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

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

On April 16, 2004, APHIS received a petition from Monsanto Company of St. Louis, MO, and Forage Genetics International of West Salem, WI (Monsanto/FGI), requesting a determination of nonregulated status under 7 CFR part 340 for alfalfa ( Medicago sativa L.) designated as events J101 and J163, which have been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate. The Monsanto/FGI petition states that the subject alfalfa should not be regulated by APHIS because it does not present a plant pest risk.

As described in the petition, alfalfa events J101 and J163 have been genetically engineered to express a 5-enolpyruvyshikimate-3-phosphate synthase protein from Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4 (CP4 EPSPS), which confers tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate. Expression of the added genes is controlled in part by the 35S promoter derived from the plant pathogen figwort mosaic virus. The Agrobacterium tumefaciens transformation method was used to transfer the added genes into the proprietary alfalfa line R2336.

Alfalfa events J101 and J163 have been considered regulated article under the regulations in 7 CFR part 340 because they contain gene sequences from plant pathogens. In the process of reviewing the notifications for field trials of the subject alfalfa, APHIS determined that the vectors and other elements were disarmed and that the trials, which were conducted under conditions of reproductive and physical confinement or isolation, would not present a risk of plant pest introduction or dissemination.

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

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

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

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

To provide the public with documentation of APHIS' review and analysis of the environmental impacts and plant pest risk associated with a proposed determination of nonregulated status for the Monsanto/FGI events J101 and J163 alfalfa, an environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared. The EA was prepared in accordance with (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).

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

After the comment period closes, APHIS will review the data submitted by the petitioner, all written comments received during the comment period, and any other relevant information. After reviewing and evaluating the comments on the petition and the EA and other data and information, APHIS will furnish a response to the petitioner, either approving the petition in whole or in part, or denying the petition. APHIS will then publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the regulatory status of the Monsanto/FGI glyphosate-tolerant alfalfa events J101 and J163 and the availability of APHIS' written decision.

On October 4, 2004, we published a notice in the Federal Register (69 FR 59181-59182, Docket No. 04-076-1) in which we advised the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has received a petition from Monsanto Company of St. Louis, MO (Monsanto) seeking a determination of nonregulated status for cotton designated as MON 88913, which has been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate. The petition has been submitted in accordance with our regulations concerning the introduction of certain genetically engineered organisms and products. In accordance with those regulations, our notice solicits public comments on whether this cotton presents a plant pest risk. In the notice, we also made available for public comment an environmental assessment (EA) for the proposed determination of nonregulated status. As stated in that notice, we will consider all comments we receive on or before December 3, 2004.

On November 8, 2004, APHIS received a letter from Monsanto amending the petition made available for public comment in our October 4, 2004, notice. The information in the addendum clarifies information in the petition with respect to the molecular genetic characterization of the inserted DNA and corrects portions of that section. APHIS promptly reviewed these changes and determined that they had no impact on the EA we prepared to examine any environmental impacts of the proposed determination for the subject cotton. The addendum has been added to the petition file and is available to facilitate the review of the petition.

We continue to solicit written comments from interested persons on the petition and the EA. In addition to the amended petition, the EA and any comments received are available for public review. Copies of the amended petition and the EA are available as indicated in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

After the comment period closes, APHIS will review the data submitted by the petitioner, all written comments received during the comment period, and any other relevant information. After reviewing and evaluating the comments on the petition and the EA and other data and information, APHIS will furnish a response to the petitioner, either approving the petition in whole or in part, or denying the petition. APHIS will then publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the regulatory status of Monsanto's glyphosate-tolerant MON 88913 cotton and the availability of APHIS' written decision.

The General Conference Committee (the Committee) of the National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP), representing cooperating State agencies and poultry industry members, serves an essential function by acting as liaison between the poultry industry and the Department in matters pertaining to poultry health. In addition, the committee assists the Department in planning, organizing, and conducting the NPIP Biennial Conference.

Topics for discussion at the upcoming meeting include:

1. H5/H7 low pathogenic avian influenza program for commercial layers, broilers, and turkeys;

2. Compartmentalization of notifiable avian influenza free zones;

3. National animal identification program for poultry; and

4. Cleaning, disinfection, and bird disposal costs for commercial poultry flocks.

The meeting will be open to the public. However, due to time constraints, the public will not be allowed to participate in the discussions during the meeting. Written statements on meeting topics may be filed with the Committee before or after the meeting by sending them to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Written statements may also be filed at the meeting. Please refer to Docket No. 04-117-1 when submitting your statements.

This notice of meeting is given pursuant to section 10 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

Upon investigation, the Administrator determined that domestic producer prices did not decline at least 20 percent during the 2003 marketing year (January-December), when compared to average prices during the 5-year base period ending December 2001. In addition, during the 2003 marketing year, imports did not increase, but declined by 16.2 percent. Both conditions, a decline in prices of at least 20 percent and an increase in imports, are required for re-certifying a petition for TAA.

Upon investigation, the Administrator determined that continued increases in imports of like or directly competitive products contributed importantly to a decline in the average landed price of shrimp in Georgia by 37.7 percent during the 2003 marketing period (January-December), compared to the 1997-2001 base period. Eligible producers may request technical assistance from the Extension Service at no cost and receive an adjustment assistance payment, if certain program criteria are satisfied. Producers in fiscal year 2005 who did not receive technical assistance under the fiscal year 2004 TAA program must obtain the technical assistance from the Extension Service by May 31, 2005, in order to be eligible for financial payments.

Producers of raw agricultural commodities wishing to learn more about TAA and how they may apply should contact the Department of Agriculture at the addresses provided below for General Information.

Producers Certified as Eligible for TAA, Contact: Farm Service Agency service centers.

For General Information About TAA, Contact: Jean-Louis Pajot, Coordinator, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers, FAS, USDA, (202) 720-2916, e-mail: trade.adjustment@fas.usda.gov.

The actions are proposed in direct response to management direction provided by the Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). The site-specific actions are based on Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines to promote existing resource conditions in the Dean Project Area toward meeting Forest Plan Goals and Objectives. The project area lies in the Bear Lodge Mountains in the Black Hills National Forest, directly north of Sundance, Wyoming. Anticipated issues include: Fire and fuels hazard in the project area; support and opposition to vegetation treatment such as timber harvest; impacts of vegetation treatment and multiple forest uses on wildlife habitat; motorized and non-motorized recreation; and travel management.

There is a need to reduce the potential for uncharacteristically intense wildlife behavior and insect infestation, provide diverse wildlife habitat, and manage motorized recreation in the Dean Project Area. This project will address Forest Plan Goal 2 (providing for biologically diverse ecosystems) and Goal 3 (providing for sustained commodity uses) consistent with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines.

Actions proposed in the Dean Project Area include:

• Modifying stand structure across the planning area to reduce potential for uncharacteristically intense wildfire behavior and benefit wildlife. This action includes thinning the forest, removing conifers from stands of hardwoods such as aspen, bur oak, and birch, and expanding and/or creating meadows.

• Reducing fuel loads by decreasing the volume and arrangement of both existing fuels and those resulting from other vegetation treatment activities. Treatment could include lopping, chipping, crushing, piling and burning, and prescribed burning on up to 3,494 acres.

• Reducing the density of pine stands on up to 5,730 acres to decrease the potential for spreading crown fires, increase tree growth and vigor, and lessen the risk of insect infestation and disease. This may be done by using commercial timber harvest to thin out merchantable trees and using other methods to thin small, unmerchantable trees. These actions would provide wood fiber to local industry and would require construction of up to 10 miles of new specified roads.

• Modifying the Forest Plan through a non-significant Amendment to change Management Area (MA) designation in part of the project area to better reflect actual conditions. The entire project area is currently in MA 5.4 (Big Game Winter Range Emphasis). The lower elevations and south aspects on the east side of the project area currently provide appropriate and important winter range for deer and elk and are utilized as such. However, the remainder of the project area is heavily used by deer and elk only during the spring, summer, and fall, including calving and fawning periods. Therefore, the Forest proposes to change the Management Area designation in a portion of the project area to MA 5.6 (Forest Products, Recreation, and Big Game Emphasis) to reflect the actual utilization and better manage the project area to benefit a variety of wildlife, including big game species, and better reflect existing non-motorized recreation opportunities.

• Providing a mix of motorized and non-motorized opportunities and protecting wildlife in the area by closing the project area to off-road motorized travel and restricting ATV use to designated routes. Main system routes currently open to motorized travel would remain open. Approximately 16.1 miles of roads would also be decommissioned.

Steve Kozel, District Ranger, Black Hills National Forest, Bearlodge Ranger District, 121 S. 21st Street, Sundance, Wyoming 82729.

The decision to be made is whether or not to implement the proposed action or alternatives at this time.

Comments and input regarding the proposal will be requested via direct mailing from the public, other groups and agencies during the 30-day (plus) public comment period in November and December 2004. Also, response to the draft EIS will be sought from the interested public in March 2005.

This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. It is our desire to involve interested parties and especially adjacent landowners in identifying the issues related to proposed activities. Comments will assist the planning team identify key issues and opportunities used to develop project alternatives and mitigation measures.

A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will last 45 days (beginning around March 1, 2005) from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register .

The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.

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

The meeting is open to the public. Committee discussion is limited to PAC members. However, persons who wish to bring matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the PAC staff before or after the meeting. A public forum will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the PAC. Oral comments will be limited to three minutes.

On July 20, 2004, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Canada. See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Steel Alloy Steel Wire from Canada , 69 FR 43389 (July 20, 2004) ( Preliminary Results )

We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results . On September 2, 2004, we received case briefs from the sole respondent, Ivaco, and the petitioners, Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc., Georgetown Steel Company, Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and North Star Steel Texas, Inc. Both parties submitted rebuttal briefs on September 2, 2004. No public hearing was requested.

Effective July 24, 2003, in accordance with the Department's Notice of Final Result of Changed Circumstances Review of the Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders, and Intent to Revoke Orders in Part , 68 FR 64079 (November 12, 2003), the scope of this order was amended. Therefore, for purposes of this review, there were separate scopes in effect. These scopes are set forth below.

The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid cross-sectional diameter.

Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; and (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are (f) free machining steel products (i.e., products that contain by weight one or more of the following elements: 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium).

Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. This grade 1080 tire cord quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no inclusions greater than 20 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.006 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium.

This grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 7.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no inclusions greater than 20 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per ton; and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.008 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified).

The designation of the products as “tire cord quality” or “tire bead quality” indicates the acceptability of the product for use in the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the scope. However, should petitioners or other interested parties provide a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of importation of such products for other than those applications, end-use certification for the importation of such products may be required. Under such circumstances, only the importers of record would normally be required to certify the end use of the imported merchandise.

All products meeting the physical description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this scope.

The products under review are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, and 7227.90.6059 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid cross-sectional diameter.

Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the HTSUS definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; c) high nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; and (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are (f) free machining steel products ( i.e. , products that contain by weight one or more of the following elements: 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium).

Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. This grade 1080 tire cord quality rod is defined as: (i) Grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.006 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium.

This grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 7.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per ton; and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.008 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified).

For purposes of the grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and the grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod, an inclusion will be considered to be deformable if its ratio of length (measured along the axis - that is, the direction of rolling - of the rod) over thickness (measured on the same inclusion in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod) is equal to or greater than three. The size of an inclusion for purposes of the 20 microns and 35 microns limitations is the measurement of the largest dimension observed on a longitudinal section measured in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod. This measurement methodology applies only to inclusions on certain grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and certain grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 24, 2003.

The designation of the products as “tire cord quality” or “tire bead quality” indicates the acceptability of the product for use in the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the scope. However, should petitioners or other interested parties provide a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of importation of such products for other than those applications, end-use certification for the importation of such products may be required. Under such circumstances, only the importers of record would normally be required to certify the end use of the imported merchandise.

All products meeting the physical description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this scope.

The products under review are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, and 7227.90.6059 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. 1

The issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum to James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Jeffrey May, Deputy Assistant Secretary ( Decision Memorandum ), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues addressed in the Decision Memorandum is appended to this notice. The Decision Memorandum is on file in the Central Records Unit in Room B-099 of the main Commerce building, and can also be accessed directly on the Web at www.ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made adjustments to the indirect selling, warehousing and head office expenses used in calculating the final dumping margin in this proceeding. The adjustments are discussed in detail in the Decision Memorandum .

As a result of our review, we determine that the following weighted-average margin exists for the period of April 10, 2002, through September 30, 2003:

The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the examined sales for that importer. Where the assessment rate is above de minimis , we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Canada entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as provided by section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act): (1) for companies covered by this review, the cash deposit rate will be the rate listed above; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in the investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate from the final determination; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the producer of the merchandise in these final results of review or in the final determination; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the producer is a firm covered in this review or the investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 8.11 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402 (f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred, and in the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

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

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

Persons wishing to conduct otherwise prohibited activities in a National Marine Sanctuary must apply for and receive a permit. Anyone issued permits must file reports on the activity conducted. This information is required to ensure that the proposed activity is consistent with the objectives of the sanctuary, and the reports are needed to ensure compliance with permit conditions and to increase knowledge regarding the sanctuary's resources.

Specific requirements are detailed in various subparts of 15 CFR 922. Persons requesting a permit are sent guidelines for the application process or an application form.

OMB Number: 0648-0141.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions; individuals or households; business or other for-profit organizations; and state, local, or tribal government.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 336.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1 hour each for a general permit application, cruise or flight log, and report; 2 hours each for a historical resource permit application, cruise log, and report; 24 hours each for a special use permit application, final report, and financial report; 15 minutes for a permit amendment; 15 minutes each for a baitfish permit application and a logbook; 15 minutes for researcher entries to a research registry; 30 minutes to request certification of a pre-existing lease, license, or permit; 1 hour each for a notification of a request for a permit from another agency, cruise or flight log, and report; and 1.5 hours for a permit appeal.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 886.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $800.

Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

Section 144 of Public Law 106-554 (as amended by section 2201 of Pub. L. 107-20 and section 205 of Public Law 107-117) directed the Secretary of Commerce to establish a $100 million fishing capacity reduction program (program) in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands king and Tanner crab fishery (crab fishery). The program's objective is reducing the crab fishery's harvesting capacity. This will help financially stabilize this limited-entry fishery and fosters its future management.

NMFS implemented the program by publishing a proposed rule on December 12, 2002 (67 FR 76329) and a final rule on December 12, 2003 (68 FR 69331). Persons wanting further program details should refer to these rules.

This is a voluntary program in which, in return for reduction payments, bidders whose bids NMFS accepts permanently relinquish their fishing licenses, the fishing histories upon which those licenses' issuance was based, and their vessels' worldwide fishing privileges. Their vessels may never fish again and may never be transferred out of U.S. registry.

The total cost of reduction payments to all accepted bidders (and, thus, the program's total cost) cannot exceed $100 million. This cost is 100 percent financed by a fishing capacity reduction loan from NMFS' Fisheries Finance Program. Future crab landing fees will repay the reduction loan over the next 30 years. Each of six area/species endorsement crab fisheries has a different reduction loan subamount to repay and does so at a fee rate appropriate for each subamount.

Under the program, the holders of non-interim crab fishery licenses make bid offers to NMFS for reduction payments. NMFS scores each bid's reduction payment amount against the amount of the bidder's past ex-vessel crab revenues and, in a reverse auction, accepts those bids whose reduction payments are the lowest percentages of the bidders' revenues during a certain period. NMFS quits accepting bids before acceptance of the bid with the next lowest bid score causes reduction payments to exceed the maximum $100 million program cost. Bid acceptances create reduction contracts whose performance are subject only to a successful referendum about the industry fee system necessary to repay the reduction loan.

The referendum follows the bidding process. Approval of the industry fee system requires at least two-thirds of the qualified voters casting ballots to vote in favor of the industry fee system. Qualified voters are all interim and non-interim holders of crab licenses, except those endorsed only for the Norton Sound area/species crab fishery.

NMFS has twice invited program bids and administered separate referendums on each of the two accepted bidder results.

NMFS administered and, because of a mistake which overstated the bidding results, readministered a referendum about bids accepted under the first invitation to bid. The readministered referendum was unsuccessful. Because of the circumstances involved, however, NMFS issued a second invitation to bid for which the referendum was successful. This notice involves the program's second invitation to bid and the accepted bids, referendum, and reduction contracts consequent to such second invitation to bid.

NMFS issued the second invitation to bid, and the bidding period opened, on August 6, 2004. This bidding period closed on September 24, 2004. Fifty five, non-interim, crab license holders submitted bids totaling $225,954,284. NMFS accepted 25 bids. These totaled $97,399,357. The next lowest scoring bid would have exceeded the program's $100 million maximum cost. The accepted bids involved 25 fishing vessels and 62 fishing licenses or permits. Twenty five of the permits were non-interim crab fishery licenses. The remaining included 15 groundfish fishing licenses, 20 Federal fishery vessel permits, 1 high seas permit, and 1 halibut individual fishing quota allocation.

On October 1, 2004, NMFS mailed referendum ballots to 313 qualified referendum voters. This referendum involved the fees necessary to repay the $97,399,357 reduction loan resulting from the 25 bids NMFS accepted under the program's second invitation to bid. The second referendum voting period opened on October 1, 2004, and closed on November 15, 2004. Two hundred seventy three (or 87.22 percent) of the referendum's qualified voters cast timely ballots. Two hundred seventeen (or 79.49 percent) of the those ballots approved the fees. This exceeded the two-thirds minimum required for industry fee system approval. This referendum was, consequently, successful and approved the industry fee system. Accordingly, the reduction contracts are now in full force and effect and NMFS is now preparing to tender and disburse reduction payments to accepted bidders.

NMFS publishes this notification to inform the public before tendering reduction payments to the 25 accepted bidders. NMFS will tender reduction payments on December 27, 2004. When NMFS tenders a reduction payment to an accepted bidder, the bidder must then permanently stop all further fishing with each reduction permit the bidder has relinquished and with the reduction vessel whose worldwide fishing privileges the bidder has relinquished. NMFS will then:

(a) Revoke each reduction permit each accepted bidder relinquished,

(b) Revoke each reduction vessel's fishing history,

(c) Notify the National Vessel Documentation Center to revoke the fishery trade endorsement of each accepted bidder's reduction vessel and otherwise appropriately annotate the reduction vessel's document, and

The construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of facilities at the international border of the United States for the transmission of electric energy between the United States and a foreign country is prohibited in the absence of a Presidential permit issued pursuant to Executive Order (EO) 10485, as amended by EO 12038. Existing Presidential permits are not transferable or assignable. However, in the event of a proposed voluntary transfer of physical facilities, in accordance with the regulations at 10 CFR 205.323, the existing holder of a permit and the transferee are required to a file joint application for transfer with the Department of Energy (DOE) that includes a statement of reasons for the transfer.

On November 7, 1966, the Federal Power Commission, the predecessor agency of the DOE, issued Presidential Permit PP-39 to Boise for a double circuit 6.6 kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line (operated as a single circuit) that crosses the United States border with Canada at International Falls, Minnesota.

On July 7, 1994, DOE issued Presidential Permit PP-96, as amended, to Boise for a 115-kV electrical transmission line that crosses the United States border with Canada in the vicinity of International Falls, Minnesota. These facilities share the support structure with a 115-kV international transmission line owned and operated by Minnesota Power and authorized in Presidential Permit PP-78.

On November 1, 2004, Boise and BWP (collectively, the “Applicants”) jointly filed an application with DOE to transfer Presidential Permits PP-39 and PP-96 from Boise to BWP. Boise and BWP have entered into a purchase and sale agreement that will result in Boise selling its Minnesota paper mill and electrical assets and exiting the paper business in Minnesota. BWP is a newly-formed holding company owned by Boise Cascade and will be a privately held company. In a supplemental filing in this docket on November 19, 2004, Boise notified DOE that the asset sale of the international transmission facilities was completed on October 29, 2004.

In these applications, the Applicants state that there will be no physical changes to the existing permitted facilities.

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

Comments on the joint applications to transfer Presidential Permit PP-39 or PP-96 from Boise to BWP should be clearly marked with Dockets PP-39-1 and PP-96-2. Dennis L. Radocha, Associate General Counsel, Boise Cascade Corporation, 1111 West Jefferson Road, P.O. Box 50, Boise, ID 83728; Brian R. Land, Esq., Kirkland & Ellis LLP, 655 Fifteenth Street, NW., Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20005; and Terry Ward, Vice President, Minnesota Operations, International Falls Paper Mill, Boise Paper Solutions, Boise Cascade Corporation, 400 Second Street, International Falls, MN 56649-2387.

Before a Presidential permit may be issued or amended, the DOE must determine that the proposed action(s) will not adversely impact on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system. In addition, DOE must consider the environmental impacts of the proposed action(s) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. DOE also must obtain the concurrence of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense before taking final action on a Presidential permit application.

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

Southwestern Power Administration's (Southwestern) Administrator has determined, based on the 2004 Integrated System Current Power Repayment Study, that existing rates will not satisfy cost recovery criteria specified in Department of Energy Order No. RA 6120.2 and Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944. The finalized 2004 Integrated System Power Repayment Studies (PRSs), indicate that an increase in annual revenue of $8,576,164, or 7.5 percent, beginning January 1, 2005, will satisfy cost recovery criteria for the Integrated System projects. The proposed Integrated System rate schedules would increase annual revenues from $114,973,800 to $123,549,964, primarily to recover increased expenditures in operations and maintenance (O&M) and investment. In addition, the PRS indicates the need for an annual increase of $737,300 in revenues received through the Purchased Power Adder to recover increased purchased energy costs. This rate proposal also includes a provision to continue the Administrator's Discretionary Purchased Power Adder Adjustment, to adjust the purchased power adder annually, of up to $0.0011 per kilowatthour as necessary, at his/her discretion, under a formula-type rate, with notification to the FERC.

