuity and variable life insurance contracts. For as long as a variable life insurance Contract remains in force or a variable annuity Contract has not yet been annuitized, a Contract owner may transfer all or part of the Contract value from one subaccount to another subaccount or to a fixed account. The Company reserves the right to revoke or modify the transfer privilege at any time, and reserves the right to assess a charge for transfers in excess of 12 per transfer year.

6. Each of the Contracts expressly reserves for the Company the right, subject to compliance with applicable law, to substitute shares of one underlying mutual fund or portfolio held by a subaccount of an Account for another. This right is disclosed in the prospectuses for the Contracts.

7. The Company proposes to substitute Initial Class shares of the Replacement Portfolio for Investor Class shares of Replaced Portfolio A and Investor Class shares of Replaced Portfolio B held in the Accounts (the “proposed substitutions”). The proposed substitutions are part of an effort by the Company to provide a portfolio selection within the Contracts that: (1) Better represents the designated asset classes; (2) provides more favorable name recognition; and (3) provides more competitive long-term returns relative to other funds in the asset class peer group.

8. The Strong Fund is registered as an open-end management investment company under the Act (File No. 811-06553) and currently offers 3 separate investment portfolios, only one of which, Replaced Portfolio A, would be involved in the proposed substitution. The Strong Fund issues a separate series of shares of beneficial interest in connection with each portfolio and has registered such shares under the 1933 Act on Form N-1A (File No. 33-45321). Strong Capital Management, Inc. (“Strong”) serves as the investment adviser to each portfolio.

9. The investment objective of Replaced Portfolio A is capital growth through investment of at least 80% of its net assets in stocks of medium-capitalization companies (substantially from the technology sector) that the Portfolio's managers believe have favorable prospects for growth of earnings and capital appreciation. The net operating expenses ( i.e. , after expense waivers and fee reimbursements) for the year ended December 31, 2003, was 1.18% (expressed as a percentage of average daily net assets). The average annual total return for the past three fiscal years for Replaced Portfolio A was: -30.8% (2001); -37.6% (2002); and 34.2% (2003).

10. The Strong Opportunity Fund is registered as an open-end management investment company under the Act (File No. 811-06552) and currently offers one investment portfolio, Replaced Portfolio B. The Strong Opportunity Fund issues a series of shares of beneficial interest in connection with the portfolio and has registered such shares under the 1933 Act on Form N-1A (File No. 33-45320). Strong serves as investment adviser to the portfolio.

11. The investment objective of Replaced Portfolio B is capital growth through investment primarily in stocks of medium-capitalization companies (defined as companies with market capitalization substantially similar to that of companies in the Russell Midcap Index) that the Portfolio's managers believe are underpriced yet have favorable prospects for growth of earnings. The net operating expenses ( i.e. , after expense waivers and fee reimbursements) for the year ended December 31, 2003, was 1.09% (expressed as a percentage of average daily net assets). The average annual total return for the past three fiscal years for Replaced Portfolio B was: -3.7% (2001); -26.8% (2002); and 37.0% (2003).

12. The Fidelity VIP Fund is registered as an open-end management investment company under the Act (File No. 811-07205); the Replacement Fund is one of seven investment portfolios it currently offers. The Fidelity VIP Fund issues a series of shares of beneficial interest in connection with each portfolio and has registered such shares under the 1933 Act on Form N-1A (File No. 33-54837). Each portfolio of the Fidelity VIP Fund has entered into an agreement with Fidelity Management & Research Company (“FMR”) under which FMR acts as investment adviser for the portfolio. Under each such investment advisory agreement, FMR has overall responsibility for the selection of investments in accordance with the investment objective, policies and limitations of the portfolio, and for handling the portfolio's business affairs. FMR Co., Inc. (“FMRC”), an investment adviser affiliate of FMR, has entered into a sub-advisory agreement with FMR under which FMRC acts as subadviser for each portfolio of the Fidelity VIP Fund, including the Replacement Portfolio. FMRC has daily responsibility for the management of the investment and reinvestment of the assets of the Replacement Portfolio.

