Section 508(h) of the Act allows for the submission of a policy to FCIC's Board and authorizes the Board to review and, if the Board finds that the interests of producers are adequately protected and that premiums charged to producers are actuarially appropriate, approve the policy for reinsurance and subsidy in accordance with section 508(e) of the Act.

In accordance with Section 508(h) of the Act, the Board approved a program of insurance known as “Revenue Assurance” (RA) submitted by Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Iowa as a pilot project covering corn and soybeans beginning with the 1997 crop year.

The RA program was approved for reinsurance and premium subsidy, including subsidy for administrative and operating expenses in an amount authorized under section 508(e) of the Act. RA was designed to protect a producer's revenue whenever low prices or low yields, or a combination of both, caused the harvest revenue to fall below a guaranteed level. The producer selected a per-acre revenue guarantee that could not be less than 65 percent, or more than 75 percent, of the expected revenue for a unit. The policy indemnity was finalized when the county harvest price and the producer's actual production were determined. This determination typically occurred in December for corn, and in November for soybeans. The crop prices were established on a county basis.

The RA policy provides coverage for basic units, optional units, enterprise units, and whole-farm units.

For the 1999 crop year, at the request of American Farm Bureau Insurance Services, Inc., the RA program for corn and soybeans was expanded into Illinois, South Dakota, Minnesota, and North Dakota, and spring wheat was approved as a new crop for North Dakota. Producers could select a coverage level percentage up to 80 percent for whole-farm units, and a fall harvest price option that used the greater of the projected harvest price or the fall harvest price in determining the revenue guarantee. The RA program was changed to use the Chicago Board of Trade futures for crop prices rather than using the county crop prices. The Chicago Board of Trade futures and the actual production history were the basis for determining the revenue guarantee and RA premium rates.

For the 2000 crop year, the RA program was expanded for corn and soybeans in Indiana; for spring wheat in Idaho, Minnesota, and South Dakota; for feed barley and canola/rapeseed in Idaho and North Dakota; and for sunflowers in North Dakota. The maximum coverage level for enterprise and whole-farm units was also increased to 85 percent.

American Farm Bureau Insurance Services, Inc., has requested winter wheat coverage in specific states and in counties that currently have MPCI winter wheat coverage beginning with the 2001 crop year, therefore, winter wheat coverage has been added to the wheat policy and a winter wheat coverage endorsement has also been added. Changes for clarification have been added to the Revenue Assurance Insurance Policy Basic Provisions.

Changes in the administrative fees producers must pay, allowing producers to replace low actual production history yields (APH) yields with adjusted transitional yields (T-yields), and changes in the amount of subsidy provided to reduce producers' premium costs have been added to the Revenue Assurance Insurance Policy Basic Provisions as mandated by the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000.

Accordingly, FCIC herewith gives notice of the above stated changes for the 2001 and succeeding crop years.

The RA policies, endorsement, underwriting rules, questions and answers, and actuarial documents for the 2001 crop year will be released electronically to all reinsured companies through FCIC's Website.

Approved yield. The actual production history (APH) yield determined in accordance with 7 CFR part 400, subpart G, including any adjustments elected under section 35.

Expected per-acre revenue. The approved yield times the projected harvest price (see section 1 of the Crop Provisions) for optional or basic units. A weighted average is used for enterprise or whole farm units.

Per-acre revenue guarantee. The coverage level percent times your approved yield, times the projected harvest price. If you choose the fall harvest price option provided in the Crop Provisions, the per-acre revenue guarantee equals the coverage level percent, times the approved yield, times the greater of the projected harvest price or the fall harvest price (see section 1 of the Crop Provisions). For basic and optional units, the per-acre revenue guarantee may vary by unit. For an enterprise unit, the per-acre revenue guarantee is a weighted average and will be the same for all insured acres of the crop in the county. For the whole farm unit, the per-acre revenue guarantee is a weighted average and will be the same for all insured acres in the county.

(d) The premium subsidy amount depends on the coverage level percent and is calculated by multiplying the premium times the subsidy factor. If the coverage level percent is equal to or greater than .6500 and less than .7500, the premium subsidy factor is .59. If the coverage level percent is equal to or greater than .7500 and less than .8000, the premium subsidy factor is .55. If the coverage level percent is equal to or greater than .8000 and less than .8500, the premium subsidy factor is .48. If the coverage level percent is equal to or greater than .8500, the premium subsidy factor is .38. The producer premium equals the premium less the premium subsidy.

(e) In addition to the premium charged:

(1) You, unless otherwise authorized in 7 CFR part 400, must pay an administrative fee of $30 per crop per county for each crop year in which crop insurance coverage remains in effect;

(2) The administrative fee must be paid no later than the time that premium is due;

(3) Payment of an administrative fee will not be required if you file a bona fide zero acreage report on or before the acreage reporting date for the crop. If you falsely file a zero acreage report, you may be subject to criminal and administrative sanctions;

(4) The administrative fee will be waived if you request it and you qualify as a limited resource farmer; and

(5) Failure to pay the administrative fees when due may make you ineligible for certain other USDA benefits.

You may elect to exclude actual yields used to calculate the APH yield that are less than 60 percent of the applicable transitional yield (T-yield), as defined in 7 CFR 400.52. Each excluded actual yield will be replaced with a yield equal to 60 percent of the applicable T-yield for the county. The replacement yields will be used in the same manner as actual yields for the purpose of calculating the APH yield. Premium rates for approved yields that are adjusted under this section will be based on your yield prior to replacing the actual yields or such other basis as determined appropriate by us.

2. Add the Revenue Assurance Wheat Crop Provisions as follows:

This is a pilot risk management program. This risk management tool will be reinsured under the authority provided by the Federal Crop Insurance Act as amended. If a conflict exists among the policy provisions, the order of priority is as follows: (1) the Special Provisions; (2) these Crop Provisions; and (3) the Basic Provisions with (1) controlling (2), etc.

Adequate stand. A population of live plants per unit of acreage which will produce at least the yield used to establish your revenue guarantee.

CBOT. The Chicago Board of Trade.

Fall harvest price. The price used to value production to count. For spring wheat, the fall harvest price is the simple average of the final daily settlement prices in August for the MGE September hard red spring wheat futures contract. This price will be released on or before September 5. For winter wheat in Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, the fall harvest price is the simple average of the final daily settlement prices from July 1 to July 14 for the CBOT July soft red winter wheat futures contract. For Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma and South Dakota, the fall harvest price is the simple average of the final daily settlement prices from July 1 to July 14 for the KCBT July hard red winter wheat futures contract. This price will be released on or before August 5.

Fall harvest price option. A coverage option that allows you to use the greater of the projected harvest price or the fall harvest price to determine your per acre revenue guarantee. For basic, optional, and enterprise units, this option applies to all insurable acres of a crop in the county. For the whole-farm unit, this option will apply to all insurable acres of the applicable crops in the county. This option must be selected by the sales closing date and is continuous unless canceled by the crop sales closing date.

Harvest. Combining or threshing the insured crop for grain. A crop which is swathed prior to combining is not considered harvested.

Initially planted. The first occurrence of planting the insured crop on insurable acreage for the crop year.

KCBT. The Kansas City Board of Trade.

Latest final planting date.

(a) The final planting date for spring-planted acreage in all counties for which the Special Provisions designate a final planting date for spring-planted acreage only;

(b) The final planting date for fall-planted acreage in all counties for which the Special Provisions designate a final planting date for fall-planted acreage only; or

(c) The final planting date for spring-planted acreage in all counties for which the Special Provisions designate final planting dates for both spring-planted and fall-planted acreage.

Local market price. The cash grain price per bushel for the U.S. No. 2 grade of wheat offered by buyers in the area in which you normally market the insured crop. The local market price will reflect the maximum limits of quality deficiencies allowable for the U.S. No. 2 grade of wheat. Factors not associated with grading under the Official United States Standards for Grain, including but not limited to protein, oil or moisture content, or milling quality will not be considered.

MGE. Minneapolis Grain Exchange.

Nurse crop (companion crop). A crop planted into the same acreage as another crop, that is intended to be harvested separately, and which is planted to improve growing conditions for the crop with which it is grown.

Planted acreage. In addition to the definition contained in the Basic Provisions, land on which seed is initially spread onto the soil surface by any method and subsequently is mechanically incorporated into the soil in a timely manner and at the proper depth will be considered planted.

Prevented planting. In lieu of the definition contained in the Basic Provisions, failure to plant the insured crop with proper equipment by the latest final planting date designated in the Special Provisions for the insured crop in the county or by the end of the late planting period. You must have been prevented from planting the insured crop due to an insured cause of loss that also prevented most producers from planting on acreage with similar characteristics in the surrounding area.

Prevented planting guarantee. The prevented planting guarantee for such acreage will be the selected percentage of the per-acre revenue guarantee for timely planted acres.

Projected harvest price. The price used to determine the expected per-acre revenue. For spring wheat the projected harvest price is the simple average of the final daily settlement prices in February for the MGE September hard red spring wheat futures contract. The projected harvest price for spring wheat will be released on or before March 5 of the current crop year. For winter wheat in Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, the projected harvest price is the simple average of the final daily settlement prices from August 15 to September 14 for the following year CBOT July soft red winter wheat futures contract. For Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma and South Dakota, the projected harvest price is the simple average of the final daily settlement prices from August 15 to September 14 for the following year KCBT July hard red winter wheat futures contract. The projected harvest price for winter wheat will be released on or before September 20 of the current crop year.

Sales closing date. In lieu of the definition contained in the Basic Provisions, a date contained in the Special Provisions by which an application must be filed and by which you may change your crop insurance coverage for a crop year. If the Special Provisions provide a sales closing date for both winter and spring types of the insured crop and you plant any insurable acreage of the winter type, you may not change your crop insurance coverage after the sales closing date for the winter type.

Swathed. Severance of the stem and grain head from the ground without removal of the seed from the head and placing into a windrow.

(a) In addition to the requirements of section 2(b) of the Basic Provisions, in addition to, or instead of, establishing optional units by section, section equivalent or FSA farm serial number and by irrigated and non-irrigated practices, optional units may be established if each optional unit contains only initially planted winter wheat or only initially planted spring wheat. Optional units may be established in this manner only in counties having both winter and spring type final planting dates as designated in the Special Provisions.

(b) Winter wheat can not be insured under a whole-farm unit.

(c) In lieu of section 2(e) of the Basic Provisions that prohibits you from electing any other unit structure if you elect a whole farm unit, you must elect either a basic, optional, or enterprise unit for your winter wheat even if you have elected a whole farm unit that includes spring wheat.

(d) If you qualify for and elect either a basic or optional unit for your winter wheat and you elect a whole farm unit on your spring crops, that includes spring wheat, your coverage level for the whole farm unit will be limited to the coverage level you elected for basic and optional units.

(e) If you qualify for and elect either a basic or optional unit for your winter wheat and you elect a whole farm unit on your spring crops, that does not include spring wheat, you may elect any applicable coverage level for the whole farm unit.

In accordance with section 5 of the Basic Provisions, the contract change date is December 31 preceding the cancellation date for counties with a March 15 cancellation date and June 30 preceding the cancellation date for all other counties.

The cancellation and termination dates are:

In addition to the provisions of section 8 of the Basic Provisions, your per-acre premium on a unit is determined using the premium calculator. Your per-acre premiums will differ by crop and unit structure.

(a) Basic unit: The annual premium for a basic unit equals the per-acre premium, times the number of insured acres in the unit, times your share.

(b) Optional unit: The annual premium for an optional unit equals the per-acre premium, times an optional unit surcharge factor, times the number of insured acres in the optional unit, times your share. The optional unit surcharge factor is 1.10.

(c) Enterprise unit: The annual premium for an enterprise unit equals the per-acre premium, times the number of insured acres in the unit, times your share. The per-acre premium decreases as the number of legally defined sections on which you have insured acreage increases up to a maximum of 10 sections.

(d) Whole-farm unit: The annual premium for a whole-farm unit equals the per-acre premium, times the number of insured acres in the unit, times your share. The insured per-acre premium decreases as the number of legally defined sections on which you have insured acreage increases up to a maximum of 10 sections. The per-acre premium also depends on the proportions of insured crop acres on the unit. For example, if the unit contains corn, soybeans, and spring wheat, the per-acre premium will depend on the ratio of corn to soybean insured acres, the ratio of corn to spring wheat insured acres, and the ratio of soybean to spring wheat insured acres.

(a) In accordance with section 9 of the Basic Provisions, the crop insured will be all the spring wheat and winter wheat in the county for which a premium rate is provided by the premium calculator:

(1) In which you have a share;

(2) That is adapted to the area based on days to maturity and is compatible with agronomic and weather conditions in the area;

(3) That is planted for harvest as grain; and

(4) That is not (unless allowed by the Special Provisions):

(i) Interplanted with another crop;

(ii) Planted into an established grass or legume; or

(iii) Planted as a nurse crop, unless planted as a nurse crop for new forage seeding, but only if seeded at a normal rate and intended for harvest as grain.

(b) If you anticipate destroying any acreage prior to harvest you:

(1) May report all planted acreage when you report your acreage for the crop year and specify any acreage to be destroyed as uninsurable acreage. (By doing so, no coverage will be considered to have attached on the specified acreage and no premium will be due for such acreage. If you do not destroy such acreage, you will be subject to the under-reporting provisions contained in section 7 of the Basic Provisions); or

(2) If the actuarial documents provide a reduced premium rate for acreage destroyed by a date designated in the Special Provisions, you may report all planted acreage as insurable when you report your acreage for the crop year. Premium will be due on all the acreage. Your premium amount will be reduced by the amount shown on the actuarial documents for any acreage you destroy prior to a date designated in the Special Provisions if you do not claim an indemnity on such acreage. You must obtain our consent before and give us notice after you destroy any of the insured crop so your acreage report can be revised to make you eligible for this reduction in premium.

(c) In counties for which the Wheat Special Provisions designate both fall and spring final planting dates, you may elect a winter coverage endorsement for wheat. This endorsement provides two options for alternative coverage for wheat that is damaged between the fall final planting date and the spring final planting date. Coverage under the endorsement will be effective only if you designate the coverage option you elect by executing the endorsement by the sales closing date for winter wheat in the county.

In lieu of the requirements under section 12 of the Basic Provisions, and subject to any provisions provided by the Winter Wheat Coverage Endorsement if you have elected such endorsement, the insurance period is as follows:

(a) Insurance attaches on each unit or part thereof on the later of the date we accept your application or the date the insured crop is planted.

(1) The following limitations apply:

(i) The acreage must be planted on or before the final planting date designated in the Special Provisions for the type (winter or spring) except as allowed in section 12 of these Crop Provisions and section 17 of the Basic Provisions.

(ii) Whenever the Special Provisions designate only a fall final planting date, any acreage of winter wheat damaged before such final planting date, to the extent that growers in the area would normally not further care for the crop, must be replanted to a winter type unless we agree that replanting is not practical.

(iii) Whenever the Special Provisions designate both fall and spring final planting dates, winter wheat planted on or before the fall final planting date which is damaged:

(A) Before the fall final planting date, to the extent that growers in the area would normally not further care for the crop, must be replanted to a winter type of the insured crop unless we agree that replanting is not practical.

(B) On or after the fall final planting date, but before the spring final planting date, to the extent that growers in the area would normally not further care for the crop, must be replanted to an appropriate variety of wheat unless we agree that replanting is not practical.

If you have elected coverage under one of the available wheat winter coverage options available in the county, the insurance period for wheat will be in accordance with the selected options.

(iv) Whenever the Special Provisions designate a spring final planting date, any acreage of spring wheat damaged before such final planting date, to the extent that growers in the area would normally not further care for the crop, must be replanted to a spring type unless we agree that replanting is not practical.