The Administrator has followed Title 10, Part 903 Subpart A, of the Code of Federal Regulations, “Procedures for Public Participation in Power and Transmission Rate Adjustments and Extensions” in connection with the proposed rate schedule. On June 4, 2004, Southwestern published notice in the Federal Register , 69 FR 31608, of a 90-day comment period, together with a Public Information Forum and a Public Comment Form, to provide an opportunity for customers and other interested members of the public to review and comment on a proposed rate increase for the Integrated System. Both public forums were canceled since no one expressed an intention to participate. Written comments were accepted through September 2, 2005. Three comments were received and are addressed in this rate proposal.

Information regarding this rate proposal, including studies and other supporting material, is available for public review and comment in the offices of Southwestern Power Administration, Suite 1400, One West Third Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103.

Following review of Southwestern's proposal within the Department of Energy, I approved, Rate Order No. SWPA-51, on an interim basis through September 30, 2008, which increases the existing Integrated System annual revenue requirement to $123,549,964 per year for the period January 1, 2005, through September 30, 2008.

Pursuant to Sections 302(a) and 301(b) of the Department of Energy Organization Act, Public Law 95-91, the functions of the Secretary of the Interior and the Federal Power Commission under Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944, 16 U.S.C. 825s, relating to the Southwestern Power Administration (Southwestern) were transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Energy. By Delegation Order No. 0204-108, effective December 14, 1983, the Secretary of Energy delegated to the Administrator of Southwestern the authority to develop power and transmission rates, delegated to the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Energy the authority to confirm, approve, and place in effect such rates on an interim basis and delegated to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) the authority to confirm and approve on a final basis or to disapprove rates developed by the Administrator under the delegation. Delegation Order No. 0204-108, as amended, was rescinded and subsequently replaced by Delegation Orders 00-037.00 (December 6, 2001) and 00-001-00A (September 17, 2002). The Deputy Secretary issued this rate order pursuant to said delegations.

FERC confirmation and approval of the following Integrated System (System) rate schedules was provided in FERC Docket No. EF02-4011-000 issued October 22, 2003, for the period October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2006:

Southwestern Power Administration's (Southwestern), Current Power Repayment Study (PRS) indicates that the existing rates will not satisfy present financial criteria regarding repayment of investment within a 50-year period due to cost adjustments to reflect the final cost allocation approval for the Harry S. Truman Project plus increasing operation and maintenance expenditures and investment for both the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and Southwestern. The revised PRS indicates that an increase in annual revenues of $8,576,164 is necessary beginning January 1, 2005, to accomplish repayment in the required number of years. Accordingly, Southwestern has prepared proposed rate schedules based on the additional revenue requirement and the 2004 Rate Design Study.

Informal meetings were held in April and May 2004 with customer representatives to review the repayment and rate design processes and present the basis for an approximately 8 percent annual revenue increase. In May 2004, Southwestern prepared a proposed 2004 PRS for the Integrated System.

Title 10, Part 903, Subpart A of the Code of Federal Regulations, “Procedures for Public Participation in Power and Transmission Rate Adjustment,” has been followed in connection with the proposed rate adjustments. More specifically, opportunities for public review and comment on proposed System power rates during a 90-day period were announced by notice published in the Federal Register June 4, 2004, (69 FR 31608). A Public Information Forum was scheduled for June 29, 2004, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and a Public Comment Forum was scheduled for July 27, 2004, also in Tulsa. Both were canceled since no one expressed an intention to attend. Written comments were due by September 2, 2004. Southwestern mailed copies of the proposed May 2004 PRS and Rate Design Studies to customers and interested parties that requested the data, for review and comment during the formal period of public participation.

Following conclusion of the comment period on September 2, 2004, comments presented during the formal public participation process were reviewed. Once all comments were carefully evaluated and responded to, the 2004 PRS and Rate Design Studies were completed. Changes were made to the 2004 PRS to reflect final audited financial data for FY 2003 and to reflect refinements in cost estimates. The studies were finalized in September 2004. The Administrator decided to submit the rate proposal for interim approval and implementation. The comments resulting from the public participation process and responses, as developed by Southwestern's staff, are contained in this Rate Order.

The existing rate schedules developed in the 2002 Integrated System PRS were the basis for revenue determination in the September 2004 Integrated System Current PRS. The Current PRS indicates that existing rates are insufficient to produce the annual revenues necessary to accomplish repayment of the capital investment as required by Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 and Department of Energy (DOE) Order No. RA 6120.2.

A Revised PRS was prepared based on $8,576,164 of additional annual revenue beginning January 1, 2005, to satisfy repayment criteria.

In Southwestern's 2004 Rate Proposal, two noteworthy issues are described in detail. The issues are: (1) the final approval of the Harry S. Truman (Truman) project cost allocation, and (2) the rate design procedures for implementing the revenue increase.

The final approval of the Truman cost allocation was issued by the Corps on May 3, 2003. Estimates for the cost allocation adjustments are included in this PRS. The Corps will make adjustments to Operation and Maintenance Expenses, Interest and Investment to reflect the change in joint-use percentages. The Corps has indicated that adjustments will be made to the Corps' FY 2004 power reports and reflected on their FY 2004 financial statements, which will be reviewed and certified by the auditors. The adjustments will then be included in the historical actual data in the 2005 PRS.

Several customers requested Southwestern to consider assigning the revenue increase to the peaking energy rate in lieu of the capacity rate. This alternative was requested to help some customers pass on the increased costs from Southwestern as a fuel cost adjustment to their customers without the need for a formal rate increase. Southwestern presented proposed alternative rate designs that might meet the customers' needs, while at the same time meeting Southwestern's repayment requirements together with the most recent rate design process. The customers that attended a meeting at which Southwestern made this presentation reached a consensus that they would prefer that Southwestern submit the rate design incorporating the changes in the energy rate in the proposed rate filing. The change in the rate design resulted in little, if any, impact on customers as compared with the most recent rate design process.

Rates were designed to recover the additional revenue requirements. The monthly demand charge for the sale of Federal hydroelectric power has increased. The energy charge was separated into a peaking energy charge and a supplemental energy charge, both of which reflected increases over the current base energy rate. The transformation charge, though paid by a few customers having 69 kV and below deliveries, has increased and affects revenues as well. In addition, transmission charges for non-Federal, firm service have increased. The increases to both transformation and transmission charges are due to including projected additions and replacements to Southwestern's aging transmission facilities since the last rate change.

In accordance with FERC's Order No. 888, Southwestern will continue charging separately for five ancillary services and offering network transmission service.

In accordance with FERC's Order No. 888, Southwestern will continue charging separately for five ancillary services and offering network transmission service. Southwestern's rate design has separated the five ancillary services for all transmission service. Two ancillary services, Scheduling, System Control and Dispatch Service together with Reactive and Voltage Support Service, are required for every transmission transaction. These charges are also a part of the capacity rate for Federal power. This is consistent with Southwestern's long-standing practice of charging for the sale and delivery of Federal power in its Federal demand charge. The three remaining ancillary services will be made available to any transmission user within Southwestern's control area, including Federal power customers. The rate schedules for Peaking Power and Non-Federal Transmission Service reflect these charges. Network transmission service is provided to those, also within Southwestern's control area, who request the service, but for non-Federal deliveries only, and who contracted with Southwestern for this service prior to the Southwest Power Pool offering Network Service. The rate for and application of this service are identified in the Non-Federal Transmission/ Interconnection Facilities Service Rate Schedule, NFTS-04.

With respect to the Purchased Power Adder (Adder), Southwestern is proposing, as in all previous proposals beginning with the 1983 implementation of the purchased power rate component, that the Adder be set equal to the current average long-term purchased power rate requirement. As shown in the Rate Design Study, the amount is determined by dividing the estimated total average direct purchased power costs by Southwestern's total annual contractual 1200-hour peaking energy commitments to the customers (exclusive of contract support arrangements). In this rate proposal, the resulting Adder is $0.0028 per kWh of peaking energy. The total revenue created through application of this Adder would enable Southwestern to cover its average annual purchased power costs.

The Southwestern Power Administration (Southwestern) responded to numerous questions to which responses were provided during the public participation period which are included in the background information. In addition, Southwestern received comments from three entities during the public participation process. Those comments and Southwestern's responses are summarized into five general areas of concern, and are as follows:

Southwestern and the Corps should schedule future needed work so as not to cause a rate increase by doing all the work in the same fiscal year. The commenter suggests that the big projects be leveled out over time to achieve this end.

Southwestern agrees with the commenter and will make every effort to assure that its forecasts of future needed work represent what Southwestern will be able to achieve in a particular year. Southwestern has coordinated future Corps activities with a joint Corps/Southwestern/Customer Group to assure that the Corps levels out its large projects, if practical, and includes in each year's projections no more than what it believes it will be able to accomplish in that year. Balancing the need to ensure that the hydroelectric facilities are in good serviceable condition and the cost of keeping those facilities in that condition is an on-going concern continually monitored by the two agencies. Southwestern supports performance of large maintenance efforts in phases where feasible. Further, by the nature of the power repayment study process, large project costs incurred in any year (except the last year of the Cost Evaluation Period (CEP)) would have little effect on the need for a rate increase. Southwestern is careful to avoid incorporating such cost variations in the last year of the CEP.

One commenter acknowledges that inclusion of “unfunded” Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS)/Health/Life Insurance Benefits as a cost in Southwestern's rates was raised in Southwestern's 2002 rate case before the FERC. However, the commenter states that they will continue to raise this issue until all federal agencies that are self-supporting pay for these future funding shortfalls in the same manner as the Power Marketing Administrations. Another commenter does not oppose the inclusion of “unfunded” CSRS costs in the rates, but believes that Southwestern should: (1) Properly account for the additional interest effects of the revenues collected for future retirements; (2) credit Southwestern's balance to be repaid with compounded interest from the collected funds; and (3) not repay investments without consideration of customer deposits.

The Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board issued Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS) #5 (September 1995) which provides guidance on how to determine and handle accounting treatment of these post retirement costs. In FY1998 Southwestern began recording values for the post retirement benefits, based on cost factors provided by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). OPM provides, annually, cost factors for computing these unfunded post retirement expenses in three areas; pensions, health insurance and life insurance.

OPM's actuarial calculations are based in large measure on its assumptions about the future. Both economic (inflation, interest rates, and future salary levels) and demographic ( e.g. , rates of retirement, mortality, and separation) assumptions are included in the calculations.

SFFAS #5 (paragraph 59) states, “For pension and other retirement benefits, the expense is recognized at the time the employees' services are rendered.”

SFFAS #5 (paragraph 74) states, “The Federal employer entity should recognize a pension expense in its financial report that equals the service cost. Service cost is defined as the actuarial present value of benefits attributed by the pension plan's benefit formula to services rendered by employees during an accounting period. The term is synonymous with normal cost.”

Financial Accounting Standards Interpretation Number 4; Accounting for Pension Payments in Excess of Pension Expense: Changes in normal costs due to re-estimates of demographic and economic assumptions should be accounted for by the recording entity. The effect of the change should be recognized in current and future years.