13. The investment objective of the Replacement Portfolio is long-term growth of capital through investment of at least 80% of portfolio assets in securities of companies with medium market capitalization (defined as companies with market capitalization similar to that of companies in the Russell Midcap Index or the S&P MidCap 400). The net operating expenses ( i.e. , after expense waivers and fee reimbursements) for the year ended December 31, 2003, was 0.70% (expressed as a percentage of average daily net assets). The average annual total return for the past three fiscal years for the Replacement Portfolio was: -3.26% (2001); -9.82% (2002); and 38.64% (2003).

14. Applicants assert that the Replacement Portfolio is an appropriate replacement for the Replaced Portfolios for each Contract. The investment objectives of the Replacement Portfolio are substantially identical to those of Replaced Portfolio A. Both pursue their investment objective by investing, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of their assets in medium capitalization companies that have favorable growth prospects. The investment adviser for Replaced Portfolio A and the investment adviser for the Replacement Portfolio also emphasize an active trading approach and rely on a fundamental analysis of each company in making an investment decision.

15. The Replacement Portfolio's investment objective also is substantially similar to that of Replaced Portfolio B. Both pursue their investment objective by investing primarily in medium capitalization companies that have favorable growth prospects. The investment adviser for Replaced Portfolio B and the investment adviser for the Replacement Portfolio also rely on a fundamental analysis of each company before making an investment decision.

16. Applicants represent that the Replacement Portfolio has available to it transactional advantages attributable to achieve economies of scale greater than those of each Replaced Portfolio and has a significantly lower expense ratio than either Replaced Portfolio even after expense waivers and reimbursements for the Replaced Portfolios have been taken into account.

17. In the May 2004 prospectuses for the Accounts and the Contracts, the Company notified owners of the Contracts of its intention to take the necessary actions, including the order requested by the amended and restated application, to carry out the proposed substitutions. The current prospectus for the Replacement Fund and the current prospectuses for each of the other portfolios available as investment options available under the Contracts, were bound together with the May 1, 2004, prospectuses for the Contracts and the Accounts.

1. Section 26(c) of the Act requires the depositor of a registered unit investment trust holding the securities of a single issuer to receive Commission approval before substituting the securities held by the trust. The Commission will approve such a substitution if the evidence establishes that the substitution is consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.

2. The proposed substitutions appear to involve the substitution of securities within the meaning of Section 26(c) of the Act. Applicants therefore request an order from the Commission pursuant to Section 26(c) approving the proposed substitutions.

3. Applicants maintain that Contract owners will be better served by the proposed substitutions and that the proposed substitutions are appropriate given the Portfolios and other investment options available under the Contracts. In the last three years, the Replacement Portfolio has had investment performance superior to that of each Replaced Portfolio. The Replacement Portfolio has had substantially lower expenses over this same period than each Replaced Portfolio and substantially greater assets.

4. Applicants assert that the Replacement Portfolio and Replaced Portfolio A are substantially the same in their stated investment objectives and principal investment strategies. Applicants represent that the Replacement Portfolio and Replaced Portfolio B are substantially similar in their stated investment objectives and principal investment strategies as to afford investors continuity of investment. Applicants also assert that there is similarity in the principal investment risks for each Replaced Portfolio and the Replacement Portfolio.

5. Applicants state that, although each Replaced Portfolio benefits from an expense reimbursement arrangement that reduces the Portfolio's expenses, even after the reimbursements for the Replaced Portfolios have been taken into account, the expenses of the Replacement Portfolio are still lower than those of each Replaced Portfolio. Also, there is no assurance that the expense reimbursement arrangements for the Replaced Portfolios will continue in the future. Moreover, for two years following the proposed substitution, Contract owners affected by the proposed substitution will benefit from a subaccount and underlying Portfolio with aggregate annualized expenses that can be no higher than the aggregate annualized expenses of Replaced Portfolio B and the subaccount invested in Replaced Portfolio B for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003.