(v) Whenever the Special Provisions designate only a spring final planting date, any acreage of fall planted wheat is not insured unless you request such coverage and we agree in writing that the acreage has an adequate stand in the spring to produce the yield used to determine your revenue guarantee. Insurance will then attach to acreage having an adequate stand on the earlier of the spring final planting date or the date we agree to accept the acreage for insurance. If such fall planted acreage is not to be insured it must be recorded on the acreage report as an uninsured fall planted crop.

(b) Insurance ends on each unit at the earliest of:

(1) Total destruction of the insured crop on the unit;

(2) Harvest of the unit;

(3) Final adjustment of a loss on the unit;

(4) October 31 of the calendar year in which the crop is normally harvested; or

(5) Abandonment of the crop on the unit.

In accordance with the provisions of section 13 of the Basic Provisions, insurance is provided only against the following causes of loss which occur within the insurance period that results in an unavoidable loss of revenue:

(a) Adverse weather conditions;

(b) Fire;

(c) Insects, but not damage due to insufficient or improper application of pest control measures;

(d) Plant disease, but not damage due to insufficient or improper application of disease control measures;

(e) Wildlife;

(f) Earthquake;

(g) Volcanic eruption;

(h) Failure of the irrigation water supply, if applicable, due to a cause of loss contained in sections 8(a) through (g) occurring within the insurance period; or

(i) A decline in the fall harvest price below the projected harvest price.

(a) A replanting payment for wheat is allowed as follows:

(1) You comply with all requirements regarding replanting payments contained under section 14 of the Basic Provisions and in the Winter Wheat Coverage Endorsement for which you are eligible and which you have elected;

(2) The wheat must be damaged by an insurable cause of loss to the extent that the remaining stand will not produce at least 90 percent of the revenue guarantee for the acreage. The projected harvest price is used to determine if 90 percent of the unit revenue guarantee can be achieved;

(3) The acreage must have been initially planted to spring wheat in those counties with only a spring final planting date;

(4) The damage must occur after the fall final planting date in those counties where both a fall and spring final planting date are designated;

(5) Replanting must take place not later than 25 days after the spring final planting date; and

(6) The replanted wheat must be seeded at a rate that is normal for initially planted wheat (if new seed is planted at a reduced seeding rate into a partially damaged stand of wheat, the acreage will not be eligible for a replanting payment).

(b) No replanting payment will be made for acreage initially planted to winter wheat in any county for which the Special Provisions contain only a fall final planting date.

(c) In accordance with section 14(c) of the Basic Provisions, the maximum amount of the replanting payment per acre will be your share times the lesser of 20 percent of the per-acre revenue guarantee based on the projected harvest price or an amount equal to 3 bushels, times the projected harvest price.

(d) When wheat is replanted using a practice that is uninsurable for an original planting, the liability for the unit will be reduced by the amount of the replanting payment. The premium amount will not be reduced.

In accordance with the requirements of section 15 of the Basic Provisions, if you initially discover damage to any insured crop within 15 days of, or during harvest, you must leave representative samples of the unharvested crop for our inspection. The samples must be at least 10 feet wide and extend the entire length of each field in the unit, and must not be harvested or destroyed until the earlier of our inspection or 15 days after harvest of the unit is completed.

(a) We will determine your loss on a unit basis. In the event you are unable to provide separate acceptable production records:

(1) For any optional units, we will combine all optional units for which such production records were not provided; or

(2) For any basic units, we will allocate any commingled production to such units in proportion to our liability on the harvested acreage for each unit.

(b) In the event of loss or damage covered by this policy, we will settle your claim using the following procedures:

(1) Basic and Optional units: We will settle your claim on each basic or optional unit by:

(i) Multiplying the unit's per-acre revenue guarantee by the number of insured acres in the unit;

(ii) Multiplying the fall harvest price by the production to count for each unit (see sections 11(c) through (e);

(iii) Subtracting the result of section 11(b)(1)(ii) from the result of section 11(b)(1)(i); and

(iv) Multiplying the results of section 11(b)(1)(iii) by your share.

If the result of section 11(b)(1)(iv) is greater than zero, an indemnity equal to that result will be paid to you. If the result is less than or equal to zero, no indemnity will be paid.

(2) Enterprise units: We will settle your claim on an enterprise unit by:

(i) Multiplying the enterprise unit's per-acre revenue guarantee by the number of insured acres in the enterprise unit;

(ii) Multiplying the fall harvest price by the production to count for the enterprise unit;

(iii) Subtracting the result of section 11(b)(2)(ii) from the result of section 11(b)(2)(i); and

(iv) Multiplying the result of section 11(b)(2)(iii) by your share.

If the result of section 11(b)(2)(iv) is greater than zero, an indemnity equal to that result will be paid to you. If the result is less than or equal to zero, no indemnity will be paid.

(3) Whole-farm units: We will settle your claim on a whole-farm unit by:

(i) Multiplying the per acre revenue guarantee for each crop by the number of insured acres planted to each crop;

(ii) Totaling the results of section 11(b)(3)(i);

(iii) Multiplying the fall harvest price for each crop by the production to count for each crop;

(iv) Totaling the results of section 11(b)(3)(iii);

(v) Subtracting the result of section 11(b)(3)(iv) from the result of section 11(b)(3)(ii); and

(vi) Multiplying the result of section 11(b)(3)(v) by your share.

If the result of section 11(b)(3)(vi) is greater than zero, an indemnity equal to that result will be paid to you. If the result is less than or equal to zero, no indemnity will be paid.

(c) The total production to count in bushels from all insurable acreage on the unit will include:

(1) All appraised production as follows:

(i) Not less than the per-acre revenue guarantee will be used for such acreage:

(A) That is abandoned;

(B) Put to another use without our consent;

(C) Damaged solely by uninsured causes; or

(D) For which you fail to provide acceptable production records;

(ii) Production lost due to uninsured causes;

(iii) Unharvested production (mature unharvested production may be adjusted for quality deficiencies and excess moisture in accordance with section 11(d)); and

(iv) Potential production on insured acreage that you intend to put to another use or you wish to abandon and no longer care for, if you and we agree on the appraised amount of production. Upon such agreement, the insurance period for that acreage will end when you put the acreage to another use or abandon the crop. If agreement on the appraised amount of production is not reached:

(A) If you do not elect to continue to care for the crop, we may give you consent to put the acreage to another use if you agree to leave intact, and provide sufficient care for, representative samples of the crop in locations acceptable to us. (The amount of production to count for such acreage will be based on the harvested production or appraisals from the samples at the time harvest should have occurred. If you do not leave the required samples intact, or you fail to provide sufficient care for the samples, our appraisal made prior to giving you consent to put the acreage to another use will be used to determine the amount of production to count); or

(B) If you elect to continue to care for the crop, the amount of production to count for the acreage will be the harvested production, or our reappraisal if additional damage occurs and the crop is not harvested; and

(2) All harvested production from the insurable acreage.

(d) Mature wheat production may be adjusted for excess moisture and quality deficiencies. If moisture adjustment is applicable, it will be made prior to any adjustment for quality.

(1) Production will be reduced by 0.12 percent for each 0.1 percentage point of moisture in excess of 13.5 percent. We may obtain samples of the production to determine the moisture content.

(2) Production will be eligible for quality adjustment if:

(i) Deficiencies in quality, in accordance with the Official United States Standards for Grain, result in wheat not meeting the grade requirements for U.S. No. 4 (grades U.S. No. 5 or worse) because of test weight, total damaged kernels (heat-damaged kernels will not be considered to be damaged), shrunken or broken kernels, defects (foreign material and heat damage will not be considered to be defects), a musty, sour, or commercially objectional foreign odor (except smut odor), or grading garlicky, light smutty, smutty or ergoty;

(ii) Substances or conditions are present, including mycotoxins, that are identified by the Food and Drug Administration or other public health organizations of the United States as being injurious to human or animal health.

(3) Quality will be a factor in determining your loss only if:

(i) The deficiencies, substances, or conditions resulted from a cause of loss against which insurance is provided under these crop provisions;

(ii) All determinations of these deficiencies, substances, or conditions are made using samples of the production obtained by us or by a disinterested third party approved by us; and

(iii) The samples are analyzed by a grader licensed to grade the wheat under the authority of the United States Grain Standards Act or the United States Warehouse Act with regard to deficiencies in quality, or by a laboratory approved by us with regard to substances or conditions injurious to human or animal health. Test weight for quality adjustment purposes may be determined by our loss adjuster.

(4) The wheat production that is eligible for quality adjustment, as specified in sections 11(d)(2) and (3), will be reduced by the quality adjustment factor contained in the Special Provisions.

(e) Any production harvested from plants growing in the wheat may be counted as production of the wheat on a weight basis.

A late planting period is not applicable to fall-planted wheat. Any winter wheat that is planted after the fall final planting date in counties for which the Special Provisions also contain a final planting date for spring wheat will not be insured. Any winter wheat that is planted after the fall final planting date in counties for which the Special Provisions contain only a fall final planting date will not be insured unless you were prevented from planting the winter wheat by the fall final planting date. Such acreage will be insurable, and the revenue guarantee and premium for the acreage will be determined in accordance with sections 17(b) and (c) of the Basic Provisions

(a) In addition to the provisions contained in section 18 of the Basic Provisions, in counties for which the Special Provisions designate a spring final planting date, your prevented planting per-acre revenue guarantee will be based on your approved yield for spring-planted acreage of the insured crop.

(b) Your prevented planting coverage will be 60 percent of your per-acre revenue guarantee for timely planted acreage. You may increase your prevented planting coverage to a level specified in the actuarial documents by paying an additional premium.

3. Add the Revenue Assurance Optional Endorsement Winter Wheat Coverage Endorsement as follows:

(a) In return for payment of the additional premium as indicated in the premium calculator, this endorsement is attached to and made a part of your Revenue Assurance Wheat Crop Provisions subject to the terms and conditions described herein.

(b) This endorsement is available only in counties for which the Special Provisions designate both a fall final planting date and a spring final planting date.

(c) This endorsement modifies the provisions of sections 7 and 11 of the Revenue Assurance Wheat Crop Provisions.

(1) You must have the Revenue Assurance Wheat Crop Policy in force.

(2) You may select either Option A or Option B. Failure to select either Option A or Option B means that you have rejected both Options and this endorsement would be void.

(3) Insurance Period. Coverage under this endorsement begins on the later of the date we accept your application for coverage or on the fall final planting date designated in the Special Provisions. Coverage ends on the spring final planting date designated in the Special Provisions.

(4) The provisions under section 15 of the Revenue Assurance Insurance Policy Basic Provisions are amended to require that all notices of damage must be provided to us by the spring final planting date designated in the Special Provisions.

Whenever any winter wheat is damaged during the insurance period (see section (c)(3) above), and at least 20 acres or 20 percent of the acreage in the unit, whichever is less, does not have an adequate stand to produce at least 90 percent of the Revenue Guarantee for the acreage (to calculate the actual percentage, multiply the appraised production determined in accordance with section 11(c)(1) of the Revenue Assurance Wheat Crop Provisions times the Projected Harvest Price and then divide that quantity by the Revenue Guarantee), you may, at your option, take one of the following actions:

(a) Destroy the remaining crop on such acreage. By doing so, you agree to accept an amount of Calculated Revenue equal to 70 percent of the Revenue Guarantee as revenue to count for the damaged acreage, or an appraisal determined in accordance with section 11(c)(1) of the Revenue Assurance Wheat Crop Provisions if such an appraisal results in a greater amount of Calculated Revenue. This amount will be considered Calculated Revenue to Count in determining any final indemnity on the unit and will be used to settle your claim as described in the provisions under section 11 of the Revenue Assurance Wheat Crop Provisions. You may use such acreage for any purpose, including planting and separately insuring any other crop. If you elect to utilize such acreage for the production of spring wheat, you must:

(1) Plant the spring wheat in a manner that results in a clear and discernible break in the planting pattern at the boundary between it and any remaining winter wheat; and

(2) Store or market the production from such acreage in such a manner that permits us to verify the amount of spring wheat production separately from any winter wheat production. In the event you are unable to provide records of production that are acceptable to us, the spring wheat acreage will be considered to be a part of the original winter wheat unit. If you elected to insure the spring wheat acreage as a separate optional unit, any premium amount for such acreage will be considered earned and payable to us.

(b) Continue to care for the damaged crop. By doing so, coverage will continue under the terms of the Revenue Assurance Insurance Policy Basic Provisions, Revenue Assurance Wheat Crop Provisions, and this Option.

(c) Replant the acreage to an appropriate variety of wheat, if it is practical, and receive a replanting payment in accordance with the terms of section 9 of the Revenue Assurance Wheat Crop Provisions. By doing so, coverage will continue under the terms of the Revenue Assurance Insurance Policy Basic Provisions, the Revenue Assurance Wheat Crop Provisions, and this Option, and the Revenue Guarantee for winter wheat will remain in effect

Whenever any winter wheat is damaged during the insurance period (see section (c)(3) above), and at least 20 acres or 20 percent of the acreage in the unit, whichever is less, does not have an adequate stand to produce at least 90 percent of the Revenue Guarantee for the acreage (to calculate the actual percentage, multiply the appraised production determined in accordance with section 11(c)(1) of the Revenue Assurance Wheat Crop Provisions times the Projected Harvest Price and then divide that quantity by the Revenue Guarantee), you may, at your option, take one of the following actions:

(a) Continue to care for the damaged crop. By doing so, coverage will continue under the terms of the Revenue Assurance Insurance Policy Basic Provisions, the Revenue Assurance Wheat Crop Provisions, and this Option.

(b) Replant the acreage to an appropriate variety of wheat, if it is practical, and receive a replanting payment in accordance with the terms of section 9 of the Revenue Assurance Wheat Crop Provisions. By doing so, coverage will continue under the terms of the Revenue Assurance Insurance Policy Basic Provisions, the Revenue Assurance Wheat Crop Provisions, and this Option, and the Final Guarantee for winter wheat will remain in effect.

(c) Accept our appraisal of the crop on the damaged acreage as Calculated Revenue to count against the Revenue Guarantee for the damaged acreage, destroy the remaining crop on such acreage, and be eligible for any indemnity due under the terms of the Revenue Assurance Insurance Policy Basic Provisions and the Revenue Assurance Wheat Crop Provisions. The appraisal will be considered Calculated Revenue in determining any final indemnity on the unit and will be used to settle your claim as described in the provisions of section 11 of the Revenue Assurance Wheat Crop Provisions. You may use such acreage for any purpose, including planting and separately insuring any other crop. If you elect to utilize such acreage for the production of spring wheat, you must:

(1) Plant the spring wheat in a manner that results in a clear and discernible break in the planting pattern at the boundary between it and any remaining winter wheat; and

(2) Store or market the production from such acreage in a manner which permits us to verify the amount of spring wheat production separately from any winter wheat production. In the event you are unable to provide records of production that are acceptable to us, the spring wheat acreage will be considered to be a part of the original winter wheat unit. If you elected to insure the spring wheat acreage as a separate optional unit, any premium amount for such acreage will be considered earned and payable to us.

Section 508(h) of the Act allows for the submission of a policy to FCIC's Board and authorizes the Board to review and, if the Board finds that the interests of producers are adequately protected and that any premiums charged to the producers are actuarially appropriate, approve the policy for reinsurance and subsidy in accordance with section 508(e) of the Act.

In accordance with section 508(h) of the Act, the Board approved a program of insurance known as CRC, submitted by American Agrisurance, an exclusive marketing agent and wholly owned subsidiary of Acceptance Insurance Companies, Inc. All terms and conditions of the policy and all premium rates are determined by AmAg. FCIC does not have the authority to modify or waive any terms or conditions. FCIC only has the authority to approve or disapprove the terms and conditions submitted by AmAg.

The CRC program has been approved for reinsurance and premium subsidy, including subsidy for administrative and operating expenses in an amount authorized under section 508(e) of the Act. CRC is designed to protect producers against both price and yield losses.