OPM takes an annual snap shot of what the normal cost would be to determine the uncaptured (unfunded) post retirement costs. This process involves a review of actuarial data for both retirees and current employees, with the retirement cost factor only being applied to current Federal employees in the CSRS retirement system. The unfunded amounts for health and life apply to all current employees.

This post retirement cost is an annual cost of operations and is recorded as part of each agency's annual operation and maintenance cost. It is not an expense deferred to a future period, as Paragraph 59 of SAFFAS #5 clearly defines it as a current year cost. It is recorded as such in Southwestern's financial records.

Southwestern agrees with the comment that it should properly account for the additional interest effects of the revenues collected and believes that we are currently doing so. As stated in the 2002 Integrated System rate case, Southwestern's existing procedure imputes an interest credit at current year interest rates on all revenues received—which would include revenues received to repay CSRS costs. The effect of the interest credit carries throughout the entire repayment period. Likewise, annual costs, such as the unfunded costs at issue here, will also incur an interest charge. Regarding the issue of applying revenues received for CSRS expenses to Southwestern's debt, the application of revenues is specified by DOE Order 6120.2 (paragraph 8c(3)) which states “Annual revenues will be first applied to the following recovery of costs during the year in which they occurred: operation and maintenance (O&M), purchased and exchanged power, transmission service and other, and interest expense and any appropriation amortization of revenue bonds. Remaining revenues are available for amortization * * *” Therefore, Southwestern applies its revenues received to cover the CSRS expenses (a current year cost) before it applies any revenue toward the amortization of the Federal investment.

Commenters state that the Corps' expenses continue to spiral upward annually—unchecked and that Southwestern should obtain information from the Corps that would support the projected O&M expenses, not just rely on unexplained assurances that the O&M is justified.

Projections for Corps O&M are developed by the Corps and provided to Southwestern annually. The Corps makes projections of its base O&M costs using historical information and planning documents, and also includes projections for large maintenance items for each of the projects that they expect to complete. These projections are made in current year dollars and do not include inflation. Southwestern reviews this information, questioning the Corps where inconsistencies seem to occur, clarifying its understanding of the cost estimates, and adjusting the estimates to future year dollars based on the Gross Domestic Product Index to incorporate inflationary expectations.

The Corps' base O&M expenses are largely related to salaries. During recent years, all Federal employees have received approximately a 4 percent increase in salaries annually, together with the increased costs of benefits incurred for these employees. These personnel costs are included in the base estimates for O&M. These base estimates, together with the large maintenance items have resulted in actual increased O&M costs for the Corps. Although the Corps has historically, in total, been fairly accurate, its projections for O&M costs for the past four years have been less than what was recorded as expended on its financial statements. The Corps has confirmed that the past few years' projections were based on anticipated reductions in funding, but realized it was underestimating and has been increasing its estimates to better reflect its expected expenditures. Southwestern agrees with the Corps that the increased estimates of O&M costs better reflect its expenditures. The Corps' O&M costs are not anticipated to decrease so long as all phases of project rehabilitations and a backlog of maintenance remain to be completed on the projects.

Southwestern has no oversight authority with regard to Corps expenditures for O&M activities, but is responsible for repaying the Corps' power-related costs pursuant to the Flood Control Act of 1944. The Corps is responsible for managing their organization. Southwestern agrees that such costs should be prudently and timely incurred at reasonable levels consistent with sound business principles. Southwestern has inquired further of the Corps and has been advised that the Corps believes that its FY 2004 O&M estimates fairly represent the minimum expenditure level expected for the projects' O&M and that this level of expenditure is expected to be reflected on its financial statements. The Corps believes that its internal controls, accounting system reviews, audits and funding procedures effectively provide the needed level of justification, consistency and control of its O&M expenditures.

One Commenter stated the belief that the customers who take power from Narrows, Denison and Whitney pay bundled rates, without receiving any benefit from Southwestern's transmission system. These customers pay other providers for the same services and should receive a credit from Southwestern for incurring the extra costs that a typical Southwestern customer does not pay. These customers agree with paying Southwestern for the services they receive, but do not believe they should be paying for transmission and ancillary services that they do not use. In addition, they believe they should receive credit for incurring costs that the typical Southwestern customer does not.

Southwestern's position on this issue has not changed from its 1997 and 2002 Integrated System rate package responses. Southwestern's sales of Federal power and energy are based on a “postage-stamp” type rate, which is based on the financial integration of all the projects marketed under the Integrated System, as well as various components of Southwestern's transmission system. The capacity rate for all Federal power customers includes a transmission component and the two required ancillary services. The transmission component of this rate has been set to assure that Southwestern charges itself the same rates it charges for the use of the transmission system for wheeling non-Federal power.

The customers who receive the total output of specific Corps projects that are presently electrically isolated from Southwestern's primary interconnected system requested, at the time of their contract renewal, financial integration of such projects into the Integrated System to receive certain benefits, including lower costs. Such customers receive a number of benefits from their project purchases that other Federal customers do not, such as overload capacity, condensing, greater scheduling flexibility, and an exclusion from paying the Purchased Power Adder because of their obligation to meet Southwestern's 1200 hour minimum delivery requirement. Such projects also include components of Southwestern's transmission system and switchyard facilities used to deliver power and energy from the dams, and the costs of such facilities are recovered under the Integrated System rates. Revenues from all sales within the Integrated System are applied toward repayment of all Federal investment for all projects, regardless of their electrical integration status.

Southwestern is not required by FERC Order No. 888 or Order No. 2000 to offer unbundled services to its customers. Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 sets forth the statutory requirements for the sale and delivery of Federal power and energy. Furthermore, based on DOE policy, “each of the PMAs that own transmission facilities will publish generally applicable open access wholesale transmission tariffs and will take service itself under such tariffs. The tariffs will include rates, terms, and conditions, and will offer transmission services, including ancillary services, to all entities eligible to seek a transmission order under section 211 of the Federal Power Act * * *” Southwestern has complied with this policy in separating its non-Federal transmission service and to provide for ancillary services.

There is no overriding factor that compels Southwestern to change its previous determination that those customers who are presently electrically isolated from Southwestern's primary interconnected system do, in fact, derive benefit from the projects themselves and the transmission system and related facilities, and the power rate charged to the customers reflects such benefits. The parties expressing these concerns voluntarily and knowingly entered into long-term contractual arrangements to receive the benefits of these projects at integrated system rates. Based on prior FERC orders, we believe it is inappropriate for the parties again to seek, through the rate development process, to overturn what was done by their request and for their benefit through mutually agreeable bilateral contracts.

A commenter has stated that an alternative rate design was adopted by Southwestern without informed customer input.

Several customers asked Southwestern to consider assigning the 2004 Integrated System revenue increase to the peaking energy rate in lieu of the capacity rate. The requested action was intended to help some customers pass on the increased costs from Southwestern through their fuel cost adjustments without having to formally increase their rates. Southwestern presented proposed alternative rate designs that might meet the customers' needs and at the same time meet Southwestern's repayment requirements, together with the most recent rate design process, at a special meeting held several weeks after the request. Many of the customers and a representative of the commenter were in attendance. The attendees reached a consensus that they would prefer that Southwestern submit the alternative rate design currently in the proposed rate filing. All customers and interested parties had a formal 90-day public comment period in which to review the proposed rate filing and provide comments. Only one commenter expressed any opposition to the proposed rate design based on the increased costs to them. Several customers verbally indicated their appreciation of the consideration of the customer request by Southwestern.

Because of the commenter's concern regarding increased costs to customers as a result of the proposed rate design, Southwestern reviewed the proposed rate design and determined that in separating the base energy rate between peaking energy and supplemental energy, some of the costs associated with the supplemental energy rate were incorrectly assigned to the peaking energy rate. As a result, the rates were adjusted to more accurately reflect the appropriate cost assignment. Southwestern then estimated the financial impacts to the customers and determined that the currently proposed rate design will meet Southwestern's repayment requirements and not cost the customers and, in particular, the commenter, any more than what it would have cost them under the previous rate design.

Other issues are discussed in the Administrator's Record of Decision.

Information regarding this rate proposal, including studies, comments and other supporting material, is available for public review and comment in the offices of Southwestern Power Administration, One West Third Street, Tulsa, OK 74101.

The September 2004 Revised Power Repayment Study indicates that the increased power rates will repay all costs of the Integrated System including amortization of the power investment consistent with the provisions of Department of Energy Order No. RA 6120.2. In accordance with Delegation Order No. 00-037.00, December 6, 2001, and Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944, the Administrator has determined that the proposed System rates are consistent with applicable law and the lowest possible rates consistent with sound business principles.

The environmental impact of the proposed System rates was evaluated in consideration of DOE's guidelines for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act and was determined to fall within the class of actions that are categorically excluded from the requirements of preparing either an Environmental Impact Statement or an Environmental Assessment.

In view of the foregoing and pursuant to the authority delegated to me the Deputy Secretary of Energy, I hereby confirm, approve and place in effect on an interim basis, effective January 1, 2005, the following Southwestern Integrated System Rate Schedules, which shall remain in effect on an interim basis through September 30, 2008, or until the FERC confirms and approves the rates on a final basis.

The existing hydroelectric power rate for the Rayburn project is $2,013,024 per year. The rate was approved on a final basis by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on January 31, 2003, for the period October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2006. The 2004 Rayburn Power Repayment Studies indicate the need for an increase in the annual rate of $500,676, or 24.9 percent beginning January 1, 2005.

The Administrator, Southwestern Power Administration (Southwestern) has followed Title 10, Part 903 Subpart A, of the Code of Federal Regulations, “Procedures for Public Participation in Power and Transmission Rate Adjustments and Extensions” (Part 903) in connection with the proposed rate schedule. On July 21, 2004, Southwestern published notice in the Federal Register , 69 FR 43580, of a 90-day comment period, together with a Public Information Forum and a Public Comment Forum, to provide an opportunity for customers and other interested members of the public to review and comment on a proposed rate increase for the Rayburn project. Both public forums were canceled when no one expressed an intention to participate. Written comments were accepted through October 19, 2004. One comment was received from Gillis & Angley, Counsellors at Law, on behalf of Sam Rayburn Municipal Power Agency and Vinton Public Power Authority, (organizations within Sam Rayburn Dam Electric Cooperative, Inc.) which stated that they had no objection to the proposed rate adjustment.

Information regarding this rate proposal, including studies and other supporting material, is available for public review and comment in the offices of Southwestern Power Administration, One West Third Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103.

Following review of Southwestern's proposal within the Department of Energy, I approved Rate Order No. SWPA-52, on an interim basis, which increases the existing Rayburn rate to $2,513,700, per year, for the period January 1, 2005, through September 30, 2008.