6. Applicants assert that the proposed substitutions are not the type of substitution that Section 26(c) was designed to prevent. Unlike traditional unit investment trusts where a depositor could only substitute an investment security in a manner which permanently affected all the investors in the trust, the Contracts provide each Contract owner with the right to exercise his or her own judgment and transfer Contract values into other subaccounts. Moreover, the Contracts will offer Contract owners the opportunity to transfer amounts out of the affected subaccounts into any of the remaining subaccounts without cost or disadvantage. Applicants assert that the proposed substitutions, therefore, will not result in the type of costly forced redemption that Section 26(c) was designed to prevent.

7. Applicants represent that the proposed substitutions also are unlike the type of substitution that Section 26(c) was designed to prevent in that by purchasing a Contract, Contract owners select much more than a particular investment company in which to invest their Contract values. They also select the specific type of coverage offered by the Company under the Contract, as well as numerous other rights and privileges set forth in the Contract. Contract owners may also have considered the size, financial condition, type and reputation for service of the Company, from whom they purchased their Contract in the first place. These factors will not change because of the proposed substitutions.

8. Further, the proposed substitutions are consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the Act for the following reasons:

a. Within five days after the proposed substitutions, Applicants represent that the Company will send Contract owners who are affected by the substitutions written notice informing them that the substitutions have taken place, and will explain other procedures the Company intends to follow in connection with Contract owner transfers and exchanges following the substitutions.

b. From June 1, 2004, until the date of the proposed substitutions, the Company will permit Contract owners to make transfers of Contract value out of each Replaced Portfolio subaccount to other subaccounts or the fixed account without those transfers counting toward the limited number of transfers permitted each Contract year without a transfer charge. Likewise, for at least 30 days following the proposed substitutions, the Company will permit Contract owners affected by the substitutions to transfer Contract value out of the Replacement Portfolio subaccount to other subaccounts or the fixed account without those transfers counting toward the limited number of transfers permitted each Contract year without a transfer charge.

c. The Company will carry out the proposed substitutions by redeeming shares of each Replaced Portfolio held by the Accounts for cash and then applying the proceeds to the purchase of shares of the Replacement Fund. The proposed substitutions will take place at relative net asset value with no change in the amount of any Contract owner's Contract value or death benefit, or in the dollar value of his or her investment in any of the Accounts.

d. Contract owners will not incur any fees or charges as a result of the proposed substitutions, nor will their rights or the Company's obligations under the Contracts be altered in any way. The Company will pay all applicable expenses incurred in connection with the proposed substitutions, including brokerage commissions and legal, accounting, and other fees and expenses. The proposed substitutions will not cause the Contract fees and charges currently being paid by existing Contract owners to be greater after the proposed substitutions than before the proposed substitutions. In addition, the proposed substitutions will not result in adverse tax consequences for and will not alter the tax benefits to Contract owners.

e. For those who were Contract owners on the date of the proposed substitutions, the Company will reimburse, on the last business day of each fiscal period (not to exceed a fiscal quarter) during the twenty-four months following the date of the proposed substitutions, the subaccount investing in the Replacement Portfolio such that the sum of the Replacement Portfolio's operating expenses (taking into account fee waivers and expense reimbursements) and subaccount expenses (asset-based fees and charges deducted on a daily basis from subaccount assets and reflected in the calculation of subaccount unit values) for such period will not exceed, on an annualized basis, the sum of Replaced Portfolio B's operating expenses (taking into account fee waivers and expense reimbursements) and subaccount expenses for the fiscal year preceding the date of the proposed substitution. In addition, for twenty-four months following the proposed substitutions, the Company will not increase asset-based fees or charges for Contracts outstanding on the date of the proposed substitutions.

Applicants request an order of the Commission pursuant to Section 26(c) of the Act approving the substitutions. Section 26(c) in pertinent part, provides that the Commission shall issue an order approving a substitution of securities if the evidence establishes that it is consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of Act.