On Tuesday, November 30, 1999, FCIC published a Notice of availability in the Federal Register at 64 FR 66839-66866 to revise the Basic Provisions, Crop Provisions, and Commodity Exchange Endorsements to be effective beginning with the 2000 CRC spring crop programs.

AmAg has requested the CRC program for winter wheat for the 2001 crop year be changed to remove the CRC base price and harvest price for Winter Durum Wheat in Arizona and California, incorporate changes to allow for continuous rating of crop insurance policies, change the cancellation and termination dates for some counties and make minor edits for clarification. The CRC program for durum wheat is being removed from Arizona and California because of an inability to determine prices from the current market. Other changes made include those changes in the administrative fees and producer subsidies as well as the substitution of yields in the producers's actual production history mandated by the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000.

Accordingly, FCIC herewith gives notice of the above stated changes for the 2001 and succeeding crop years.

The CRC policies, endorsements, underwriting rules, questions and answers, premium calculation worksheet, and actuarial documents for the 2001 crop year will be released electronically to all reinsured companies through FCIC's Website.

1. In section 1, the definitions of “actuarial documents,” “additional coverage,” “administrative fee,” and “approved yield” are revised to read as follows:

Actuarial documents. The material for the crop year which is available for public inspection in your agent's office, and which show the revenue guarantees, coverage levels, practices, insurable acreage, and other related information regarding crop insurance in the county.

Additional coverage. A level of coverage equal to or greater than 50 percent of the approved yield indemnified at 100 percent of the Base Price, or a comparable coverage.

Administrative fee. An amount you must pay for additional coverage for each crop year as specified in section 8.

Approved yield. The actual production history (APH) yield determined in accordance with 7 CFR part 400, subpart G, including any adjustments elected under section 35. This yield is established for basic or optional units. The approved yield for each basic or optional unit comprising an enterprise unit is retained for premium and final guarantee purposes under an enterprise unit.

2. In section 1, the definition of “base premium rate” has been added to read as follows:

Base premium rate. A premium rate used to calculate the risk associated with yield.

3. In section 1, the definition of “CRC rate” has been replaced with “CRC base rate” and is revised to read as follows:

CRC base rate. The premium rate used to calculate the risk associated with revenue.

4. In section 1, the definition of “Limited coverage” is removed.

5. Section 3(b) is revised to read as follows:

(b) Your application for insurance must contain all the information required by us to insure the crop. Applications that do not contain all social security numbers and employer identification numbers, as applicable, (except as stated herein) coverage level, crop, type, variety or class, plan of insurance, and any other material information required to insure the crop, are not acceptable. If a person with a substantial beneficial interest in the insured crop refuses to provide a social security number or employer identification number, the amount of coverage available under the policy will be reduced proportionately by that person's share of the crop.

6. Section 3(e)(10) is revised to read as follows:

(10) For example, if crop A, with a termination date of October 31, 2000, and crop B, with a termination date of March 15, 2001, are insured and you do not pay the premium for crop A by the termination date, you are ineligible for crop insurance as of October 31, 2000, and crop A's policy is terminated on that date. Crop B's policy is terminated as of March 15, 2001. If you enter an agreement to repay the debt on April 25, 2001, you can apply for insurance for crop A by the October 31, 2001, sales closing date and crop B by the March 15, 2002, sales closing date. If you fail to make a scheduled payment on November 1, 2001, you will be ineligible for crop insurance effective on November 1, 2001, and you will not be eligible unless the debt is paid in full or you file a petition to have the debt discharged in bankruptcy and subsequently receive discharge.

7. Section 4(a), is revised to read as follows:

(a) For each crop year, the Final Guarantee and coverage level at which an indemnity will be determined for each unit will be those used to calculate your summary of coverage. The information necessary to determine those factors will be contained in the Special Provisions or in the actuarial documents.

8. Section 8(c) is revised to read as follows:

(c) Your annual premium amount is determined by:

(1) Multiplying the Approved Yield times the Coverage Level, times the Base Premium Rate, and times the Base Price as defined in the Commodity Exchange Endorsement;

(2) Multiplying the Approved Yield times the Coverage Level, times the CRC Base Rate, and times the CRC Low Price Factor specified in the actuarial documents;

(3) Multiplying the Approved Yield times the Coverage Level, times the Base Premium Rate, and times the CRC High Price Factor specified in the actuarial documents;

(4) Adding sections 8(c)(1), (2), and (3);

(5) Multiplying the result of section 8(c)(4) times the Acres insured, times your Share at the time coverage begins, and as applicable, times any CRC Option Factor; Yield Adjustment Surcharge; and/or CRC Enterprise Option Factor;

(6) Multiplying the result of section 8(c)(5) times the applicable producer subsidy percentage to calculate the appropriate amount of subsidy. The producer subsidy percentage is based upon the coverage level and is contained in the actuarial documents; and

(7) Subtracting section 8(c)(6) from section 8(c)(5).

9. Section 8(d) is removed and the remaining section is redesignated, accordingly.

10. Section 8(e) redesignated as 8(d) is revised as follows:

(d) In addition to the premium charged:

(1) You, unless otherwise authorized in 7 CFR part 400, must pay an administrative fee each crop year of $30 per crop per county.

(2) The administrative fee must be paid no later than the time that premium is due.

(3) Payment of an administrative fee will not be required if you file a bona fide zero acreage report on or before the acreage reporting date for the crop. If you falsely file a zero acreage report, you may be subject to criminal and administrative sanctions.

(4) The administrative fee will be waived if you request it and you qualify as a limited resources farmer.

(5) Failure to pay the administrative fees when due may make you ineligible for certain other USDA benefits.

11. Section 34(c) is revised to read as follows:

(c) A written agreement may only be used to insure a CRC crop in a county without a CRC program if the county without a CRC program is adjacent to a county with a CRC program;

12. Section 35 is added as follows:

You may elect to exclude actual yields used to calculate the APH yield that are less than 60 percent of the applicable transitional yield (T-yield), as defined in 7 CFR 400.52. Each excluded actual yield will be replaced with a yield equal to 60 percent of the applicable T-yield for the county. The replacement yields will be used in the same manner as actual yields for the purpose of calculating the APH yield. Premium rates for approved yields that are adjusted under this section will be based on your yield prior to replacing the actual yields or such other basis as determined appropriate by us.

13. Section 3 is revised to read as follows:

In addition to the requirements of section 4 of the Basic Provisions all the insurable acreage of wheat in the county insured as grain under this policy will have the same coverage level.

14. Section 5 is revised to read as follows:

In accordance with section 3(h) of the Basic Provisions, the cancellation and termination dates are:

15. Section 11(e)(2)(i) is revised to read as follows:

(i) Deficiencies in quality, in accordance with the Official United States Standards for Grain, result in wheat not meeting the grade requirements for U.S. No. 4 (grades U.S. No. 5 or worse) because of test weight, total damaged kernels (heat-damaged kernels will not be considered to be damaged), shrunken or broken kernels, defects (foreign material and heat damage will not be considered to be defects), a musty, sour, or commercially objectional foreign odor (except smut odor) or grading garlicky, light smutty, smutty or ergoty;

16. The Crop Revenue Coverage Mandatory Actuarial Document Endorsement Commodity Exchange Endorsement—Wheat, is revised to read as follows:

If a conflict exists among the policy provisions, the order of priority is as follows: (1) The Special Provisions; (2) this Commodity Exchange Endorsement; (3) the Crop Provisions; and (4) the Basic Provisions, with (1) controlling (2), etc.

How this endorsement affects your coverage:

(I) This endorsement is attached to and made a part of your Crop Revenue Coverage (CRC) Wheat crop policy provisions and actuarial documents, subject to the terms and conditions described herein.

(II) This endorsement specifies how, where, and when commodity prices for your CRC Wheat policy are determined.

(III) This endorsement defines the Average Daily Settlement Price, as used in the Base Price and Harvest Price, as—The average calculated by totaling all the daily settlement prices for the contract specified in the applicable Base Price or Harvest Price definition (established on full active trading days), during the month specified in the applicable Base Price or Harvest Price definition, and dividing that sum by the total number of days included in the total. The average must include at least fifteen (15) days and each day included in the average must be a full active trading day for the contract specified in the applicable Base Price or Harvest Price definition. A full active trading day is any day on which there are twenty-five (25) or more open interest contracts of the contract specified in the Base Price or Harvest Price definition. If there are less than fifteen (15) full active trading days for the contract specified in the applicable Base Price or Harvest Price definition, during the month specified in the applicable Base Price or Harvest Price definition, then additional daily settlement prices, established on full active trading days, for the contract immediately prior to the contract specified in the applicable Base Price or Harvest Price definition, during the month specified in the applicable Base Price or Harvest Price definition, will be used until there are fifteen (15) prices from fifteen (15) full active trading days included in the average.

(IV) This endorsement defines the Base Price and Harvest Price as shown in Section 1 of the Crop Revenue Coverage Basic Provisions by wheat type and state as follows:

Base Price (CBOT)—The August 15 to September 14 pre-harvest year's average daily settlement price for the harvest year's CBOT July soft red winter wheat futures contract rounded to the nearest whole cent. The Base Price will be released as an actuarial document addendum by September 20 of the pre-harvest year.

Harvest Price (CBOT)—The July 15 to August 14 harvest year's average daily settlement price for the harvest year's CBOT September soft red winter wheat futures contract rounded to the nearest whole cent. The Harvest Price cannot be less than the Base Price minus two dollars ($2.00), or greater than the Base Price plus two dollars ($2.00). The Harvest Price will be released as an actuarial document addendum by August 20 of the harvest year.

Base Price (CBOT)—The August 15 to September 14 pre-harvest year's average daily settlement price for the harvest year's CBOT July soft red winter wheat futures contract rounded to the nearest whole cent. The Base Price will be released as an actuarial document addendum by September 20 of the pre-harvest year.

Harvest Price (CBOT)—The June harvest year's average daily settlement price for the harvest year's CBOT July soft red winter wheat futures contract rounded to the nearest whole cent. The Harvest Price cannot be less than the Base Price minus two dollars ($2.00), or greater than the Base Price plus two dollars ($2.00). The Harvest Price will be released as an actuarial document addendum by July 10 of the harvest year.

Base Price (KCBOT)—The August 15 to September 14 pre-harvest year's average daily settlement price for the harvest year's KCBOT July hard red winter wheat futures contract rounded to the nearest whole cent. The Base Price will be released as an actuarial document addendum by September 20 of the pre-harvest year.

Harvest Price (KCBOT)—The July 15 to August 14 harvest year's average daily settlement price for the harvest year's KCBOT September hard red winter wheat futures contract rounded to the nearest whole cent. The Harvest Price cannot be less than the Base Price minus two dollars ($2.00), or greater than the Base Price plus two dollars ($2.00). The Harvest Price will be released as an actuarial document addendum by August 20 of the harvest year.

Base Price (KCBOT)—The August 15 to September 14 pre-harvest year's average daily settlement price for the harvest year's KCBOT July hard red winter wheat futures contract rounded to the nearest whole cent. The Base Price will be released as an actuarial document addendum by September 20 of the pre-harvest year.

Harvest Price (KCBOT)—The June harvest year's average daily settlement price for the harvest year's KCBOT July hard red winter wheat futures contract rounded to the nearest whole cent. The Harvest Price cannot be less than the Base Price minus two dollars ($2.00), or greater than the Base Price plus two dollars ($2.00). The Harvest Price will be released as an actuarial document addendum by July 10 of the harvest year.

Base Price (MGE)—The February harvest year's average daily settlement price for the harvest year's MGE September hard red spring wheat futures contract rounded to the nearest whole cent. The Base Price will be released as an actuarial document addendum by March 10 of the harvest year.

Harvest Price (MGE)—The August harvest year's average daily settlement price for the harvest year's MGE September hard red spring wheat futures contract rounded to the nearest whole cent. The Harvest Price cannot be less than the Base Price minus two dollars ($2.00), or greater than the Base Price plus two dollars ($2.00). The Harvest Price will be released as an actuarial document addendum by September 10 of the harvest year.

Base Price (KCBOT)—The August 15 to September 14 pre-harvest year's average daily settlement price for the harvest year's KCBOT July hard red winter wheat futures contract rounded to the nearest whole cent. The Base Price will be released as an actuarial document addendum by September 20 of the pre-harvest year.

Harvest Price (MGE)—The August harvest year's average daily settlement price for the harvest year's MGE September hard red spring wheat futures contract rounded to the nearest whole cent. The Harvest Price cannot be less than the Base Price minus two dollars ($2.00), or greater than the Base Price plus two dollars ($2.00). The Harvest Price will be released as an actuarial document addendum by September 10 of the harvest year.

Base Price (PGE)—The Portland Price equals the August 15 to September 14 pre-harvest year's average daily settlement price for the harvest year's CBOT September soft red winter wheat futures contract (rounded to the nearest whole cent) plus an adjustment equal to the current five-year average difference between the August average daily settlement price for the nearby CBOT September soft red winter wheat futures contract (rounded to the nearest whole cent) and the August average daily settlement price for the PGE soft white wheat contract (rounded to the nearest whole cent). The Base Price will be released as an actuarial document addendum by September 20 of the pre-harvest year.

Harvest Price (PGE)—The August harvest year's average daily settlement price for the PGE soft white wheat contract rounded to the nearest whole cent. The Harvest Price cannot be less than the Base Price minus two dollars ($2.00), or greater than the Base Price plus two dollars ($2.00). The Harvest Price will be released as an actuarial document addendum by September 10 of the harvest year.

Base Price (MGE)—The February harvest year's average daily settlement price for the harvest year's MGE September durum wheat futures contract rounded to the nearest whole cent. The Base Price will be released as an actuarial document addendum by March 10 of the harvest year.

Harvest Price (MGE)—The August harvest year's average daily settlement price for the harvest year's MGE September durum wheat futures contract rounded to the nearest whole cent. The Harvest Price cannot be less than the Base Price minus two dollars ($2.00), or greater than the Base Price plus two dollars ($2.00). The Harvest Price will be released as an actuarial document addendum by September 10 of the harvest year.

All other terms and conditions of the Policy remain unchanged.

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 47(a) (2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the possible impact of the proposed actions.

If the Committee approves the proposed additions, all entities of the Federal Government (except as otherwise indicated) will be required to procure the services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities. I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the services to the Government.

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.

The following services have been proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the commodities to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the commodities proposed for deletion from the Procurement List.

The following commodities have been proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

The Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b) (1999), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with May anniversary dates. The Department also received timely requests to revoke in part the antidumping duty orders on Ball Bearings and Cylindrical Roller Bearings from France, Polyvinyl Alcohol from Taiwan, and Ball Bearings from the United Kingdom.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than May 31, 2001.

During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under section 351.211 or a determination under section 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested.

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

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

On May 12, 1995, the Department issued the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from Russia (60 FR 25691) pursuant to section 736(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The Department initiated a sunset review of this order by publishing a notice of the initiation in the Federal Register , April 3, 2000 (65 FR 17484). In addition, as a courtesy to interested parties, the Department sent letters, via certified and registered mail, to each party listed on the Department's most current service list for this proceeding to inform them of the automatic initiation of the sunset review on this order.

No domestic interested parties responded to the notice of initiation by the April 18, 2000 deadline ( see section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of Procedures for Conducting Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders , 63 FR 13520 (March 20, 1998) (“ Sunset Regulations ”)).

Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act and section 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(3) of the Sunset Regulations , if no domestic interested party responds to the notice of initiation, the Department shall issue a final determination, within 90 days after the initiation of the review, revoking the order. Because no domestic interested party responded to the notice of initiation by the applicable deadline, April 18, 2000, we are revoking this antidumping duty order.