Pursuant to Sections 302(a) and 301(b) of the Department of Energy Organization Act, Pub. L. 95-91, the functions of the Secretary of the Interior and the Federal Power Commission under Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944, 16 U.S.C. 825s, relating to the Southwestern Power Administration (Southwestern) were transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Energy. By Delegation Order No. 0204-108, effective December 14, 1983, the Secretary of Energy delegated to the Administrator of Southwestern the authority to develop power and transmission rates, delegated to the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Energy the authority to confirm, approve, and place in effect such rates on an interim basis and delegated to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) the authority to confirm and approve on a final basis or to disapprove rates developed by the Administrator under the delegation. Delegation Order No. 0204-108, as amended, was rescinded and subsequently replaced by Delegation Orders 00-037.00 (December 6, 2001) and 00-001-00A (September 17, 2002). The Deputy Secretary issued this rate order pursuant to said delegations.

The Sam Rayburn Dam Project (Rayburn) is located on the Angelina River in the State of Texas in the Neches River Basin. Since the beginning of its operation in 1965, it has been marketed as an isolated project, under contract with Sam Rayburn Dam Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Contract No. DE-PM75-92SW00215).

In the FERC Docket No. EF03-4021-000, issued January 31, 2003, for the period October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2006, the FERC confirmed and approved the current annual Sam Rayburn Dam rate of $2,013,024.

Southwestern's 2004 Current Power Repayment Study (PRS) indicates that the existing annual power rate of $2,013,024 does not represent the lowest possible rate needed to meet cost recovery criteria. The increased revenue requirement is due to an increase in the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) operations and maintenance expense estimates. The Revised PRS indicates that an increase in annual revenues of $500,676 beginning January 1, 2005, is sufficient to accomplish repayment of the Federal investment in the required number of years. Accordingly, Southwestern developed a proposed rate schedule based on that increased revenue requirement.

Title 10, Part 903, Subpart A of the Code of Federal Regulations, “Procedures for Public Participation in Power and Transmission Rate Adjustment,” has been followed in connection with the proposed rate adjustment. More specifically, opportunities for public review and comment during a 90-day period on the proposed Rayburn power rate were announced by notice published in the Federal Register , July 21, 2004, 69 FR 43580. A Public Information Forum was scheduled to be held July 27, 2004, and a Public Comment Forum was scheduled to be held August 26, 2004, both in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Both forums were canceled as no one expressed an intent to participate. Written comments were due by October 19, 2004. Southwestern provided the Federal Register notice, together with supporting data, to the customer and interested parties for review and comment during the formal period of public participation. In addition, prior to the formal 90-day public participation process, Southwestern discussed with the customer representatives the preliminary information on the proposed rate adjustment. Only one formal comment was received from Gillis & Angley, Counsellors at Law, on behalf of Sam Rayburn Municipal Power Agency and Vinton Public Power Authority, (organizations within Sam Rayburn Dam Electric Cooperative, Inc.) which stated that they had no objection to the proposed rate adjustment.

Upon conclusion of the comment period in October 2004, Southwestern finalized the PRS and rate schedule for the proposed annual rate of $2,513,700 which is the lowest possible rate needed to satisfy repayment criteria. This rate represents an annual increase of 24.9 percent.

Information regarding this rate increase, including studies and other supporting material, is available for public review and comment in the offices of Southwestern Power Administration, One West Third Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103.

Southwestern received one written comment in which customer representatives expressed no objection to the proposed rate adjustment.

There were no other issues raised during the informal meeting or during the formal public participation period.

The 2004 Revised Rayburn PRS indicates that the annual power rate of $2,513,700 will repay all costs of the project, including amortization of the power investment consistent with provisions of the Department of Energy (DOE) Order No. RA 6120.2. In accordance with Delegation Order Nos. 00-037.00 (December 6, 2001) and 00-001.00A (September 17, 2002), and Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944, the Administrator has determined that the proposed Rayburn power rate is consistent with applicable law and the lowest possible rate consistent with sound business principles.

The environmental impact of the rate increase proposal was evaluated in consideration of DOE's guidelines for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, 10 CFR 1021, and was determined to fall within the class of actions that are categorically excluded from the requirements of preparing either an Environmental Impact Statement or an Environmental Assessment.

In view of the foregoing and pursuant to the authority delegated to me, I hereby confirm, approve and place in effect on an interim basis, for the period January 1, 2005, through September 30, 2008, the annual Sam Rayburn Dam Rate of $2,513,700 for the sale of power and energy from Sam Rayburn Dam to the Sam Rayburn Dam Electric Cooperative, Inc., under Contract No. DE-PM75-92SW00215, dated October 7, 1992. This rate shall remain in effect on an interim basis through September 30, 2008, or until the FERC confirms and approves the rate on a final basis.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On August 10th, 2004, (69 FR 48490), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. SFUND-2004-0010, which is available for public viewing in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the Superfund Docket is (202) 566-0276 ( http://www.epa.gov/edocket ). An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket . Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above.

Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 (May 31, 2002), or go to http://www.epa.gov/edocket .

Title: Application for Reimbursement to Local Governments for Emergency Response to Hazardous Substance Releases Under CERCLA Section 123 (Renewal).

Abstract: The Agency requires applicants for reimbursement under this program authorized under section 123 of CERCLA to submit an application that demonstrates consistency with program eligibility requirements. This is necessary to ensure proper use of the Superfund. EPA reviews the information to ensure compliance with all statutory and program requirements. The applicants are local governments who have incurred expenses, above and beyond their budgets, for hazardous substance response. Submission of this information is voluntary and to the applicant's benefit.

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

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 9 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Various units of local governments.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 200/year.

Frequency of Response: Occasional, only if respondent wishes reimbursement.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 1,800 hours.

Estimated Total Annualized Cost Burden: $33,300, which includes $0 Capital expenditure/Startup costs, $0 O&M costs, and $ 33,300 Respondent Labor costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is no change.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On July 20, 2004 (69 FR 43411), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID number OAR-2004-0089, which is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket, in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket . Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above.

Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 (May 31, 2002), or go to http://www.epa.gov/edocket.

Title: Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993 and Earlier Model Year Urban Buses (40 CFR Part 85, Subpart O) (Renewal).

Abstract: Section 219(d) of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, required that the EPA promulgate regulations for urban buses that: (a) Operate in Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) or consolidated MSA's with a 1980 population of 750,000 or more; (b) are not subject to the 1994 or later urban bus standards; and (c) have their engines replaced or rebuilt after January 1, 1995. The CAA Amendments require the subject urban buses be retrofitted to comply with an emission standard that reflects the best retrofit technology and maintenance practices reasonably achievable. Under these provisions, EPA set requirements for pre-1994 model year urban buses when urban bus engines are rebuilt or replaced. The program requires that the particulate emissions level of the urban bus engines be reduced to a level below the engines' original particulate level through the use of retrofit/rebuild equipment that is certified by EPA. The program will phase itself out as pre-1994 urban buses are retired from fleets. Responses to the collection of information are mandatory. All the information required by this collection is needed for the implementation and the activities of various EPA programs. The information is collected by the Engine Programs Group, Certification and Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and Radiation. Specific certification information submitted by manufacturers is held as confidential. Confidentiality of proprietary information is granted in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 2, and class determinations issued by EPA's Office of General Counsel.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 129 hours per retrofit equipment manufacturer and 33 hours per bus operator. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are manufacturers of retrofit equipment and urban bus fleet operators.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 41.

Frequency of Response: Annually and on occasion.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 1,457.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $186,148, which includes $0 annualized capital/startup costs, $111,401 annual O&M costs, and $74,747 annual labor costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 2,252 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This decrease is due to changes in the estimated number of respondents. The decrease in burden is, therefore, due to an adjustment to the estimates.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On April 26, 2004 (69 FR 22507), EPA sought comments on the “Storage, Treatment, and Disposal of Mixed Waste” ICR, and on June 25, 2004 (69 FR 35594), EPA sought comments on the “Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Universal Waste Handlers and Destination Facilities'' ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments to either notice.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. RCRA-2004-0005, which is available for public viewing at the RCRA Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the RCRA Docket is (202) 566-0270. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket . Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above.

Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 (May 31, 2002), or go to http://www.epa.gov/edocket.

Title: Requirements and Exemptions for Specific RCRA Wastes (Renewal).

Abstract: In the 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended, Congress directs the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop and administer a comprehensive program for the safe management and disposal of hazardous waste. In 1980, EPA promulgated regulations in 40 CFR part 261-265 to comply with RCRA. EPA has since added to these regulations on many occasions. This ICR concerns two such additions. This ICR includes both the former “Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Universal Waste Handlers and Destination Facilities'' ICR (EPA ICR Number 1597.04, OMB Control Number 2050-0145) and the “Storage, Treatment, and Disposal of Mixed Waste” ICR (EPA ICR Number 1922.02, OMB Control Number 2050-0181).

In 1995, EPA promulgated regulations in 40 CFR part 273 that govern the collection and management of widely-generated hazardous wastes known as “Universal Wastes”. Universal Wastes are wastes that are generated in non-industrial settings by a vast community, and are present in non-hazardous waste management systems. Examples of Universal Wastes include certain batteries, pesticides, mercury-containing lamps and thermostats. The part 273 regulations are designed to separate Universal Waste from the municipal wastestream by encouraging individuals and organizations to collect these wastes and to manage them in an appropriate hazardous waste management system. EPA distinguishes two types of handlers of Universal Wastes: Small quantity handlers of Universal Waste (SQHUW) and large quantity handlers of Universal Waste (LQHUW). SQHUWs do not accumulate more than 5,000 kg of any one category of Universal Waste at one time, while LQHUWs may accumulate quantities at or above this threshold. More stringent requirements are imposed on LQHUWs because of greater potential environmental risks.

In 2001, EPA promulgated regulations in 40 CFR part 266 that provide increased flexibility to facilities managing wastes commonly known as “Mixed Waste”. Mixed Waste are low-level mixed waste (LLMW), and naturally occurring and/or accelerator-produced radioactive material (NARM) containing hazardous waste. These wastes are also regulated by the Atomic Energy Act. As long as specified eligibility criteria and conditions are met, LLMW and NARM are exempt from the definition of hazardous waste as defined in part 261. Although these eligible wastes are exempted from RCRA manifest, transportation, and disposal requirements, they must still comply with the manifest, transportation, and disposal requirements under the NRC (or NRC-Agreement State) regulations. There are two conditional exemptions. The Storage and Treatment Conditional Exemption applies to any generator of LLMW who is licensed by NRC or an NRC Agreement State to manage radioactive materials. This exemption is available only to LLMW generated under a single NRC or NRC Agreement State license. LLMW generators must notify EPA of the LLMW storage units for which they are claiming an exemption, and must meet the conditions listed in section 266.230. This exemption is valid as long as the Mixed Waste meets the conditions, remains in a conditionally exempt storage unit, and is subject to NRC regulation.

The Transportation and Disposal Conditional Exemption from the definition of hazardous waste applies to generators and treaters who send their treated waste to a commercial low-level radioactive waste disposal facility (LLRWDF) licensed by NRC or NRC Agreement State. The eligible LLMW or NARM waste would be exempted from RCRA Subtitle C once it is placed on the transportation vehicle bound for disposal at the LLRWDF. The waste could then be transported to the LLRWDF as strictly radioactive waste using an NRC Uniform LLW Manifest. Generators and treaters under the exemption must undertake the information collection requirements listed in section 266.345.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Business, farms, State, Local, or Tribal Governments.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 119,782.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 185,967.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $10,730,000, includes $2,000 annual startup/capital costs, $1,000 annual O&M costs and $10,727,000 annual labor costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 32,201 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This decrease is due to a decrease in the number of both large quantity Universal Waste handlers, as well as generators of Mixed Waste, since the last time this ICR was approved.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23743), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OW-2004-0007, which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above.

Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 (May 31, 2002), or go to http://www.epa.gov/edocket.

Title: Public Water System Supervision Program (Renewal).

Abstract: The Public Water System Supervision Program ICR examines public water system (PWS), primacy agency and EPA burden and costs for “cross-cutting” recordkeeping and reporting requirements ( i.e. , the burden and costs for complying with drinking water information requirements that are not associated with contaminant-specific rulemakings). These activities which have recordkeeping and reporting requirements that are mandatory for compliance with 40 CFR parts 141 and 142 include the following: Consumer Confidence Reports, Primacy Regulation Activities, Variance and Exemption Rule, General State Primacy Activities, Constructed Conveyances, and Public Notification. The information collection activities for both the Operator Certification/Expense Reimbursement Program and the Capacity Development Program are driven by the grant withholding and reporting provisions under sections 1419 and 1420, respectively, of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Although the Tribal Operator Certification Program is voluntary, the information collection is driven by grant eligibility requirements outlined in the Drinking Water Infrastructure Grant Tribal Set-Aside Program Final Guidelines and the Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program Guidelines.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 6.5 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: (1) Owners/operators of PWSs, who must report to the primacy agency; (2) primacy agencies that must report to EPA Headquarters; and (3) regional EPA administrators, who must send reports and notices to PWS owners and states.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 161,682.

Frequency of Response: 24 hours, quarterly, annually, every 3 years.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 3,223,430.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $116,457,000, includes $19,716,000 annualized capital or O&M costs and $96,741,000 annual labor costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 601,582 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This increase is primarily due to (1) restructuring adjustments—incorporation of previously stand-alone ICRs (Operator Certification Program/Expense Reimbursement Grants and Tribal Operator Certification Program), (2) inclusion of three full years of the Public Notification Rule burden along with an increase in Tier 3 violations and (3) a change in requirements associated with the new PWS definition.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23741), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OW-2004-0008, which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above.

Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 (May 31, 2002), or go to http://www.epa.gov/edocket.

Title: Microbial Rules (Renewal).

Abstract: This ICR examines public water system (PWS), primacy agency, and EPA burden and costs for recordkeeping and reporting required in support of microbial contaminant-associated rulemakings. These rules that have recordkeeping and reporting requirements that are mandatory for compliance with 40 CFR parts 141 and 142 include the following: (1) Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR); (2) Total Coliform Rule (TCR); (3) Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR); (4) Filter Backwash Recycling Rule (FBRR); and (5) Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR). This Microbial Rules ICR includes all SWTR components except disinfectant residual monitoring and associated activities, which are included in the Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts, Chemical, and Radionuclides Rules ICR. Burden for future rules that address microbial contaminants (Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR), and the Ground Water Rule (GWR) will be added to this ICR when the regulations are finalized and the original stand-alone ICRs for each rule expires.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average .77 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: (1) Owners/operators of PWSs, who must report to the primacy agency; (2) primacy agencies that must report to EPA Headquarters; and (3) regional EPA administrators, who must send reports and notices to PWS owners and States.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 161,274.

Frequency of Response: As necessary, monthly, quarterly, annually.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 8,624,865.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $340,480,000, includes $96,939,000 annualized capital or O&M costs and $243,541,000 annual labor costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 431,665 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This increase is primarily due to restructuring adjustments ( i.e. , incorporation of previously stand-alone ICRs for the LT1ESWTR and the FBRR).

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On August 5, 2004 (69 FR 47432), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OW-2004-0015, which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above.

Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 (May 31, 2002), or go to http://www.epa.gov/edocket.

Title: Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund Program (Renewal).

Abstract: The Clean Water Act, as amended by “The Water Quality Act of 1987” (U.S.C. 1381-1387 et. seq. ), created a Title VI which authorizes grants to States for the establishment of State Water Pollution Control Revolving Funds (SRFs). The information collection activities will occur primarily at the program level through the State “Intended Use Plan” and “Annual Report.” The information is needed annually to implement section 606 of the Clean Water Act (CWA).

The 1987 Act declares that water pollution control revolving funds shall be administered by an instrumentality of the State subject to the requirements of the act. This means that each State has a general responsibility for administering its revolving fund and must take on certain specific responsibilities in carrying out its administrative duties. The information collection activities will occur primarily at the program level through the State Intended Use Plan and Annual Report. The information is needed annually to implement section 606 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Act requires the information to ensure national accountability, adequate public comment and review, fiscal integrity and consistent management directed to achieve environmental benefits and results. The individual information collections are: (1) Capitalization Grant Application and Agreement/State Intended Use Plan, (2) Annual Report, (3) State Annual Audit, and (4) Application for SRF Financial Assistance.

(1) Capitalization Grant Application and Agreement/State Intended Use Plan: The State will prepare a Capitalization Grant application that includes an Intended Use Plan (IUP) outlining in detail how it will use all the funds available to the fund. The grant agreement contains or incorporates by reference the IUP, application materials, payment schedule, and required assurances. The bulk of the information is provided in the IUP, the legal agreement which commits the State and EPA to execute their responsibilities under the Act.

(2) Annual Report: The State must agree to complete and submit an Annual Report that indicates how the State has met the goals and objectives of the previous fiscal year as stated in the IUP and grant agreement. The report provides information on loan recipients, loan amounts, loan terms, project categories, and similar data on other forms of assistance. The report describes the extent to which the existing SRF financial operating policies, alone or in combination with other State financial assistance programs, will provide for the long term fiscal health of the Fund and carry out other provisions specified in the grant operating agreement.

(3) Annual Audit: Most States have agreed to conduct or have conducted a separate financial audit of the Capitalization Grant which will provide opinions on the financial statements, and a report on the internal controls and compliance with program requirements. The remaining States will be covered by audits conducted under the requirements of the Single Audit Act and by EPA's Office of Inspector General.

(4) Application for SRF Financial Assistance: Local communities and other eligible entities have to prepare and submit applications for SRF assistance to their respective State Agency which manages the SRF program. The State reviews the completed loan applications, and verifies that the proposed projects will comply with applicable Federal and State requirements.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 111 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: 3,009.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,060.

Frequency of Response: Annually.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 339,405.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $6,155,700, includes $0 annual capital/startup and O&M costs and $6,155,700 annual labor costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 76,500 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This increase is due to the increase in the number of participants in the program, the individual burden still remains the same.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On August 23, 2004 (69 FR 51831), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0228, which is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202) 566-1742. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above.

Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 (May 31, 2002), or go to http://www.epa.gov/edocket.

Title: Reporting and Record Keeping Requirements Under the Perfluorocompound (PFC) Reduction/Climate Partnership for the Semiconductor Industry (Renewal).

Abstract: The U.S. EPA's Office of Atmospheric Programs launched the PFC Reduction/Climate Partnership for the Semiconductor Industry in 1996. Perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) are the most potent greenhouse gases known with atmospheric lifetimes of up to 50,000 years. These unique chemical compounds are required during two critical semiconductor manufacturing steps, plasma etching and CVD chamber cleaning. This important voluntary program contributes to the country's overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The program uses a pollution prevention approach to reduce emissions and tracks progress by annually collecting PFC emissions estimates from partners.

In 2003, EPA's semiconductor industry partners were recognized for their commitment and ongoing efforts to protect the climate as participants in the White House's Climate VISION initiative. All semiconductor manufacturers operating in the U.S. are invited to join this voluntary partnership. Participation in the program begins by completing a Memorandum of Understanding that defines a voluntary agreement between the company and EPA. By joining the partnership, a company agrees to track and report an estimate of its PFC emissions to EPA annually. A designated third party assembles the reported data and protects any confidential or sensitive information prior to EPA review. The partner companies' annual reports will provide an estimate of total PFC emissions and a description of the estimating method. The partnership will track progress as a group using the aggregate annual PFC emissions estimate.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 533 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Semiconductor manufacturers.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 24.

Frequency of Response: Once annually.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 13,050.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $1,253,982, which includes $0 annualized capital/startup costs, $132,936 annual O&M costs, and $1,121,046 annual labor costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 1,900 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This decrease is because the partnership has stabilized at 24 partner companies representing 80 percent of the U.S. industry and no new partners are expected to join over the next three years. Therefore, activities related to reviewing and signing a memorandum of understanding were removed from the burden estimate.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 29, 2004 (69 FR 38893), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0082, which is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202) 566-1742. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above.

Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 (May 31, 2002), or go to http://www.epa.gov/edocket.

Title: Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under EPA's Natural Gas STAR Program (Renewal).

Abstract: Natural Gas STAR is an EPA-sponsored, voluntary program that encourages natural gas companies to adopt cost effective methods for reducing methane emissions. Natural Gas STAR Partners agree to implement cost-effective Best Management Practices, which will save participants money and improve environmental quality. EPA needs to collect information to establish program participation and to obtain general information on new Natural Gas STAR Partners. EPA also uses the information collection to evaluate a Partner's progress and performance, assess overall program results, and develop technical guidance documents for the benefit of the industry. Information collection is accomplished through the use of an annual reporting process that allows companies to report their accomplishments in either a traditional hard-copy format or electronically. Participation in Natural Gas STAR is voluntary. Natural Gas STAR Partners may designate information submitted under this ICR as confidential business information. EPA will treat all such information as confidential business information and will not make the company or agency-specific information collected under this ICR available to the general public.

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

OMB has requested that EPA determine the extent to which reductions reported to the Natural Gas STAR Program would have occurred in the absence of the program. EPA has performed a sensitivity analysis in order to address this issue. Details are provided in the Supporting Statement for this notice.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 44 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Natural Gas Companies.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 108.

Frequency of Response: Varies.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 4,705.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $402,162, which includes $0 annualized capital/startup costs, $21 annual O&M costs, and $402,141 annual labor costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 646 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This increase is due to an increased number of program participants, but is tempered by a reduction in the amount of time spent filling out and submitting the annual report due to the introduction of on-line reporting in 2002.

The Act affords EPA a 45-day period to review and, as appropriate, to object to operating permits proposed by state permitting authorities under title V of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7661-7661f. Section 505(b)(2) of the Act and 40 CFR 70.8(d) authorize any person to petition the EPA Administrator to object to a title V operating permit within 60 days after the expiration of EPA's 45-day review period if EPA has not objected on its own initiative. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the state, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period or the grounds for the issues arose after this period.

On January 23, 2003, the Administrator received a petition requesting that EPA object to a state title V operating permit issued by EPD to Hercules. The Petitioners maintain that the Hercules permit is inconsistent with the Act because: (1) The permit fails to include all applicable requirements, specifically Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(a)1. and (2) the permit fails to assure compliance with said rule.