Pursuant to section 751(c)(6)(A)(iv) of the Act, the Department will instruct the United States Customs Service to terminate the suspension of liquidation of the merchandise subject to this order entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after January 1, 2000. Entries of subject merchandise prior to the effective date of revocation will continue to be subject to suspension of liquidation and antidumping duty deposit requirements. The Department will complete any pending administrative reviews of this order and will conduct administrative reviews of subject merchandise entered prior to the effective date of revocation in response to appropriately filed requests for review.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”). In addition, all references to the Department of Commerce's (“the Department's”) regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (April 1999).

On May 27, 1987, the Department published in the Federal Register (52 FR 19748) the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished (“TRBs”), from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). The Department notified interested parties of the opportunity to request an administrative review of this order on June 9, 1999 (64 FR 30962). On June 21, 1999, Wafangdian Bearing Group Corp. Import & Export Company (“Wafangdian”) and Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export Corp. (“ZMC”) requested administrative reviews. On June 24, 1999, Wanxiang Group Corporation (“Wangxiang”) and China National Machinery Import & Export Corporation (“CMC”) requested administrative reviews. Wafangdian, ZMC, Wangxiang, and CMC also requested that the Department revoke the antidumping duty order as it pertains to them. On June 30, 1999, the petitioner, The Timken Company, requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hundreds of PRC TRB exporters. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1), we published a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review on July 29, 1999 (64 FR 41075).

On September 1, 1999, we sent a questionnaire to the Secretary General of the Basic Machinery Division of the Chamber of Commerce for Import & Export of Machinery and Electronics Products and requested that the questionnaire be forwarded to all PRC companies identified in our initiation notice and to any subsidiary companies of the named companies that produce and/or export the subject merchandise. In this letter, we also requested information relevant to the issue of whether the companies named in the initiation notice are independent from government control. See the Separate Rates Determination section, below. Courtesy copies of the questionnaire were also sent to companies with legal representation.

We received responses to the questionnaire from the following ten companies: CMC, Liaoning MEC Group Co. Ltd. (“Liaoning”), Luoyang Bearing Corp. (Group) (“Luoyang”), Premier Bearing & Equipment Ltd. (“Premier”), Tianshui Hailin Import and Export Corporation and Hailin Bearing Factory (“Hailin”), Wafangdian, Wanxiang, Weihai Machinery Holding (Group) Co., Ltd. (“Weihai”), ZMC, and Zhuzhou Torch Spark Plug Co., Ltd. (“Torch”).

In addition, on October 8, 1999, Zhejiang Changshan Changhe Bearing Corp. (“ZCCBC”) reported no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review (“POR”), June 1, 1997, through May 31, 1998, other than those shipments already being examined by the Department as part of ZCCBC's new shipper review. Therefore, in accordance with section 351.213(d)(3) of our regulations, we preliminarily conclude that there were no applicable shipments from ZCCBC to the United States during the POR and are rescinding the review with respect to this company. However, we will confirm with the Customs Service that ZCCBC had no shipments prior to issuing the final results.

The Department is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Merchandise covered by this review includes TRBs and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from the PRC; flange, take up cartridge, and hanger units incorporating tapered roller bearings; and tapered roller housings (except pillow blocks) incorporating tapered rollers, with or without spindles, whether or not for automotive use. This merchandise is currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) item numbers 8482.20.00, 8482.91.00.50, 8482.99.30, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.80, 8708.99.80.15, and 8708.99.80.80. Although the HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order and this review is dispositive.

As discussed below in the Normal Value section of this notice, we are treating the PRC as a nonmarket economy (“NME”) country within the meaning of section 773(c) of the Act. We allow companies in NMEs to receive separate antidumping duty rates for purposes of assessment and cash deposits when those companies can demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to export activities.

To establish whether a company operating in a NME is sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each exporting entity under the test established in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“ Sparklers ”), as amplified by the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China , 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (“ Silicon Carbide ”). Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure absence of government control over export activities includes: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. De facto absence of government control over exports is based on four factors: (1) Whether each exporter sets its own export prices independently of the government and without the approval of a government authority; (2) whether each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) whether each exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and (4) whether each exporter has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management ( see Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587, and Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589).

In previous administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on TRBs from the PRC, we determined that CMC, Liaoning, Luoyang, Hailin, Wafangdian, Wanxiang, Weihai, and ZMC, should receive separate rates ( see, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of 1996-1997 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review and Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part , 63 FR 63842 (November 17, 1998) (“ TRBs X” )). We preliminarily determine that the evidence on the record of this review also demonstrates an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to these companies' exports according to the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide . The evidence in question consisted of, among other things, the companies' business licenses and copies of relevant PRC laws on trade and incorporation. Therefore, we have continued to assign each of these companies a separate rate.

Premier is a privately owned Hong Kong trading company which purchases TRBs from the PRC for resale throughout the world. Because Premier's PRC-based suppliers do not know the destination of their merchandise, we have determined that Premier, rather than its suppliers, is the proper respondent with respect to its sales of TRBs to the United States. Therefore, Premier's suppliers need not undergo a separate-rates analysis. See the United States Sales section, below.

We have preliminarily determined that companies which did not respond to the questionnaire should not receive separate rates. See the Use of Facts Otherwise Available section, below.

We preliminarily determine that companies which did not respond to our requests for information did not cooperate to the best of their ability. Thus, in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, the use of adverse facts available is appropriate for such companies. Furthermore, because factors data for certain of Premier's U.S. sales were not provided by Premier's suppliers, we preliminarily determine that such parties did not demonstrate that they cooperated to the best of their ability, and we have applied adverse facts available to calculate a portion of Premier's margin.

1. Companies that did not respond to the questionnaire: Where the Department must base its determination on facts available because a respondent failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use inferences adverse to the interests of that respondent in choosing facts available. Section 776(b) of the Act also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available information derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record. Information from prior segments of the proceeding constitutes secondary information and section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that secondary information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) provides that “corroborate” means simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value ( see H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 870 (1994)).

To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. However, unlike other types of information, such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources for calculated dumping margins. Thus, in an administrative review, if the Department chooses as total adverse facts available a calculated dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time period. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin inappropriate. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin ( see, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (Feb. 22, 1996) (where the Department disregarded the highest margin as adverse facts available because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin)).

We have preliminarily assigned a margin of 33.18 percent to those companies for which we initiated a review and which did not respond to the questionnaire. This margin, calculated for sales by Xiangfan Machinery Import & Export (Group) Corp. during the 1996-97 review, represents the highest overall margin calculated for any firm during any segment of this proceeding. As discussed above, it is not necessary to question the reliability of a calculated margin from a prior segment of the proceeding. Further, there are no circumstances or documentation indicating that this margin is inappropriate as adverse facts available. Therefore, we preliminarily find that the 33.18 percent rate is corroborated.

As noted in the Separate Rates Determination section above, we have also preliminarily determined that the non-responsive companies should not receive separate rates. Thus, they are viewed as part of the PRC-wide entity. Accordingly, the facts available for these companies form the basis for the PRC rate, which is 33.18 percent for this review.

2. Premier: Premier, a Hong Kong-based reseller of TRBs, obtains TRBs from numerous PRC suppliers. Because Premier is only a reseller of TRBs and does not produce the subject merchandise itself, factors data must be obtained from its suppliers. In response to our questionnaire, Premier provided factors data from three of its seventeen suppliers. In addition to requesting factors data from Premier, we also requested factors data directly from Premier's suppliers. However, none responded. Consequently, we do not have factors data for all TRB models sold by Premier in the United States.

As in prior reviews, we have preliminarily determined that there is little variation in factor utilization rates among the TRB producers from which we have received FOP data ( see, e.g. , Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of 1996-1997 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review , 63 FR 37339, 37342 (July 10, 1998) (“ Preliminary TRBs X ”)). Therefore, for the models for which we have appropriate information, we are using, as facts available, the factors data we received from manufacturers which did not supply Premier during the POR but manufactured the same models of TRBs, in order to calculate normal value.

For the sales of TRB models for which no factors data is available, we have preliminarily determined, in accordance with section 776(a) of the Act, to use facts available. The use of facts available is necessary because the necessary factors data for these models is not available on the record. We also preliminarily find, in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, that in determining the appropriate facts available an adverse inference is warranted because interested parties did not cooperate to the best of their ability. Interested parties did not cooperate to the best of their ability because they refused to provide information specifically requested by the Department.

Thus, with respect to Premier's U.S. sales for which no corresponding factors data were reported, we are applying, as adverse facts available, a margin of 25.56 percent, the highest overall margin ever applicable to Premier. This approach is consistent with our final results in prior reviews (see, e.g., TRBs X 63 FR 63857). As discussed above, it is not necessary to question the reliability of a calculated margin from a prior segment of the proceeding. Further, there are no circumstances indicating that this margin is inappropriate as adverse facts available. Therefore, we preliminarily find that the 25.56 percent rate is corroborated.

Premier reported that it maintains inventories of TRBs in Hong Kong and sells TRBs worldwide. Therefore, its PRC-based suppliers have no knowledge when they sell to the Hong Kong firm that the shipments are destined for the United States. Because Premier is the first party to sell the merchandise to the United States, we have calculated U.S. price of this merchandise based on Premier's sales data.

For certain sales made by Premier and CMC we based the U.S. price on constructed export price (“CEP”) in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act because the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser occurred after importation of the merchandise into the United States. For sales made by other respondents, as well as the other sales made by Premier and CMC, we based the U.S. sales on export price (“EP”), in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States prior to importation into the United States and because the CEP methodology was not indicated by other circumstances.

We calculated EP based on the FOB, CIF, or C&F port prices to unaffiliated purchasers, as appropriate. From these prices we deducted amounts, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, ocean freight, and marine insurance. We valued the deduction for foreign inland freight using surrogate data (Indian freight costs). (We selected India as the surrogate country for the reasons explained in the Normal Value section of this notice.) When marine insurance and ocean freight were provided by PRC-owned companies, we valued the deductions using the surrogate data (amounts charged by international providers). When marine insurance and ocean freight were provided directly by market economy companies and paid for in a market economy currency, we deducted the values reported by the respondents for these services.

We calculated CEP based on the packed, ex-warehouse prices from the U.S. subsidiary to unaffiliated customers. We made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price for CEP for international freight, foreign brokerage and handling, foreign inland freight, marine insurance, customs duties, U.S. brokerage, U.S. inland freight insurance and U.S. inland freight. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we made further deductions from the starting price for CEP for the following selling expenses that related to economic activity in the United States: Commissions to unaffiliated agents; credit expenses; indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs; and repacking in the United States. In accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we have deducted from the starting price an amount for profit.

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine normal value (“NV”) using a factors-of-production (“FOP”) methodology if: (1) The merchandise is exported from an NME, and (2) the information does not permit the calculation of NV under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department has treated the PRC as a non-market economy (“NME”) in all previous antidumping cases. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME shall remain in effect until revoked by the Department. None of the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment in this review. Moreover, parties to this proceeding have not argued that the PRC TRB industry is a market-oriented industry. Consequently, we have no basis to determine that the information would permit the calculation of NV using PRC prices or costs. Therefore, we calculated NV based on factors data in accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act and section 351.408(c) of our regulations.

Similarly, we used factors data to calculate NV for Premier. Section 773(a)(3)(A) of the Act provides that when the merchandise is sold to the United States from an intermediate country, and the producer of subject merchandise knows, at the time of the sale, that its merchandise is destined for exportation, NV may be determined in the country of origin of the subject merchandise. Accordingly, we calculated NV for Premier on the basis of PRC production usage rates and surrogate country factor values.

Under the FOP methodology, we are required to value the NME producer's inputs in a comparable market economy country that is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. We chose India as the surrogate on the basis of the criteria set out in section 351.408(b) of our regulations. See the January 31, 2000, Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach from Jeff May “Tapered Roller Bearings from the People's Republic of China: Nonmarket Economy Status and Surrogate Country Selection,” and the June 29, 2000, Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach “Selection of a Surrogate Country and Steel Value Sources” (“Steel Values Memorandum”) for a further discussion of our surrogate selection. We selected Indonesia as a second-choice surrogate based on the same criteria. Id. We note that, in past reviews of this and other orders, we have found that both India and Indonesia are significant producers of TRBs ( see , e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of 1997-1998 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Results of New Shipper Review , 64 FR 61837, 61840 (November 15, 1999) (“ TRBs XI ”) and Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, From Romania; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative Review , 63 FR 11217 (March 6, 1998)).

We used publicly available information on Indian imports and exports to India to value the various factors with the exception of the following: Cold-rolled steel rods used in the production of rollers and steel scrap from the production of rollers. To value cold-rolled steel rods used in the production of rollers we used publicly available Indonesian import data. We used these data because we found the Indian data for those inputs to be unreliable. ( See Steel Values Memorandum.) We valued steel scrap from the production of rollers using Indonesian data in order to value it consistently with the steel used to produce the rollers.

We valued factors as follows (for a complete description of the factor values used, see the Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach: “Factors of Production Values Used for the Preliminary Results,” dated June 29, 2000):

1. Steel Inputs. For hot-rolled alloy steel bars used in the production of cups and cones, consistent with TRBs XI , we used a weighted average of Japanese export values to India from the Harmonized Schedule (“HS”) category 7228.30.900 obtained from Official Japan Ministry of Finance statistics. For cold-rolled steel rods used in the production of rollers, we used Indonesian import data under Indonesian tariff subheading 7228.50000 obtained from Badan Pusat Statistik, Republik Indonesia. For cold-rolled steel sheet for the production of cages, we used Indian import data under Indian tariff subheading 7206.1600 obtained from the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India, Vol. II—Imports. (For further discussion of selection of steel value sources, see Steel Values Memorandum.)

As in previous administrative reviews, we eliminated from our calculation steel imports from NME countries and imports from market economy countries that were made in small quantities. For steel used in the production of cups, cones, and rollers, we also excluded imports from countries that do not produce bearing-quality steel ( see, e.g., TRBs XI ). We made adjustments to include freight costs incurred using the shorter of the reported distances from either the closest PRC port to the TRBs factory or the domestic supplier to the TRBs factory ( see Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Collated Roofing Nails From the People's Republic of China , 62 FR 51410 (October 1, 1997), and Sigma Corporation v. United States , 117 F. 3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).

Certain producers in this review purchased steel from market economy suppliers and paid for the steel with market economy currency. Thus, in accordance with section 351.408(c)(1) of our regulations, we valued all appropriate steel inputs using the actual price reported for directly imported inputs from a market economy. For all other steel inputs, we used a surrogate to value that steel.

We valued scrap recovered from the production of cups and cones using Indian import statistics from HS category 7204.2909. We valued scrap recovered from the production of rollers using Indonesian import data from Indonesian tariff category 7204.29000. Scrap recovered from the production of cages was valued using import data from the Indian tariff subheading 7204.4100.

2. Labor. Section 351.408(c)(3) of our regulations requires the use of a regression-based wage rate. We have used the regression-based wage rate on Import Administration's internet website at www.ita.doc.gov/import_admin/records/wages.

3. Overhead, SG&A Expenses, and Profit. For factory overhead, we used information obtained from the fiscal year 1998-99 annual reports of five Indian bearing producers. We calculated factory overhead and selling, general and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses (exclusive of labor and electricity) as percentages of direct inputs (also exclusive of labor) and applied these ratios to each producer's direct input costs. For profit, we totaled the reported profit before taxes for the five Indian bearing producers and divided it by the total calculated cost of production (“COP”) of goods sold. This percentage was applied to each respondent's total COP to derive a company-specific profit value.

4. Packing. As we did in TRBs XI (see Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of 1997-1998 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Recission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 64 FR 36853 (July 8, 1999)), for producers that participated in the 1996-1997 review, except for Wafangdian, we calculated packing costs as a percentage of COP for each respondent based on the information submitted in that review. This ratio was applied to the respondents' COP for the current review to derive a POR-specific, company-specific packing expense. Consistent with TRBs XI , we calculated the value of packing materials by using Indian import statistics concurrent with the POR from the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India, Vol. II—Imports for (1) producers that did not participate in that review and do not have a packing cost percentage already calculated, and (2) Wafangdian since it reported different packing materials from those reported in the 1996-1997 review. We then multiplied these figures by the usage factor reported by the company to calculate company-specific packing costs.