On November 10, 2004, the Administrator issued an order denying this petition. The order explains the reasons behind EPA's conclusion that the Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the Hercules permit is not in compliance with the requirements of the Act on the grounds raised.

Background: The CASAC, which comprises seven members appointed by the EPA Administrator, was established under section 109(d)(2) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7409) as an independent scientific advisory committee, in part to provide advice, information and recommendations on the scientific and technical aspects of issues related to air quality criteria and NAAQS under sections 108 and 109 of the Act. The CASAC is a Federal advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C., App.

The SAB Staff Office previously announced in the Federal Register in June 2003 (68 FR 35212, June 12, 2003) the formation of the CASAC Ozone Review Panel, to conduct reviews of EPA's updated ambient air quality criteria and the science-based national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and other photochemical oxidants. The Ozone Review Panel will consist of the seven members of the statutory (chartered) CASAC and additional experts as necessary to provide advice and recommendations related to the science of ozone and other photochemical oxidants. The Ozone Review Panel will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies.

In response to the June 12, 2003 notice in the Federal Register , the SAB Staff Office has received nominations for additional scientific experts and has previously published a “Short List” of candidates on the SAB Web site ( http://www.epa.gov/sab ) for the purpose of soliciting public comments. Given the lengthy period of time that has elapsed since its first announcement, the SAB Staff Office is reopening the public nomination process for experts to serve on this Panel. Nominator's Assessment of Expertise. When submitting nominations to the CASAC Ozone Review Panel, please explicitly indicate the specific areas of expertise the candidate could contribute. The CASAC requests nominees who are recognized, national-level experts in one or more of the following disciplines:

(a) Atmospheric Science. Expertise in physical/chemical properties of ozone and other photochemical oxidants, their precursor substances, and atmospheric processes involved in the formation, transport, and degradation of ozone and other photochemical oxidants in the atmosphere, including interaction with global climate and stratospheric ozone. Also, expertise in the evaluation of natural and man-made (anthropogenic) sources and emissions of precursors of tropospheric ozone and other photochemical oxidants, pertinent monitoring/measurement methods for such substances, and spatial/temporal trends in atmospheric concentrations of them.

(b) Exposure and Risk Assessment/Modeling. Expertise in measuring human population exposure to ozone and/or in modeling human exposure to ambient and indoor pollutants. Also, expertise in human health risk analysis modeling for ozone or other pollutants causing respiratory and/or other non-cancer health effects.

(c) Ecological Effects and Resource Valuation. Expertise in evaluation of: patterns of exposure to ozone and/or other photochemical oxidants of ornamental and/or agricultural plants and/or natural ecosystems and their components; effects of ozone and other photochemical oxidants on natural ecosystems (especially terrestrial) and their components (both flora and fauna), ranging from biochemical/sub-cellular effects and identification of indicators of pathophysiological effects at the individual plant level, to effects on species and populations, on up to include impacts on increasingly more complex ( e.g. , landscape) levels of ecosystem organization. Also, expertise in (i) ecosystem risk assessment and (ii) ecological resource valuation/economics.

(d) Dosimetry. Expertise in conducting and/or evaluation of the dosimetry of animal and human subjects, and animal-to-human dosimetry extrapolations, including identification of factors determining differential patterns of inhalation and/or deposition/uptake in respiratory tract regions that may contribute to differential susceptibility of human population subgroups to ozone and other photochemical oxidants.

(e) Toxicology. Expertise in conducting and/or evaluation of experimental laboratory animal studies of the potential health effects of ozone and/or other photochemical oxidants on respiratory and non-respiratory ( e.g. , lung defense/other immune function mechanisms) endpoints.

(f) Controlled Human Exposure. Expertise in conducting and/or evaluation of controlled human exposure studies of the effects of ozone and other photochemical oxidants on healthy and compromised (having pertinent preexisting chronic disease, e.g. , asthma) human adults and children, including medical doctors (M.D.) with experience in the clinical treatment of asthma.

(g) Epidemiology and Biostatistics. Expertise in epidemiological evaluation of the effects of exposures to ozone and other photochemical oxidants and/or other ambient air co-pollutants on human population groups, including effects on mortality and/or morbidity ( e.g. , respiratory symptoms, lung function decrements, asthma medication use, respiratory-related hospital admissions) endpoints. Also, expertise in associated biostatistics and/or health risk analysis.

Process and Deadline for Submitting Nominations: Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified individuals to add expertise to the CASAC Ozone Review Panel in the areas of expertise described above. Nominations should be submitted in electronic format through the Form for Nominating Individuals to Panels of the EPA Science Advisory Board provided on the SAB Web site, http://www.epa.gov/sab , which can be accessed through a link on the blue navigational bar on the SAB Web page. To be considered, all nominations must include the information required on that form. Please note that there is no need to resubmit a nomination for an individual who has previously been nominated for the CASAC Ozone Review Panel.

Anyone who is unable to submit nominations using this form, and any questions concerning any aspects of the nomination process may contact Mr. Fred Butterfield, DFO, as indicated above in this notice. Nominations should be submitted in time to arrive no later than December 8, 2004.

To be considered, all nominations must include: (a) a current biography, curriculum vitae (C.V.) or resume, which provides the nominee's background, experience and qualifications for the Panel; and (b) a brief biographical sketch (“biosketch”). The biosketch should be no longer than one page and must contain the following information for the nominee:

(I) Current professional affiliations and positions held;

(ii) Area(s) of expertise, and research activities and interests;

(iii) Leadership positions in national associations or professional publications or other significant distinctions;

(iv) Educational background, especially advanced degrees, including when and from which institutions these were granted;

(v) Service on other advisory committees, professional societies, especially those associated with issues under discussion in this review; and

(vi) Sources of recent ( i.e. , within the preceding two years) grant and/or other contract support, from government, industry, academia, etc., including the topic area of the funded activity.

Please note that even if there is no responsive information ( e.g. , no recent grant or contract funding), this must be indicated on the biosketch (by “N/A” or “None”). Incomplete biosketches will result in nomination packages not being accepted.

The EPA SAB Staff Office will acknowledge receipt of the nomination. From the nominees identified by respondents to this notice (termed the “Widecast”), the SAB Staff Office will develop a smaller subset (known as the “Short List”) for more detailed consideration. Criteria used by the SAB Staff in developing this Short List are given at the end of the following paragraph. The Short List will be posted on the SAB Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/sab , and will include, for each candidate, the nominee's name and their biosketch. Public comments will be accepted for 21 calendar days on the Short List. During this comment period, the public will be requested to provide information, analysis or other documentation on nominees that the SAB Staff Office should consider in evaluating candidates for the Panel.

For the EPA SAB Staff Office, a balanced subcommittee or review panel is characterized by inclusion of candidates who possess the necessary domains of knowledge, the relevant scientific perspectives (which, among other factors, can be influenced by work history and affiliation), and the collective breadth of experience to adequately address the charge. Public responses to the Short List candidates will be considered in the selection of the Panel, along with information provided by candidates and information independently-gathered by the SAB Staff Office on the background of each candidate ( e.g. , financial disclosure information and computer searches to evaluate a nominee's prior involvement with the topic under review). Specific criteria to be used in evaluating an individual member of the Panel include: (a) Scientific and/or technical expertise, knowledge, and experience (primary factors); (b) availability and willingness to serve; (c) absence of financial conflicts of interest; (d) scientific credibility and impartiality; and (e) skills working in advisory committees, subcommittees and review panels. CASAC Ozone Review Panel members will likely be asked to attend two to three public, face-to-face meetings and several public teleconference meetings per year over the anticipated two- to-five-year course of the Panel's activity.

Short List candidates will also be required to fill-out the “Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Special Government Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency” (EPA Form 3110-48). This confidential form allows Government officials to determine whether there is a statutory conflict between that person's public responsibilities (which includes membership on an EPA Federal advisory committee) and private interests and activities, or the appearance of a lack of impartiality, as defined by Federal regulation. The form may be viewed and downloaded from the following URL address: http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/epaform3110-48.pdf.

The approved policy under which the EPA SAB Office selects subcommittees and review panels is described in the following document: Overview of the Panel Formation Process at the Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board (EPA-SAB-EC-02-010), which is on the SAB Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/ec02010.pdf.

This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPP-2004-0078. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i. EPA Dockets . Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ , and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPP-2004-0078. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail . Comments may be sent by e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov , Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2004-0078. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

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

2. By mail . Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2004-0078.

3. By hand delivery or courier . Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2004-0078. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.1.

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

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

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

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPP-2004-0239. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i. EPA Dockets . Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ , and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPP-2004-0239. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail . Comments may be sent by e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov , Attention: Docket ID number OPP-2004-0239. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

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

2. By mail . Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, Attention: Docket ID number OPP-2004-0239.

3. By hand delivery or courier . Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID number OPP-2004-0239. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.1.

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

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

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

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

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

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

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

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

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

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

The Agency has issued a RED for the pesticide active ingredient listed in this document. Under the FIFRA, as amended in 1988, EPA is conducting an accelerated reregistration program to reevaluate existing pesticides to make sure they meet current scientific and regulatory standards. The data base to support the reregistration of the chemical listed in this document is substantially complete, and the pesticide's risks has been mitigated so that it will not pose unreasonable risks to people or the environment when used according to its approved labeling. In addition, EPA is reevaluating existing pesticides and reassessing tolerances under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. The pesticide included in this notice also has been found to meet the FQPA safety standard.

This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPP-2004-0296. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i. EPA Dockets . Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ , and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPP-2004-0296. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail . Comments may be sent by e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov , Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2004-0296. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

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

2. By mail . Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2004-0296.

3. By hand delivery or courier . Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2004-0296. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.1.

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

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

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

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

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

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPP-2004-0234. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Room 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell Street, Arlington, VA 22202-4501. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i. EPA Dockets . Your use of EPA Dockets to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ , and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPP-2004-0234. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail . Comments may be sent by e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov , Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2004-0234. In contrast to EPA Dockets, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA Dockets, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA Dockets.

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

2. By mail . Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2004-0234.

3. By hand delivery or courier . Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Room 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell Street, Arlington, VA 22202-4501, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2004-0234. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.1.

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

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

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

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

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

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

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

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

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

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPP-2004-0265. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall#2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305 -5805.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i. EPA Dockets . Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ , and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPP-2004-0265. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail . Comments may be sent by e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov , Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2004-0265. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

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

2. By mail . Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2004-0265.

3. By hand delivery or courier . Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2004-0265. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.1.

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

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

This is a summary of the Commission's Public Notice released on November 15, 2004. The complete text of the Auction No. 59 Comment Public Notice, including attachments and of related Commission documents is 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. 59 Comment 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 When ordering documents from BCPI, please provide the appropriate FCC document number (for example, FCC 00-313 for the C/F Block Sixth Report and Order). The Auction No. 59 Comment Public Notice and related documents are also available on the Internet at the Commission's Web site: http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/59/.