5. Electricity. Consistent with our approach in Manganese Metal from the People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 65 FR 30067 (May 10, 2000), we calculated our surrogate value for electricity based on a simple average of rates across all Indian states, using the most contemporaneous electricity rate data from the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy and the 1995 Conference of Indian Industries: Handbook of Statistics. For each Indian state's rate, we inflated the value from the effective date of the rate quote to the POR using the electricity-specific price index published by the Reserve Bank of India.

6. Inland Freight. We valued truck freight using an average of November 1999 truck freight rate quotes collected from Indian trucking companies by the Department and used in the Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Bulk Aspirin from the People's Republic of China , 65 FR 116 (January 3, 2000) (“ Bulk Aspirin from the PRC ”). We valued rail freight using two November 1999 rate quotes for domestic bearing quality steel shipments within India that were also used in Bulk Aspirin from the PRC. We adjusted the rates for both truck and rail freight to the POR using wholesale price indices (“WPI”).

7. Ocean Freight. We calculated a value for ocean freight based on July 1996 rate quotes from Maersk Inc. We adjusted the ocean freight rate to the POR using the U.S. purchase price index.

8. Marine Insurance. We calculated a value for marine insurance based on the CIF value of shipped TRBs. We obtained the rate used through queries we made directly to an international marine insurance provider.

9. Brokerage and Handling. We used the public version of a U.S. sales listing reported in the questionnaire response submitted by Meltroll Engineering in the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review , 65 FR 12209 (March 8, 2000). Because this information is contemporaneous with the current POR, no adjustments were necessary.

Torch shipped TRBs to an affiliated Canadian party during the POR. According to Torch, the TRBs were originally intended for shipment to Canada. However, they entered the United States and, according to Torch, were erroneously categorized as consumption entries. Torch has provided documentation demonstrating that the merchandise has not been sold to an unaffiliated party in the United States. In situations where an affiliated importer enters merchandise during a review period, but does not sell that merchandise during the POR, our normal practice is to liquidate the entries based on other sales of the merchandise made by the affiliated importer during the POR  1 . In this case, however, the company has indicated that it does not intend to sell this merchandise in the United States. Consequently, we would have no basis to calculate a dumping margin for this merchandise. Accordingly, we intend to liquidate the merchandise in question without regard to any dumping liability if certain requirements are met. For a further discussion of this issue, please see the Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach from Team: “Review of Zhuzhou Torch Spark Plug Company, Ltd.,” dated June 29, 2000.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1), CMC, Wafangdian, Wangxiang, and ZMC requested revocation of the antidumping duty order, in part, based on an absence of dumping for at least three consecutive years. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(e), these companies' requests were accompanied by certifications that they had not sold the subject merchandise at less than normal value during the current period of review and would not do so in the future. They further certified that they sold the subject merchandise to the United States in commercial quantities for a period of at least three consecutive years. The companies also agreed to immediate reinstatement of the antidumping duty order, as long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the Department concludes that, subsequent to the revocation, the companies sold the subject merchandise at less than normal value.

In light of the above and pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222, as amended by Amended Regulation Concerning the Revocation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 64 FR 51236 (September 22, 1999), we preliminarily find for CMC, Wangxiang, and ZMC that the subject merchandise was sold at not less than normal value for a period of at least three consecutive years and that dumping is not likely to resume in the future and consequently the continuing imposition of an antidumping duty is not necessary to offset dumping. Therefore, we preliminarily find that these three companies qualify for revocation of the order on TRBs pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b) and intend to revoke the order in part with respect to these companies in our final results. As indicated below, we preliminarily find that a dumping margin exists for Wafangdian. As such, we preliminarily find that Wafangdian does not qualify for revocation.

We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margins exist for the period June 1, 1998, through May 31, 1999:

Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 42 days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter. Issues raised in hearings will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs. Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this review are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument with an electronic version included.

The Department will publish the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. With respect to EP sales for these preliminary results, we divided the total dumping margins (calculated as the difference between NV and EP) for each importer/customer by the total number of units sold to that importer/customer. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will direct the Customs Service to assess the resulting per-unit dollar amount against each unit of merchandise in each of that importer's/customer's entries under the order during the review period.

For CEP sales, we divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for each importer/customer. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will direct Customs to assess the resulting percentage margin against the entered Customs values for the subject merchandise on each of that importer's/customer's entries during the review period.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) For the PRC companies named above, the cash deposit rates will be the rates for these firms established in the final results of this review, except that, for exporters with de minimis rates, i.e. , less than 0.50 percent, no deposit will be required; (2) for previously-reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters with separate rates, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established for the most recent period during which they were reviewed; (3) for all other PRC exporters, the rate will be the PRC country-wide rate, which is 33.12 percent; and (4) for all other non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under section 351.402(f) of our regulations 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 the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

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

On June 7, 1994, the Department published in the Federal Register (59 FR 29414) the countervailing duty order on grain-oriented electrical steel from Italy. On June 9, 1999, the Department published a notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review of Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel from Italy” (64 FR 30962). We received a timely request to conduct a review from Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A. (AST). We initiated the review covering the period January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998 on July 29, 1999 (64 FR 41075).

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), this review covers only those producers or exporters of the subject merchandise for which a review was specifically requested. Accordingly, this review covers AST. This review also covers 21 programs.

On January 20, 2000, the Department extended the period for completion of the preliminary results pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). See Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel from Italy: Extension of Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 3206 (January 20, 2000).

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions of the Act of 1930, as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) effective January 1, 1995. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations reference 19 CFR part 351 (1999).

Imports covered by this review are shipments of grain-oriented electrical steel from Italy, which is a flat-rolled alloy steel product containing by weight at least 0.6 percent of silicon, not more than 0.08 percent of carbon, not more than 1.0 percent of aluminum, and no other element in an amount that would give the steel the characteristics of another alloy steel, of a thickness of no more than 0.56 millimeters, in coils of any width, or in straight lengths which are of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. The products covered by this review are provided for under the following item numbers of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS): 7225.10.0030, 7226.10.1030, 7226.10.5015, and 7226.10.5065. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Prior to 1987, Terni Societa' per l'Industria e l'Elettricita' S.p.A. (Terni), an operating company within the Finsider S.p.A. (Finsider) group, produced electrical steel. Finsider was a holding company that controlled all state-owned steel companies in Italy. Finsider, in turn, was wholly-owned by a government holding company, Instituto per la Ricostruzione Industriale (IRI). During 1987, Finsider was restructured into four main operating companies: Terni Acciai Speciali S.p.A. (TAS) (flat-rolled stainless steel, electrical steel); Italsider S.p.A. (carbon steel flat-rolled products); Nuova Deltasider S.p.A. (long products) and Dalmine S.p.A. (pipe and tube). During the restructuring, Terni's steel facilities, including electrical steel were transferred to the newly formed TAS.

In 1988, the Government of Italy (GOI) submitted a new restructuring plan for the steel industry to the European Commission (EC) for approval. Under this plan, which was approved in December 1988, Finsider and its main operating companies (TAS, Italsider S.p.A., and Nuova Deltasider S.p.A.) entered into liquidation and a new company, ILVA S.p.A. (ILVA) was created with some of the assets and liabilities of the liquidating companies. The plan also envisioned the closure of certain plants and the sale of others to private investors, which was carried out by ILVA between 1990 and 1992. With respect to TAS, some of its liabilities, as well as its manufacturing and other assets were transferred to ILVA on January 1, 1989, except for the production of forgings, round bars, and pressure vessels, which remained with TAS in liquidation until April 1, 1990. On April 1, 1990, these production units and certain additional liabilities were also transferred to ILVA. After that date, TAS no longer possessed any operating assets; only certain non-operating assets remained in TAS.

From 1989 to 1993, ILVA S.p.A. consisted of several operating divisions: Carbon Steel Flat Products; Pipe Division; Long Products Division; and the Specialty Steel Division located in Terni, which produced electrical steel. In addition to these operating divisions, the ILVA S.p.A. was the majority owner of a large number of separately incorporated subsidiaries. Some of these subsidiaries produced various types of steel products. Others constituted service centers, trading companies, and an electric power company, among others. ILVA S.p.A. together with its subsidiaries constituted the ILVA Group, which was wholly-owned by IRI. All subsidies received prior to 1994 were received by ILVA or its predecessors.

In September 1993, IRI endorsed a plan for the reorganization and privatization of the ILVA Group through the splitting of ILVA's core business into two new companies, and the rest of the ILVA Group was to be known as ILVA Residua (a.k.a., ILVA in Liquidation). In accordance with the plan, on December 31, 1993, the Terni division of ILVA was separately incorporated by a demerger of ILVA into Acciai Speciali Terni S.r.l. (AST S.r.l.) (specialty steel), and ILVA Laminati Piani S.R.l. (ILP) (carbon steel flat products). The remainder of ILVA's assets and existing liabilities, as well as much of the redundant workforce, were transferred to ILVA Residua.

On December 31, 1993, AST S.r.l. was established as a separate corporation, with all shares initially owned by IRI. At approximately the same time, a public offering for the sale of AST S.r.l. was made. In preparation for the sale of AST, IRI converted AST S.r.l. from a limited liability company (S.r.l.) to a stock company (S.p.A.) on February 11, 1994. On July 14, 1994, a purchase agreement was signed by IRI and KAI Italia S.r.l. (KAI), a privately-held holding company jointly owned by German steelmaker Krupp AG Hoesch-Krupp and a consortium of private Italian companies called FAR Acciai S.r.l., subject to approval by the EC. The EC's approval was granted on December 21, 1994 , with shares formally changing hands effective December 23, 1994. As of that date, the GOI no longer maintained any ownership interest in AST or its new owners.

In December 1994, AST was sold to KAI. Between 1995 and 1998, there were several restructurings/changes in ownership of AST and its parent companies. As a result, at the end of the POR, AST was owned 90 percent by Krupp Thyssen Stainless GmbH (part of the Krupp AG Hoesch-Krupp group) and 10 percent by Fintad Securities S.A., a private Italian company.

The Department is aware that on June 20, 2000, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) denied the Department's petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc in Delverde, SRL v. United States, 202 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ( Delverde ). Although this decision addressed a purely private change in ownership, it appears that it may impact the Department's privatization methodology. However, because the CAFC's decision denying a rehearing was only issued one week before these preliminary results, the Department has not had a sufficient opportunity to determine how Delverde may affect this proceeding. Accordingly, for purposes of these preliminary results, we will continue to determine that a portion of subsidies bestowed on a government-owned company prior to privatization continues to benefit the production of the privatized company, as set forth below.

The Department invites interested parties to comment in their case briefs on the implications of this proceeding, if any, of the Delverde decision.

In the General Issues Appendix (GIA), appended to the Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Steel Products from Austria, 58 FR 37217, 37225 (July 9, 1993) ( Certain Steel from Austria ), we set forth the methodology applied to the treatment of subsidies received prior to the sale of a government-owned company to a private entity ( i.e., privatization), or the spin-off ( i.e., sale) of a productive unit from a government-owned company to a private entity.

Under this methodology, we estimate the portion of the purchase price attributable to prior subsidies. We do this by first dividing the sold company's subsidies by the company's net worth for each year during the period beginning with the earliest point at which non-recurring subsidies would be attributable to the period of review (POR) and ending one year prior to the sale of the company. We then take the simple average of these ratios. This average serves as a reasonable estimate of the percent that subsidies constitute of the overall value of the company. Next, we multiply this ratio by the purchase price to derive the portion of the purchase price attributable to the payment of prior subsidies. Finally, we reduce the benefit streams of the prior subsidies by the ratio of the repayment amount to the net present value of all remaining benefits at the time the company is sold. See id. at 37263.

With respect to the spin-off of a productive unit, consistent with the Department's methodology set out above, we analyze the sale of a productive unit to determine what portion of the sales price of the productive unit can be attributable to the repayment of prior subsidies. To perform this calculation, we first determine the amount of the seller's subsidies that the spun-off productive unit could potentially take with it. To calculate this amount, we divide the value of the assets of the spun-off unit by the value of the assets of the company selling the unit. We then apply this ratio to the net present value of the seller's remaining subsidies. The result of this calculation yields the amount of remaining subsidies attributable to the spun-off productive unit. We next estimate the portion of the purchase price going towards repayment of prior subsidies in accordance with the methodology set out above, and deduct it from the maximum amount of subsidies that could be attributable to the spun-off productive unit. Id. at 37269.

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act requires the Department to make a final determination within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within this time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time period for the final results to 180 days. Due to the complex nature of the issues in this case, we have determined that it is not practicable to complete the final results for this review within the original time limit. Therefore, the Department is extending the time limit for the final results to 180 days from the date of publication of the preliminary results.

AST was investigated in two recent countervailing duty investigations. See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Italy, 64 FR 30624, 30627 (June 8, 1999) ( Stainless Sheet and Strip ); Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Italy, 64 FR 15508, 15511, 15520 (March 31, 1999) ( Stainless Plate in Coils ). In those investigations, the Department allocated subsidies received by AST using a 12-year average useful life (AUL). The same subsidies being investigated in this current review of AST were also investigated in Stainless Sheet and Strip and Stainless Plate in Coils. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that it is reasonable to maintain the same 12-year allocation period for the identical subsidies received by AST.

In prior investigations and reviews, we found ILVA/AST's predecessor companies unequityworthy from 1984 through 1988, and from 1991 through 1992. See, e.g., Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel from Italy, 59 FR 18357, 18358 (April 18, 1994) ( Electrical Steel ); Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations: Certain Steel Products from Italy, 58 FR 37327, 37328 (July 9, 1993) ( Certain Steel ), Stainless Plate in Coils, 64 FR at 15511, and Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Italy, 63 FR 40474, 40477 (July 29, 1998) ( Wire Rod ). No new information or evidence of changed circumstances have been submitted in this review that would lead us to reconsider these findings.

Section 351.507(a)(3) of the Department's regulations provides that a determination that a firm is unequityworthy constitutes a determination that the equity infusion was inconsistent with usual investment practices of private investors. In such cases, the Department will then apply the methodology described in section 351.507(a)(6) of the regulations, and treat the equity infusion as a grant. Use of the grant methodology for equity infusions into an unequityworthy company is based on the premise that an unequityworthiness finding by the Department is tantamount to saying that the company could not have attracted investment capital from a reasonable investor in the infusion year based on the available information.

When the Department examines whether a company is creditworthy, it is essentially attempting to determine if the company in question could obtain commercial financing at commonly available interest rates. See, e.g., Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations: Certain Steel Products from France, 58 FR 37304 (July 9, 1993), and Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Steel Wire Rod from Venezuela, 62 FR 55014, 55018 (October 21, 1997). The Department will consider a firm to be uncreditworthy if it is determined that, based on information available at the time of the government-provided loan, the firm could not have obtained a long-term loan from conventional sources. See 19 CFR 351.505(a)(4)(i).

TAS and ILVA were found to be uncreditworthy from 1986 through 1993. See Electrical Steel, 59 FR at 18358; Stainless Plate in Coils, 64 FR at 15511; Wire Rod, 63 FR at 40477. No new information has been presented in this review that would lead us to reconsider these findings. Therefore, consistent with our past practice, we continue to find TAS and ILVA uncreditworthy from 1986 through 1993. See, e.g., Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations: Certain Steel Products from Brazil, 58 FR 37295, 37297 (July 9, 1993). We did not analyze AST's creditworthiness in the years 1994 through 1998, because the company did not negotiate new loans with the GOI or the EC during these years, nor did it receive any new subsidies that were allocated over time.

Consistent with the Department's finding in Wire Rod, 63 FR at 40476-77, Stainless Plate in Coils, 64 FR at 15510, and Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from Italy, 64 FR 73244, 73247-48 (December 29, 1999) (CTL Plate), we have based our discount rates on the Italian Bankers' Association (ABI) rates. The ABI rate is the average of the short-term interest rates on overdraft facilities commercial banks charge to the segment of high quality borrowers. In calculating the interest rate applicable to a borrower, commercial banks typically add a spread ranging from 0.55 percent to 4.0 percent onto the ABI rate, which is determined by the company's financial health.

In CTL Plate, we found that the published ABI rates do not include amounts for fees, commissions, and other borrowing expenses. However, information on the borrowing expenses on overdraft loans for 1998, which was placed on that record, was used as an approximation of expenses on long-term commercial loans. That information shows that expenses on overdraft loans range from 6.0 to 11.0 percent of interest charged. Such expenses, along with the applied spread, raise the effective interest rate that a company would pay. CTL Plate, 64 FR at 73248. Because it is the Department's practice to use effective interest rates, where possible, we are including an amount for these expenses in the calculation of our effective benchmark rates. See 19 CFR 351.505(a)(1). Therefore, we have added the average of the spread ( i.e., 2.28 percent) and borrowing expenses ( i.e. , 8.5 percent of the interest charged) to the yearly ABI rates to calculate the effective discount rates.

For the years in which AST or its predecessor companies were uncreditworthy ( see “Creditworthiness” section above), we calculated discount rates in accordance with the formula for constructing a long-term benchmark interest rate for uncreditworthy companies as stated in section 351.505(a)(3)(iii) of the Department's regulations. This formula requires values for the probability of default by uncreditworthy and creditworthy companies. For the probability of default by an uncreditworthy company, we relied on the weighted-average cumulative default rates reported for the Caa to C-rated category of companies as published in Moody's Investors Service, “Historical Default Rates of Corporate Bond Issuers, 1920—1997” (February 1998). 1 For the probability of default by a creditworthy company, we used the weighted-average cumulative default rates reported for the Aaa to Baa-rated categories of companies in the study. For non-recurring subsidies, we based the average cumulative default rates for both uncreditworthy and creditworthy companies on a 12-year term, since all of AST's allocable subsidies were based on this allocation period.

In addition, AST had one long-term, fixed-rate loan under ECSC Article 54 outstanding during the POR, denominated in U.S. dollars. Therefore, we have selected a U.S. dollar-based interest rate as our benchmark. See 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2)(i). Consistent with Wire Rod, 63 FR at 40486, and CTL Plate, 64 FR at 73248, we have used as our benchmark the average yield to maturity on selected long-term corporate bonds as reported by the U.S. Federal Reserve, since the loan was denominated in U.S. dollars. We used these rates since we were unable to find a long-term borrowing rate for loans denominated in U.S. dollars in Italy. Because ILVA was uncreditworthy in the year the loan was contracted, we calculated the uncreditworthy benchmark rate pursuant to section 351.505(a)(3)(iii) of the Department's regulations.

A. Equity Infusions to TAS and ILVA.— The GOI, through IRI, provided new equity capital to TAS or ILVA between 1987 and 1992 (although there were no allegations of equity infusions in 1989 and 1990). These equity infusions were found countervailable in Electrical Steel and Stainless Plate in Coils. No new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been submitted in this proceeding to warrant reconsideration of this finding. For equity infusions originally provided to TAS, the predecessor company to ILVA that produced electrical steel, we treated these equity infusions as though they had flowed directly through ILVA to AST when the specialty steel (including subject merchandise) assets were transferred from ILVA to AST. See Electrical Steel, 59 FR at 18360; Stainless Plate in Coils, 64 FR at 15511-12.

We have treated these equity infusions as non-recurring grants given in the year the infusion was received because each required a separate authorization. We allocated the equity infusions over a 12-year AUL. Because TAS and ILVA were uncreditworthy in the years the equity infusions were received, we constructed uncreditworthy discount rates to allocate the benefits over time. See “Subsidies Valuation Information” section, above.

We applied the repayment portion of our change in ownership methodology to all of the equity infusions described above to determine the subsidy allocable to AST after its privatization. We divided this amount by AST's total consolidated sales during the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy to be 0.97 percent ad valorem for AST.

B. Debt Forgiveness: 1988-90 Restructuring Plan.— As discussed above in the “Corporate History” section of this notice, the GOI liquidated Finsider and its main operating companies, including TAS, in 1988 and assembled the group's most productive assets into a new operating company, ILVA. Although most of TAS's productive assets were transferred to ILVA, not all of its liabilities were transferred; rather, many liabilities remained with TAS which had to be repaid, assumed or forgiven. In 1990, additional assets and liabilities of TAS, Italsider and Finsider were transferred to ILVA. See Electrical Steel, 59 FR at 18359; Stainless Plate in Coils, 64 FR at 15508-09; CTL Plate, 64 FR at 73249.

In 1989, IRI forgave 99,886 million lire owed to Finsider by TAS. See Electrical Steel, 59 FR at 18359. Even with this debt forgiveness, a substantial amount of liabilities remained with TAS. In addition, losses associated with the transfer of assets to ILVA were left behind in TAS. These losses occurred because the value of the transferred assets had to be written down. As TAS gave up assets whose book value was higher than their appraised value, it was forced to absorb the losses. These losses were generated during two transfers as reflected in: (1) An extraordinary loss in TAS's 1988 Annual Report and (2) a reserve account created in 1989 for anticipated losses with respect to the 1990 transfer.

In Electrical Steel, Stainless Plate in Coils, and CTL Plate, we determined that the debt and loss coverage provided to ILVA in 1989 and 1990, constituted countervailable subsidies within the meaning of section 771(5)(B)(i) of the Act. No new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been submitted in this proceeding to warrant reconsideration of this finding.

To determine the benefit from these subsidies, we have treated IRI's forgiveness of TAS's 1989 debt owed to Finsider and the loss resulting from the 1989 write-down as grants received in 1989. The second asset write-down and the debt outstanding after the 1990 transfer were treated as grants received in 1990. We treated these as non-recurring grants because the company did not receive them on an on-going basis. Because ILVA was uncreditworthy in 1989 and 1990, the years in which the assistance was provided, we used constructed uncreditworthy discount rates to allocate the benefits over time. We allocated the debt coverage provided in 1989 and 1990, over a 12-year AUL. See the “Subsidies Valuation Information” section, above.

We applied the repayment portion of our change in ownership methodology to the debt forgiveness and loss coverage to determine the amount of the subsidy allocable to AST after its privatization. We divided this amount by AST's total consolidated sales during the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy to be 2.66 percent ad valorem for AST.

C. Debt Forgiveness: 1993-1994 Restructuring Plan.— As mentioned in the “Corporate History” section above, in September 1993, IRI endorsed a plan for the reorganization and privatization of the ILVA Group, which was submitted to the EC for its approval. The reorganization provided for splitting ILVA's core business into two new companies, AST and ILP, and placing the remaining assets, as well as liabilities and redundant workers in ILVA Residua. Under the restructuring plan, ILVA Residua would sell the productive units, use the proceeds to reduce ILVA's debt prior to liquidation, and IRI (i.e., the Italian government) would absorb any remaining debt.

As of December 31, 1993, the majority of ILVA's viable manufacturing activities had been separately incorporated (or “demerged”) into either AST or ILP, thus, ILVA Residua became essentially a shell company with liabilities far exceeding assets. In contrast, AST and ILP, now ready for privatization, had operating assets and relatively modest debt loads. The EC approved the GOI's restructuring and privatization plan for ILVA in its Commission Decision 94/259/ECSC, dated April 12, 1994. This EC decision states that IRI would take over ILVA Residua's residual indebtedness, cover expenditures of 1,197 billion lira, and continue to be involved in ILVA Residua's activities until its liquidation. It further states that if the privatization and reorganization program was strictly implemented, the ILVA group, namely AST and ILP would have a reasonable chance of being viable by the end of 1994. See Stainless Plate in Coils, 64 FR at 15512; CTL Plate, 64 FR at 73251.

In Stainless Plate in Coils and Stainless Sheet and Strip, we determined that AST received a countervailable subsidy in 1993, when the majority of ILVA's debt was placed in ILVA Residua, rather than being proportionately allocated to AST and ILP. See Stainless Plate in Coils, 64 FR at 15512; Stainless Sheet and Strip, 64 FR at 30628. In addition to the debt that was placed in ILVA Residua, we determined that the asset write-downs which ILVA took in 1993, as part of the restructuring/privatization plan, were countervailable subsidies under section 771(5)(B)(i) of the Act. The write-down of the assets in 1993 increased the losses to be covered in liquidation. It is the Department's position that when losses, which are later covered by a government, can be tied to specific assets, those assets bear the liability for the losses that resulted from the write-downs. No new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been submitted in this review that would warrant reconsideration of these findings. See also, CTL Plate, 64 FR at 73251.

The amount of debt and losses resulting from the asset write-downs that should have been attributable to AST, but were instead placed with ILVA Residua, was equivalent to debt forgiveness for AST at the time of the ILVA demerger. In accordance with our practice, debt forgiveness is treated as a grant which constitutes a financial contribution under section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act, and provides a benefit in the amount of the debt forgiveness.

In CTL Plate, we determined that the liquidation process of ILVA did not occur under the normal application of a provision of Italian law and, therefore, the debt forgiveness is de facto specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(II) of the Act. See CTL Plate, 64 FR at 73252. As stated above, the liquidation of ILVA was done in the context of a massive restructuring/privatization plan of the Italian steel industry undertaken by the GOI and approved and monitored by the EC. Because ILVA's liquidation was part of an extensive state-aid package to privatize the Italian state-owned steel industry, and the debt forgiveness was received by only privatized ILVA operations, we determined that the assistance provided under the 1993- 1994 Restructuring Plan was de facto specific. See CTL Plate, 64 FR at 73252.

Consistent with the methodology that we employed in Stainless Plate in Coils, 64 FR at 15513, Stainless Sheet and Strip, 64 FR at 30628, and CTL Plate, 64 FR at 73252, the amount of liabilities that we attributed to AST is based on the gross liabilities left behind in ILVA Residua, as reported in the EC's 10th Monitoring Report. 2 In calculating the amount of unattributable liabilities remaining after the demerger of AST, we started with the most recent “total comparable indebtedness” amount from the 10th Monitoring Report, which represents the indebtedness, net of debts transferred in the privatization of ILVA Residua's operations and residual asset sales, of a theoretically reconstituted, pre-liquidation ILVA. In order to calculate the total amount of unattributed liabilities which amounted to countervailable debt forgiveness, we made adjustments (additions/subtractions) to this figure for the following: the residual assets that had not actually been liquidated as of the 10th and final Monitoring Report; assets that comprised SOFINPAR, a real estate company (because these assets were sold prior to the demergers of AST and ILP); the liabilities transferred to AST and ILP; income received from the privatization of ILVA Residua's operations; the amount of the asset write-downs specifically attributable to AST, ILP, and ILVA Residua companies; and the amount of debts transferred to Cogne Acciai Speciali (CAS), an ILVA subsidiary that was left behind in ILVA Residua and later spun-off, as well as the amount of ILVA's debt attributed to CAS and countervailed in Wire Rod, 63 FR at 40478.

The amount of liabilities remaining represents the pool of liabilities that were not individually attributable to specific ILVA assets. We apportioned this debt to AST, ILP, and operations sold from ILVA Residua based on their relative asset values. We used the total consolidated asset values reported in AST's and ILP's financial statements for the year ending December 31, 1993. For ILVA Residua, we used the sum of the purchase price plus debts transferred as a surrogate for the viable asset value of the operations sold from ILVA Residua. Because we subtracted a specific amount of ILVA's gross liabilities attributed to CAS in Wire Rod, we did not include its assets in the amount of ILVA Residua's privatized assets. Also, we did not include in ILVA Residua's viable assets the assets of the one ILVA Residua company sold to IRI, because this sale does not represent sales to a non-governmental entity.

We have treated the debt forgiveness to AST as a non-recurring subsidy because it was a one-time, extraordinary event. The discount rate we used in our grant formula was a constructed uncreditworthy benchmark rate based on our determination that ILVA was uncreditworthy in 1993. See “Benchmarks for Long-Term Loans and Discount Rates” and “Creditworthiness” sections, above. We followed the methodology described in the “Change in Ownership” section above to determine the amount appropriately allocated to AST after its privatization. We divided this amount by AST's total consolidated sales during the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy to be 7.74 percent ad valorem for AST.

D. Interest Contributions on IRI Loans/Bond Issues Under Law 675/77. —Law 675/77 was designed to provide GOI assistance in the restructuring and reconversion of Italian industries. There are six types of assistance available under this law: (1) Grants to offset interest payable on bank loans; (2) mortgage loans provided by the Ministry of Industry (MOI) at subsidized interest rates; (3) grants to reduce interest payments on loans financed by IRI bond issues; (4) capital grants for the South; (5) value-added taxed (VAT) reductions on capital good purchases for companies in the South; and (6) personnel retraining grants.

Under Law 675/77, IRI issued bonds to finance restructuring measures of companies within the IRI group. The proceeds from the sale of the bonds were lent to IRI companies. During the POR, AST had long-term variable interest rate loans outstanding that were financed by IRI bond issues for which the effective interest rate was reduced by interest contributions made by the GOI.

The Department previously found this program to be countervailable in Electrical Steel, 59 FR at 18361 and Stainless Plate in Coils, 64 FR at 15513. No new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been submitted in this proceeding to warrant reconsideration of this finding.

To measure the benefit from these loans, we compared the amount of interest that should have been paid at the benchmark interest rate to the amounts paid by AST, less the interest rebates claimed during the POR. We divided the resulting difference by AST's total consolidated sales during the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy from this program to be 0.09 percent ad valorem.

E. Pre-Privatization Retirement Benefits Under Law 451/94.— Law 451/94 authorized early retirement packages for steel workers for the years 1994 through 1996. The law entitled men of at least 50 years of age and women of 47 years of age with at least 15 years of pension contributions to retire early. Benefits applied for during the 1994-1996 period continue until the employee reaches his/her natural retirement age, up to a maximum of ten years.

In Wire Rod, 64 FR at 40480, Stainless Plate in Coils, 64 FR at 15514, and CTL Plate, 64 FR at 73253, we found this program to be specific, and thus countervailable. In CTL Plate and Stainless Plate in Coils, the Department stated that at the time the agreement was being reached with the unions and the labor ministry on the terms of the lay offs, ILVA and its workers were aware that government contributions would ultimately be made to workers benefits. In such situations, i.e., where the company and its workers are aware at the time of their negotiations that the government will be making contributions to the workers' benefits, the Department's practice is to treat half of the amount paid by the government as benefitting the company. See Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 63 FR 65348, 65380 (November 25, 1998). No new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been submitted in this proceeding to warrant reconsideration of this finding.

Consistent with the Department's practice with regard to allocation of worker-related subsidies, we have treated benefits to AST under Law 451/94 as recurring grants expensed in the year of receipt. See Stainless Plate in Coils, 64 FR at 15515; Wire Rod, 64 FR at 40480. To calculate the benefit received by AST during the POR, we multiplied the number of AST employees by employee type (blue collar, white collar, and senior executive) who retired early by the average salary by employee type. Since the GOI was making payments to these workers equaling 80 percent of their salary, we attributed one-half of that amount to AST. Therefore, we multiplied the total wages of the early retirees by 40 percent. We then divided this total amount by AST's total consolidated sales during the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine a net countervailable subsidy of 0.69 percent ad valorem.