1. By the Auction No. 59 Public Notice , the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (“Bureau”) announces the auction of 4,226 Multiple Address Systems (“MAS”) licenses in the Fixed Microwave Services from the 928/959 and 932/941 MHz bands to commence on April 26, 2005 (Auction No. 59). In Auction No. 59, licenses will be offered in each of the 176 geographic areas known as Economic Areas (EAs), where available. These geographic areas encompass the United States, Guam and the Northern Marianas Islands, Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Gulf of Mexico. Due to the large number of licenses in Auction No. 59, the complete list of licenses available for this auction will be provided in electronic format only, available as Attachment A of Auction No. 59 Comment Public Notice .

2. The following table contains the MAS block/frequency bands cross-reference list for Auction No. 59:

3. The Communications Act requires the Commission to “ensure that, in the scheduling of any competitive bidding under this subsection, an adequate period is allowed * * * before issuance of bidding rules, to permit notice and comment on proposed auction procedures. * * *” Consistent with the provisions of the Communications Act and to ensure that potential bidders have adequate time to familiarize themselves with the specific rules that will govern the day-to-day conduct of an auction, the Commission directed the Bureau, under its existing delegated authority, to seek comment on a variety of auction-specific procedures prior to the start of each auction. The Bureau therefore seeks comment on the following issues relating to Auction No. 59.

4. The Bureau proposes to award all licenses included in Auction No. 59 in a simultaneous multiple-round auction. As described further below, this methodology offers every license for bid at the same time with successive bidding rounds in which bidders may place bids. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal.

5. The Bureau has delegated authority and discretion to determine an appropriate upfront payment for each license being auctioned, taking into account such factors as the population in each geographic license area and the value of similar spectrum. As described further below, the upfront payment is a refundable deposit made by each bidder to establish eligibility to bid on licenses. Upfront payments related to the specific spectrum subject to auction protect against frivolous or insincere bidding and provide the Commission with a source of funds from which to collect payments owed at the close of the auction. With these guidelines in mind for Auction No. 59, we propose to calculate upfront payments on a license-by-license basis using the following formula:

6. Accordingly, in Attachment A of the Auction No. 59 Comment Public Notice we list all licenses included in Auction No. 59 and the proposed upfront payment for each license. Attachment A of the Auction No. 59 Comment Public Notice is available in electronic format. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal.

7. The Bureau further proposes that the amount of the upfront payment submitted by a bidder will determine the maximum number of bidding units on which a bidder may place bids. This limit is a bidder's initial eligibility. Each license is assigned a specific number of bidding units equal to the upfront payment listed in Attachment A of the Auction No. 59 Comment Public Notice, on a bidding unit per dollar basis. This number does not change as prices rise during the auction. A bidder's upfront payment is not attributed to specific licenses. Rather, a bidder may place bids on any combination of licenses as long as the total number of bidding units associated with those licenses does not exceed its current eligibility. Eligibility cannot be increased during the auction. Thus, in calculating its upfront payment amount, an applicant must determine the maximum number of bidding units it may wish to bid on (or hold high bids on) in any single round, and submit an upfront payment covering that number of bidding units. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal.

8. In order to ensure that the auction closes within a reasonable period of time, an activity rule requires bidders to bid actively on a percentage of their current bidding eligibility during each round of the auction rather than waiting until the end to participate. A bidder that does not satisfy the activity rule will either lose bidding eligibility in the next round or must use an activity rule waiver (if any remain).

9. The Bureau proposes to divide the auction into two stages, each characterized by an increased activity requirement. The auction will start in Stage One. The Bureau proposes that the auction generally will advance from Stage One to Stage Two when the auction activity level, as measured by the percentage of bidding units receiving new high bids, is approximately twenty percent or below for three consecutive rounds of bidding. However, the Bureau further proposes that it retains the discretion to change stages unilaterally by announcement during the auction. In exercising this discretion, the Bureau will consider a variety of measures of bidder activity, including, but not limited to, the auction activity level, the percentage 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 Bureau seeks comment on these proposals.

10. For Auction No. 59, we propose the following activity requirements:

Stage One: In each round of the first stage of the auction, a bidder desiring to maintain its current eligibility is required to be active on licenses representing at least 80 percent of its current bidding eligibility. Failure to maintain the requisite 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 current round activity by five-fourths (5/4).

Stage Two: In each round of the second stage, a bidder desiring to maintain its current eligibility is required to be active on 95 percent of its current bidding eligibility. In this final stage, reduced eligibility for the next round will be calculated by multiplying the current round activity by twenty-nineteenths (20/19).

11. The Bureau seeks comment on these proposals. Commenters that believe these activity rules should be modified should explain their reasoning and comment on the desirability of an alternative approach. Commenters are advised to support their claims with analyses and suggested alternative activity rules.

12. 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 minimum level. An activity rule waiver applies to an entire round of bidding and not to a particular license. Activity rule waivers can be either proactive or automatic and are principally a mechanism for auction participants to avoid the loss of auction eligibility in the event that exigent circumstances prevent them from placing a bid in a particular round.

13. 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 bidding period 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.

14. A bidder with insufficient activity may wish to reduce its bidding eligibility rather than use an activity rule waiver. If so, the bidder must affirmatively override the automatic waiver mechanism during the bidding period 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 above. Once eligibility has been reduced, a bidder will not be permitted to regain its lost bidding eligibility.

15. 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 bidding system) during a bidding period in which no bids or withdrawals are submitted, the auction will remain open and the bidder's eligibility will be preserved. An automatic waiver invoked in a round in which there are no new valid bids or withdrawals will not keep the auction open.

16. The Bureau proposes that each bidder in Auction No. 59 be provided with three activity rule waivers that may be used at the bidder's discretion during the course of the auction as set forth above. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal.

17. For Auction No. 59, the Bureau proposes that, 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, or administrative or weather necessity, or for any other reason that affects the fair and efficient 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. The Bureau emphasizes 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. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal.

18. The Commission will conduct Auction No. 59 over the Internet. Alternatively, telephonic bidding will also be available. The toll free telephone number through which telephonic bidding may be accessed will be announced in a later public notice. The FCC Wide Area Network will no longer be available as a contingency plan.

19. The initial bidding schedule will be announced in a public notice to be released at least one week before the start of the auction, and will be included in the registration mailings. The simultaneous multiple-round format will consist of sequential bidding rounds, each followed by the release of round results. Details regarding the location and format of round results will be included in the same public notice.

20. The Bureau 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. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal.

21. The Communications Act calls upon the Commission to prescribe methods for establishing a reasonable reserve price or a minimum opening bid when FCC licenses are subject to auction, unless the Commission determines that a reserve price or minimum opening bid is not in the public interest. Consistent with this mandate, the Commission has directed the Bureau to seek comment on the use of a minimum opening bid and/or reserve price prior to the start of each auction.

22. Normally, a reserve price is an absolute minimum price below which an item will not be sold in a given auction. Reserve prices can be either published or unpublished. A minimum opening bid, on the other hand, is the minimum bid price set at the beginning of the auction below which no bids are accepted. It is generally used to accelerate the competitive bidding process. Also, the auctioneer often has the discretion to lower the minimum opening bid amount later in the auction. It is also possible for the minimum opening bid and the reserve price to be the same amount.

23. In light of the Communications Act's requirements, the Bureau proposes to establish minimum opening bids for Auction No. 59. The Bureau believes a minimum opening bid, which has been used in other auctions, is an effective bidding tool.

24. Specifically, for Auction No. 59, the Commission proposes the following license-by-license formula for calculating minimum opening bids:

25. The specific minimum opening bid for each license available in Auction No. 59 is set forth in Attachment A of Auction No. 59 Comment Public Notice. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal.

26. If commenters believe that these minimum opening bids will result in substantial numbers of “unwon” licenses, or are not reasonable amounts, or should instead operate as reserve prices, they should explain why this is so, and comment on the desirability of an alternative approach. Commenters are advised to support their claims with valuation analyses and suggested reserve prices or minimum opening bid levels or formulas. In establishing the minimum opening bids, the Bureau particularly seeks comment on such factors as the amount of spectrum being auctioned, levels of incumbency, the availability of technology to provide service, the size of the geographic service areas, issues of interference with other spectrum bands and any other relevant factors that could reasonably have an impact on valuation of these MAS licenses. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether, consistent with the Communications Act, the public interest would be served by having no minimum opening bid or reserve price.

27. In each round, eligible bidders will be able to place bids on a given license in any of nine different amounts. The FCC Automated Auction System interface will list the nine acceptable bid amounts for each license. Until a bid has been placed on a license, the minimum acceptable bid for that license will be equal to its minimum opening bid. In the rounds after a bid is placed on a license, the minimum acceptable bid for that license will be equal to the standing high bid plus the defined increment.

28. 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 below. The difference between the minimum acceptable bid and the standing high bid for each license will define the bid increment. 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.).

29. For Auction No. 59, the Bureau proposes to use a 10 percent bid increment. This means that the minimum acceptable bid for a license will be approximately 10 percent greater than the previous standing high bid received on the license. The minimum acceptable bid amount will be calculated by multiplying the standing high bid times one plus the increment percentage “ i.e. , (standing high bid) * (1.10). The Commission will round the result using our standard rounding procedures for minimum acceptable bid calculations: results above $10,000 are rounded to the nearest $1,000; results below $10,000 but above $1,000 are rounded to the nearest $100; and results below $1,000 are rounded to the nearest $10.

30. As stated above, until a bid has been placed on a license, the minimum acceptable bid for that license will be equal to its minimum opening bid. The additional bid amounts are calculated using the difference between the minimum opening bid times one plus the minimum percentage increment, rounded as described above, and the minimum opening bid. That is, I = (minimum opening bid)(1 + N){rounded} − (minimum opening bid). Therefore, when N equals 0.1, the first additional bid amount will be approximately ten percent higher than the minimum opening bid; the second, twenty percent; the third, thirty percent; etc.

31. 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.

32. The Bureau retains the discretion to change the minimum acceptable bids and bid increments if it determines that circumstances so dictate. The Bureau will do so by announcement in the Automated Auction System. The Bureau seeks comment on these proposals.

33. At the end of a bidding round, a high bid for each license will be determined based on the highest gross bid amount received for the license. In the event of identical high bids on a license in a given round ( i.e. , tied bids), we propose to use a random number generator to select a single high bid from among the tied bids. If the auction were to end with no higher bids being placed for that license, the winning bidder would be the one that placed the selected high bid. However, the remaining bidders, as well as the high bidder, can submit higher bids in subsequent rounds. If any bids are received on the license in a subsequent round, the high bid again will be determined by the highest gross bid amount received for the license. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal.

34. A high bid will remain the high bid until there is a higher bid on the same license at the close of a subsequent round. A high bid from a previous round is sometimes referred to as a “standing high bid.” Bidders are reminded that standing high bids count towards bidding activity.

35. For Auction No. 59, the Bureau proposes the following bid removal and bid withdrawal procedures. Before the close of a bidding period, a bidder has the option of removing any bid placed in that round. By removing selected bids 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 a withdrawal payment. Once a round closes, a bidder may no longer remove a bid.