As mentioned in the “ Corporate History ” section of this notice, in September 1993, IRI endorsed a plan for the reorganization and privatization of the ILVA Group. In December 1993, IRI initiated the splitting of ILVA's main productive assets into two new companies, ILP and AST. On December 31, 1993, ILP and AST became separately incorporated firms. The remainder of ILVA's productive assets and existing liabilities, along with much of the redundant workforce, was placed in ILVA Residua. The GOI issued two decrees under Law 451 to place the early retirees from ILVA into ILVA Residua. In CTL Plate, the Department found that by the GOI placing much of the redundant workforce in ILVA Residua, ILP and AST were able to begin their respective operations with a relatively “clean slate” in advance of their privatizations. ILP and AST were relieved of having to assume their respective portions of those redundant workers that were placed in ILVA Residua and received early retirement benefits under Law 451/94. See CTL Plate , 64 FR at 73254. No new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been submitted in this proceeding to warrant reconsideration of this finding. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that AST has received a countervailable benefit since the company was relieved of a financial obligation that would otherwise have been due.

To calculate the benefit received by AST during the POR, for retired employees that were placed with ILVA Residua under the first decree dated December 7, 1994, we first multiplied the number of employees according to worker type ( i.e., blue collar) times the average salary for each employee type, using the same average salaries for AST employees. Since the GOI was making payments to these workers equaling 80 percent of their salary, we attributed one-half of that amount to AST. Therefore, we multiplied the total wages of the early retirees by 40 percent. We then divided this total amount by AST's total consolidated sales during the POR.

The GOI allocated additional slots to workers in ILVA Residua under a second decree dated December 30, 1996. However, the number of workers attributable to AST or the worker types were not submitted in the questionnaire responses. Therefore, we first needed to determine the appropriate number of early retirees placed in ILVA Residua that should have been apportioned to AST. To determine this number, we took the asset value of AST in relation to the asset value of ILVA at the time of the spin-off of AST. Next, we multiplied this percentage by the total number of ILVA Residua early retirees, pursuant to the second decree. It was then necessary to estimate the number of employees according to worker types. To do this, we calculated the ratio of employees according to worker types under the first decree. We then multiplied the number of employees according to worker type ( i.e., blue collar) times the average salary for each employee type, and multiplied the result by 40 percent. We then divided this total amount by AST's total consolidated sales during the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine a net countervailable subsidy attributable to AST for the retirees placed with ILVA Residua under both decrees to be 0.13 percent ad valorem. Therefore, we preliminarily determine the combined rate for retired employees placed directly with AST and those placed with ILVA Residua to be 0.82 percent ad valorem.

F. Exchange Rate Guarantees under Law 796/76. —Law 796/76 established the exchange risk guarantee on foreign currency loans program to minimize the risk of exchange rate fluctuations on loans contracted in foreign currency. All firms that contract foreign currency loans from the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) or the Council of Europe Resettlement Fund (CERF) could apply to the Ministry of the Treasury (MOT) to obtain an exchange rate guarantee. The MOT, through the Ufficio Italiano di Cambi (UIC), calculates loan payments based on the lire-foreign currency exchange rate in effect at the time the loan is contracted ( i.e., the base rate). The program establishes a floor and ceiling for exchange rate fluctuations, limiting the maximum fluctuation a borrower would face to two percent above or below the base rate. If the lire depreciates more than two percent against the foreign currency, a borrower is still able to purchase foreign currency at the established (guaranteed) ceiling rate. The MOT absorbs the loss in the amount of the difference between the guaranteed rate and the actual rate. If the lire appreciates against the foreign currency, the MOT realizes a gain in the amount of the difference between the floor rate and the actual rate.

This program was terminated effective July 10, 1992, by Decree Law 333/92. However, the pre-existing exchange rate guarantees continue on any loans outstanding after that date. AST had outstanding ECSC loans during the POR that benefitted from these guarantees. The Department found this program to be countervailable in Stainless Plate in Coils, 64 FR at 15513, and CTL Plate, 64 FR at 73254. No new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been submitted in this proceeding to warrant reconsideration of this finding.

Once a loan is approved for exchange rate guarantees, access to foreign exchange at the established rate is automatic and occurs at regular intervals throughout the life of the loan. Therefore, we are treating the benefits under this program as recurring grants. AST and its predecessor companies from which these loans were transferred, paid a foreign exchange commission fee to the UIC for each payment made. We determine that this fee qualifies as an “* * * application fee, deposit, or similar payment paid in order to qualify for, or to receive, the benefit of the countervailable subsidy.” See section 771(6)(A) of the Act. Thus, for the purposes of calculating the countervailable benefit, we have added the foreign exchange commission to the total amount AST paid under this program during the POR. See Wire Rod, 63 FR at 40479; Stainless Plate in Coils, 64 FR at 15513; CTL Plate, 64 FR at 73255.

Under this program, we have calculated the total countervailable benefit as the difference between the total loan payment due in foreign currency, converted at the current exchange rate, less the sum of the total loan payment due in foreign currency converted at the guaranteed rate and the exchange rate commission. We divided this amount by AST's total consolidated sales during the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy to be 0.12 percent ad valorem.

A. ECSC Loans Under Article 54. —Article 54 of the 1951 ECSC Treaty established a program to provide industrial investment loans directly to the member iron and steel industries to finance modernization and purchase new equipment. Eligible companies apply directly to the EC (which administers the ECSC) for up to 50 percent of the cost of an industrial investment project. The Article 54 loans are generally financed on a “back-to-back” basis. In other words, upon granting loan approval, the ECSC borrows funds (through loans or bond issues) at commercial rates in financial markets which it then immediately lends to steel companies at a slightly higher interest rate. The mark-up is to cover the costs of administering the Article 54 program.

The Department has found Article 54 loans to be specific countervailable subsidies in several proceedings, including Electrical Steel, 59 FR at 18362, CTL Plate, 64 FR at 73256, and Stainless Plate in Coils, 64 FR at 15515, because loans under this program are provided only to iron and steel companies. No new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been submitted in this proceeding to warrant reconsideration of this finding.

AST had one long-term, fixed-rate U.S. dollar denominated loan outstanding during the POR. Consistent with Wire Rod, 63 FR at 40486 and CTL Plate, 64 FR at 73256, we have used as our benchmark the average yield to maturity on selected long-term corporate bonds as reported by the U.S. Federal Reserve, since this loan was denominated in U.S. dollars. We used this rate because we were unable to find a long-term borrowing rate for loans denominated in U.S. dollars in Italy. The interest rate charged on AST's Article 54 loan, which was contracted in 1978 was reduced in 1987. Therefore, for the purpose of calculating the benefit, we have treated this loan as if it was contracted on the date of the rate adjustment. Because ILVA was uncreditworthy in the year this loan was contracted, 1987, we calculated the uncreditworthy benchmark rate as pursuant to section 351.505(a)(3)(iii) of the Department's regulations. See “ Benchmark for Long-Term Loans and Discount Rates ” section, above.

To calculate the benefit under this program, pursuant to section 351.505(c)(2) of the regulations, we employed the Department's long-term fixed-rate loan methodology. We compared the amount of interest that should have been paid at the benchmark interest rate for uncreditworthy companies to the amount paid by AST during the POR. We then divided the benefit by AST's total consolidated sales during the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy to be 0.01 percent ad valorem.

B. European Social Fund (ESF). —The ESF, one of the Structural Funds operated by the EC, was established to improve workers' opportunities through training and to raise their standards of living throughout the community by increasing their employability. Like other EC structural funds, there are six different Objectives (sub-programs) identified under ESF: Objective 1 covers projects located in underdeveloped regions; Objective 2 addresses areas in industrial decline; Objective 3 relates to the employment of persons under 25; Objective 4 funds training for employees in companies undergoing restructuring; Objective 5 pertains to agricultural areas; and Objective 6 pertains to regions with very low population ( i.e., the far north).

During the POR, AST received ESF assistance under Objective 4. To qualify for Objective 4 funding, AST had to propose programs designed to re-train its workers to increase their productivity. The Department considers training programs to provide a countervailable benefit to a company when the company is relieved of an obligation it would have otherwise incurred. In Stainless Plate in Coils and Stainless Sheet and Strip, the Department found this program to be countervailable. See Stainless Plate in Coils, 64 FR at 15516; Stainless Sheet and Strip, 64 FR at 30630. No new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been submitted in this review to warrant reconsideration of this finding.

The Department normally considers the benefits from worker training programs to be recurring. However, as determined in Stainless Plate in Coils, these grants relate to specific, individual projects which require separate government approval, therefore, the benefits under this program are treated as non-recurring grants. See Stainless Plate in Coils, 64 FR at 15517; Wire Rod, 63 FR at 40488; see also Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Pasta (“Pasta”) From Italy, 61 FR 30288, 30295 (June 14, 1996) ( Pasta ). However, because the benefit received under this program is less than 0.5 percent of AST's sales during the relevant year, we have expensed these grants in the year of receipt. We divided the benefit by AST's total consolidated sales during the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy to be 0.03 percent ad valorem.

In accordance with section 777A(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated an individual ad valorem subsidy rate for the producer/exporter subject to this administrative review. For the period January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy for AST to be 12.44 percent ad valorem.

If the final results of this review remain the same as these preliminary results, the Department intends to instruct the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) to assess countervailing duties as indicated above. The Department also intends to instruct Customs to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties of 12.44 percent of the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of the subject merchandise from reviewed companies, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review.

Because the URAA replaced the general rule in favor of a country-wide rate with a general rule in favor of individual rates for investigated and reviewed companies, the procedures for establishing countervailing duty rates, including those for non-reviewed companies, are now essentially the same as those in antidumping cases, except as provided for in section 777A(e)(2)(B) of the Act. The requested review will normally cover only those companies specifically named. See 19 CFR 351.213(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(c), for all companies for which a review was not requested, duties must be assessed at the cash deposit rate, and cash deposits must continue to be collected, at the rate previously ordered. As such, the countervailing duty cash deposit rate applicable to a company can no longer change, except pursuant to a request for a review of that company. See Federal-Mogul Corporation and the Torrington Company v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 782 (CIT 1993) and Floral Trade Council v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 766 (CIT 1993) (interpreting 19 CFR 353.22(e) (now 19 CFR 351.212(c)), the antidumping regulation on automatic assessment, which is identical to 19 CFR section 355.22(g). Therefore, the cash deposit rates for all companies, except those covered by this review, will be unchanged by the results of this review.

We will instruct Customs to continue to collect cash deposits for non-reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific or country-wide rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rates that will be applied to non-reviewed companies covered by this order will be the rate for that company established in the most recently completed segment of this administrative proceeding under the Act, as amended by the URAA. If such a review has not been conducted, the rate established in the most recently completed administrative proceeding conducted pursuant to the statutory provisions that were in effect prior to the URAA amendments is applicable. See Electrical Steel, 59 FR at 18357. These rates shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review is requested. In addition, for the period January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998, the assessment rates applicable to all non-reviewed companies covered by this order are the cash deposit rates in effect at the time of entry.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days after the date of publication of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. Case briefs must be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, must be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issues, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Further, we would appreciate it if parties submitting written comments would provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs. The Department will publish the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief or at a hearing.

This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of countervailing 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 countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double countervailing duties.

This administrative review is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1) and 19 U.S.C. 1677f(i)(1)).

The purpose of this meeting is to consider future management measures and possible actions for the summer flounder fishery.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Joanna Davis at the Council office (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

In 1993, NOAA approved the nomination of a proposed multi-component National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) for San Francisco Bay. Research reserves provide natural coastal habitats as field laboratories for baseline ecological studies and education programs. Research and monitoring programs are designed to enhance scientific understanding of the coastal environment and aid in resource management decision making.

In early 1999 the original proposal approved by NOAA was modified. The modified proposal meets the principles established for inclusion of areas in the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. These include:

1. Biogeographic and typologic contribution,

2. Ecological characteristics,

3. Value of the sites for research, monitoring, education and interpretation,

4. Site management feasibility including (a) land ownership, (b) the ability to sustain reserve resources for long term research and education use, and (c) partnership potential.

The San Francisco Bay NERR is proposed to be administered by San Francisco State University (SFSU) in cooperation with partner agencies including Solano County Farmlands and Open Space Foundation, East Bay Regional Park District, and the California Department of Parks and Recreation.

SFSU has developed an outline of a preliminary draft management plan. That outline identifies specific needs and priorities related to research, monitoring, education, and resource protection at the proposed reserve. It also identifies needs for an administrative plan, volunteer program and facilities development needs, public access, and visitor use policies.

At the public meetings, SFSU and NOAA will provide a synopsis of the process for developing a DEIS/DMP and will solicit comments on significant environmental issues that will be incorporated into a DEIS.

Interested parties who wish to submit suggestions, comments or substantive information regarding the scope or content of the proposed DEIS/DMP are invited to attend either of the above meetings. Parties who wish to respond in writing should do so by August 15, 2000, to Dr. Todd Hopkins, Romberg Tiburon Center, San Francisco State University, P.O. Box 855, Tiburon, CA 94920, or Matthew Menashes, NOAA Estuarine Reserves Division, 1305 East-West Highway N/ORM5, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

The current limits for certain categories are being adjusted for carryover, carryforward used, swing and the recrediting of unused carryforward.

In a Memorandum of Understanding, dated May 25, 2000, the Governments of the United States and Pakistan agreed to increase the 2000 base limits for Categories 666-P and 666-S. These limits have been decreased by the amount of carryforward used in 1999. Also, swing into Categories 666-P and 666-S from Category 315 is increased, due to the higher base limits they now have.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 64 FR 71982, published on December 22, 1999). Also see 64 FR 68335, published on December 7, 1999.

The Corporation is a Federal government corporation that encourages Americans of all ages and backgrounds to engage in community-based service. This service addresses the nation's educational, public safety, environmental and other human needs to achieve direct and demonstrable results. In doing so, we strive to foster civic responsibility, strengthen the ties that bind us together as a people, and provide educational opportunity for those who make a substantial commitment to service. We support a range of national service programs, including AmeriCorps, Learn and Serve America, and the National Senior Service Corps.

AmeriCorps*VISTA, a component of AmeriCorps, is authorized under the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973, as amended (Pub. L. 93-113). The statutory mandate of AmeriCorps*VISTA is “to strengthen and supplement efforts to eliminate and alleviate poverty and poverty-related problems in the United States by encouraging and enabling persons from all walks of life, all geographical areas, and all age groups * * * (to) assist in the solution of poverty and poverty-related problems, and * * * to generate the commitment of private sector resources, to encourage volunteer service at the local level, and to strengthen local agencies and organizations to carry out the purpose (of the program).” (42 U.S.C. 4951)

AmeriCorps*VISTA carries out its legislative mandate by assigning individuals 18 years and older, on a full-time, year-long basis, to public and private non-profit organizations. Each AmeriCorps*VISTA project must focus on the mobilization of community resources, the transference of skills to community residents, and the expansion of the capacity of community-based organizations to solve local problems. Programming should encourage permanent, long-term solutions to problems confronting low-income communities rather than short-term approaches for handling emergency needs.

AmeriCorps*VISTA projects must actively elicit the support and/or participation of local public and private sector elements in order to enhance the chances of a project's success, as well as to make the activities undertaken by AmeriCorps*VISTA members self-sustaining.

The purpose of this announcement is to solicit applicants from the service- learning community who will focus efforts solely on addressing the needs of low-income communities. These efforts should be accomplished through community-based organizations and/or institutions of higher education whose efforts draw upon the unique strengths of service-learning as well as learned best practices. The goal of these efforts is the creation of sustained service-learning opportunities and permanent long-term programming that continues to meet the needs of low-income communities after AmeriCorps*VISTA resources are withdrawn.

Institutions of higher learning and non-profit organizations engaged in service learning activities, including current Learn and Serve America grantees.

Each applicant should include in the Application for Federal Assistance (see E.2, below) funds for: a monthly subsistence allowance for AmeriCorps*VISTA members that is commensurate with the cost-of-living of the assignment area, as determined by AmeriCorps*VISTA, that covers the cost of subsistence, utilities, and incidental expenses; an end-of-service cash stipend payment, accrued at the rate of $100 per month, for those members not selecting the AmeriCorps education award of $4,725; and relocation expenses not to exceed $550, for those AmeriCorps*VISTA members who must relocate in order to serve. Each grant applicant should also include in the Application for Federal Assistance, a request for funds for member in-service training, member supervision, and member/supervisor job-related transportation.

Although there are no matching requirements for the receipt of AmeriCorps*VISTA members, applicants should demonstrate their commitment to matching the Federal contribution toward the operation of the AmeriCorps*VISTA project grant by offsetting all, or part of, the costs of member supervision, transportation, and training, as well as the basic costs of the project itself ( e.g. , space, telephone, etc.). This support can be achieved through cash or in-kind contributions.

Further, applicants are encouraged to share in the costs of the project, including paying for a specified number of AmeriCorps*VISTA positions, to include all costs except for health insurance, the education award, health care and childcare, which will be paid by the Corporation.

Grants will be awarded on a twelve-month basis with a renewal option subject to need, satisfactory performance, and the availability of Corporation resources. Publication of this announcement does not obligate the Corporation to award any specific number of grants or to obligate the entire amount of funds available, or any part thereof, for grants under the AmeriCorps*VISTA Program, or to approve any specific number of non-grant projects for the placement of AmeriCorps*VISTA members.

To be considered for funding, applicants must submit one signed original and two copies, of the AmeriCorps*VISTA application form. Each must contain an original signature in all sections where it is required. In addition, applicants must include the following:

1. A one-page narrative summary description, single-spaced, single-sided, of the proposed AmeriCorps*VISTA project including the name, address, telephone number, and contact person for the applicant organization. The summary should include the major objectives and expected long-term outcomes of the project. The summary will be used as a project abstract to provide reviewers with an introduction to the substantive parts of the application. Therefore, care should be taken to produce a summary that accurately and concisely reflects the proposal.

2. Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424) (OMB Approval No. 0348-0043), including the Part II Budget. This is a standard form used by applicants as a required face sheet for applications requesting Federal assistance. It includes attachments requiring signatures assuring that applicants comply with all other relevant Federal laws, rules and regulations, and certifications that: (a) The applicant has not been debarred from receiving Federal assistance, (b) that it has a drug-free work plan and (c) that it will comply with Federal requirements governing lobbying activities.

3. Part A (CNS Form 1421A) (OMB Control Number 3045-0039) containing a description of the organization's mission, population to be served, experience in the areas of service and specific problems of poverty to be addressed. In addition, the applicant must state the problems it will address, the long-term goals of the project and anticipated outcomes over the entire length of the project and the anticipated impact on the low-income community. Finally, the applicant must describe the activities that the AmeriCorps*VISTA members will perform in accomplishing those goals, the applicant's experience in coordinating the efforts of community volunteers and/or service participants, and the resources that exist to support the project, including the organizations that will serve as collaborators.

4. Part B (CNS Form 1421B) (OMB Control Number 3045-0038) which includes a measurable and quantifiable description of the specific problem(s) the AmeriCorps*VISTA project will address, current activities to address the problem and how AmeriCorps*VISTA members will complement this effort. A work plan must be completed for the first year of the project that contains objectives that are measurable, quantifiable and time-phased by each quarter of the year. Also, there must be a brief description of the applicant organization, its mission and activities, and the low-income population to be served, along with a description of how the project is incorporated into the overall mission of the applicant organization. The applicant must list the tasks and activities of the AmeriCorps*VISTA member assignments, required skills and qualifications of members, and factors to be considered in assigning disabled members. A description is needed of: (a) How project beneficiaries will be involved in the planning of the project, including in its development and implementation and (b) what resources will be provided by the community for a successful project and how the community will be involved in assuring project sustainability. Also, there must be a description of the process for recruiting qualified AmeriCorps*VISTA members, including whether the applicant needs nationally recruited members (members recruited by the Corporation's Office of Recruitment, Selection and Placement), and how members will be supervised. Finally, the applicant needs to state if support will be needed for on-the-job transportation of AmeriCorps*VISTA members, the content of the On-the-Job Orientation of these members, including on-going training and technical assistance available to them, and plans for publicizing the project, recognizing member accomplishments, and community support in sustaining their efforts.

5. Documentation in the form of letters of support from collaborating organizations and/or individuals stating what will be provided by them in the overall project effort.

6. Copy of Articles of Incorporation (not applicable to public entities).

7. List of Board of Directors or governing body (not applicable to public entities).

8. Organizational chart illustrating the location of the AmeriCorps*VISTA project within the overall applicant organization.

9. List of Advisory Council Members if already selected.

10. Tax exempt status: either IRS determination or copy of application to IRS for exemption (not applicable to public entities).

11. Copy of Supervisor's Resume and Job Description.

12. Copy of most recent financial audit if available.

The proposed project must:

1. Address the needs of low-income communities and otherwise comply with the provisions of the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4951 et seq. ) applicable to AmeriCorps*VISTA and all applicable published regulations, guidelines, and Corporation policies.

2. Be internally consistent, i.e., the problem statement that demonstrates need, the project work plan, the AmeriCorps*VISTA member assignment description, and all other components must be related logically to each other.

3. Contain clear and measurable objectives/outcomes in the project application for a 12-month period that address the overall objectives of the initiative. Proposed projects must show how the activities of the AmeriCorps*VISTA members contribute to specific outcomes related to increased opportunity for low-income people. It is expected that outcome objectives in the Part B work plan will reflect the evolution of the project over the 12-month period.

4. Indicate how the proposed project complements and/or enhances activities already underway in, or planned for, the community(ies) that will be served by the project. To the extent possible, projects should seek out opportunities to collaborate with other Corporation programs, including Learn and Serve America grantees, as well as with other community partners, including the business sector.

5. Describe how the number of AmeriCorps*VISTA members requested is appropriate for the project goals/objectives, and how the skills requested are appropriate for the assignment(s).

The proposed project must:

1. Describe how the project will be sustained after Americorps*VISTA resources are withdrawn from the local low-income community.

2. Demonstrate collaboration with organizations that provide supportive services to enhance project outcomes.

3. Be designed to generate public and/or private sector resources, and to promote local, part-time volunteer service at the low-income community level, not only to assist in the project itself, but also to sustain its efforts after the Corporation ceases its support.

4. Describe in measurable terms the anticipated self-sufficiency outcomes and tangible anti-poverty goals and objectives after AmeriCorps*VISTA resources are withdrawn, including outcomes related to the sustainability and institutionalization of the project activities in addressing and resolving challenges faced by low-income residents of the target community(ies).

The proposed project must:

1. Clearly state how AmeriCorps*VISTA members will be trained, supervised, and supported to ensure the achievement of project goals and objectives as stated in the Part B work plan.

2. Describe how AmeriCorps*VISTA assignments are designed to utilize the full-time AmeriCorps*VISTA members' time to the maximum extent.

The applicant organization must:

1. Ensure that resources needed to achieve project goals and objectives are available.

2. Have the management and technical capability to implement the project successfully.

3. Have an established record or experience in dealing with the issues addressed by the proposed project.

4. Have systems for the evaluation and monitoring of project activities. Applicants must describe the methods that will be used to record progress toward the stated objectives, and procedures that will provide the reporting of project achievement needed to make adjustments and improve program quality.

The applicant organization must:

1. Include a budget that adequately supports the program design.

2. Include a budget that adheres to budget guidance provided with the application.

3. Describe how the applicant organization is committing resources necessary for program implementation.

To ensure fairness to all applicants, the Corporation reserves the right to take action, up to and including disqualification, in the event that an application fails to comply with any requirements specified in this Notice.

The following weights will be used in judging the elements described above.

1. Program Design (60%) in the following order of importance:

a. Responsiveness to Strengthening Communities Criteria

b. Responsiveness to Getting Things Done Criteria

2. Organizational Capacity (30%).

3. Budget cost-effectiveness (10%).

After evaluating the overall quality of the proposal and its responsiveness to the criteria noted above, the Corporation will take into consideration whether funded projects are in areas of high concentration of low-income residents, including for example those in empowerment zones, and enterprise communities.

An informal, technical assistance conference call will be scheduled on Thursday, July 20, 2000, at 2 p.m. E.D.T. All applicants must pre-register by faxing the names, organization and phone number of up to two members planning to participate no later than Tuesday, July 18, 2000. This information should be faxed to Kara Lounsbury at 202-565-2789. Questions may be submitted in advance of the meeting via fax to the above number. If you are unable to participate in the technical assistance conference call but would like the conference materials and a conference transcript, submit your request via fax to the fax number above.

Corporation authority to make these grants and approve projects is authorized under Title I, Part A of the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973, as amended (Pub. L. 93-113).

Right of First Refusal of Employment is a regulation that establishes policy regarding adversely affected or separated Government employees resulting from the conversion from in-house performance to performance by contract. The policy enables these employees to have an opportunity to work for the contractor who is awarded the contract.

The information gathered will be used by the Government to gain knowledge of which employees, adversely affected or separated as a result of the contract award, have gained employment with the contractor within 90 days after contract performance begins.

Number of Respondents: 130.

Responses Per Respondent: 1.

Total Responses: 130.

Average Burden Hours Per Response: 3.

Total Burden Hours: 390.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals:

Requester may obtain a copy of the proposal from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVRS), Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 208-7312. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0114, Right of First Refusal of Employment, in all correspondence.

A. Purpose

The Helium Act (Pub. L. 86-777) (50 U.S.C. 167a, et seq. ) and the Department of the Interior's implementing regulations (30 CFR parts 601 and 602) require Federal agencies to procure all major helium requirements from the Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior.

The FAR requires offerors responding to contract solicitations to provide information as to their forecast of helium required for performance of the contract. Such information will facilitate enforcement of the requirements of the Helium Act and the contractual provisions requiring the use of Government helium by agency contractors, in that it will permit corrective action to be taken if the Bureau of Land Management, after comparing helium sales data against helium requirement forecasts, discovers apparent serious discrepancies.

The information is used in administration of certain Federal contracts to ensure contractor compliance with contract clauses. Without the information, the required use of Government helium cannot be monitored and enforced effectively.

Number of Respondents: 20.

Responses Per Respondent: 1.

Total Responses: 20.

Average Burden Hours Per Response: 1.

Total Burden Hours: 20.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requester may obtain a copy of the proposal from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVRS), Room 4035, 1800 F Street, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 208-7312. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0113, Acquisition of Helium, in all correspondence.

The patent coverage in FAR subpart 27.2 requires the contractor to report each notice of a claim of patent or copyright infringement that came to the contractor's attention in connection with performing a Government contract above a dollar value of $25,000 (sections 27.202-1 and 52.227-2). The contractor is also required to report all royalties anticipated or paid in excess of $250 for the use of patented inventions by furnishing the name and address of licensor, date of license agreement, patent number, brief description of item or component, percentage or dollar rate of royalty per unit, unit price of contract item, and number of units (sections 27.204-1, 52.227-6, and 52.227-9). The information collected is to protect the rights of the patent holder and the interest of the Government.

Number of Respondents: 30.

Responses Per Respondent: 1.

Total Responses: 30.

Average Burden Hours Per Response: .5.

Total Burden Hours: 15.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requester may obtain a copy of the proposal from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVRS), Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 208-7312. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0096, Patents, in all correspondence.

Respondents are civilian non-prior and prior service personnel applying for enlistment into the Air Force as enlisted members. The completed forms are used by the recruiter to establish eligibility status of applicants and determine what additional forms are needed to obtain the required information. If the forms are not included in the case file, individuals reviewing the file cannot be readily assured of the qualifications of the applicant.

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

Type of Review: New.

Title: The Impact of ICT on Learning: Quasi-Experimental Study.

Frequency: Three times a year.

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

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 7,572.

 Burden Hours: 7,572.

Abstract: Under auspices of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the Department of Education will participate in an international study to examine the impact of information and communication technology (ICT) on student learning. The study will use the following instruments: (a) ICT Skill Test, (b) Learning to Learn Test, (c) ICT Attitudes Survey—Students, (d) ICT Use Survey—Students, (e) ICT Attitude Survey—Teachers, (f) ICT Use Survey—Teachers, (g) Student Background Survey, and (h) Teacher Background Survey. Two thousand four hundred eleventh grade students will participate in this study from 24 schools. In addition, about 100 teachers and 24 school administrators will respond to the ICT Attitude and Use surveys.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, or should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, D.C. 20202-4651. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO_IMG_Issues@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Kathy Axt at her internet address Kathy_Axt@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

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

Type of Review: Reinstatement.

Title: Targeting Teacher Deferment/Teacher Shortage Area Collection.

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs; Individuals or household.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 57.

 Burden Hours: 4,560.

Abstract: Collection of State proposals for Targeted Teacher Deferment/Teacher Shortage Areas, of the Higher Education Act of 1986.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, or should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO_IMG_Issues@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Joseph Schubart at (202) 708-9266 or via his internet address Joe_Schubart@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Today's notice is simply an announcement of a finding that we have already made. EPA Region 8 sent a letter to the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division on June 19, 2000 stating that the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the submitted Denver ozone maintenance plan are inadequate. This finding has also been announced on EPA's conformity website: http://www.epa.gov/oms/transp/conform/adequacy.htm.

Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to state air quality implementation plans (SIPs) and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they do. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards.

The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's motor vehicle emission budgets are adequate for conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). Please note that an adequacy review is separate from EPA's completeness review, and it also should not be used to prejudge EPA's ultimate approval of the SIP. Even if we find a budget adequate, the SIP could later be disapproved, and vice versa.

We've described our process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in guidance (May 14, 1999 memo titled “Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999 Conformity Court Decision”). We followed this guidance in making our adequacy determination.

The 1993 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report “Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children” highlights important differences between children and adults with respect to risks posed by pesticides. Some of the principles in the NAS report provided the foundation for the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) and the President's Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risk. FQPA requires the consideration of aggregate exposure to children when establishing pesticide tolerances (legal limits for residues in food). Executive Order 13045 broadens consideration of impacts on children by stating that “each Federal agency: shall ensure that its policies, programs, activities, and standards address disproportionate risks to children that result from environmental health risks or safety risks.” Many of the comments the EPA received on the Proposed Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment relate to the implementation of Executive Order 13045. In response to these comments and regulatory initiatives, EPA has been investigating ways to improve Agency risk assessments for children.

An Agency workgroup convened under the auspices of the Risk Assessment Forum has been exploring children's exposure assessment issues. This workgroup has concluded that a major issue facing Agency assessors is how to consider age related changes in behavior and physiology when preparing exposure assessments for children. Children's behavior changes over time in ways that can have an important impact on exposure. Further, children's physiology changes over time in ways that can impact both their exposures and their susceptibility to certain health effects. There are two aspects to these physiological changes. First, there are anatomical changes resulting from physical growth. Second, there are changes in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics which affect the absorption, distribution, excretion and effects of environmental contaminants. The Agency is examining the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic changes in children through other efforts and future meetings on this topic are anticipated. This ERG hosted workshop will focus on incorporating age related changes in behavior and anatomy into Agency exposure assessments.

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

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

1. Electronically. You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select “Laws and Regulations” and then look up the entry for this document under the “ Federal Register —Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

2. In person. The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number PF-940. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as confidential business information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number PF-940 in the subject line on the first page of your response.

1 . By mail. Submit your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

2 . In person or by courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The PIRIB is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

3. Electronically. You may submit your comments electronically by e-mail to: “opp-docket@epa.gov ,” or you can submit a computer disk as described above. Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Electronic submissions will be accepted in Wordperfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format. All comments in electronic form must be identified by docket control number PF-940. Electronic comments may also be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified 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. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.

7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control 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.

EPA has received a pesticide petition as follows proposing the establishment and/or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Comestic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA has determined that this petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

Pursuant to section 408(d)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA, as amended, AgriVir, LLC has submitted the following summary of information, data, and arguments in support of their pesticide petition. This summary was prepared by AgriVir, LLC and EPA has not fully evaluated the merits of the pesticide petition. The summary may have been edited by EPA if the terminology used was unclear, the summary contained extraneous material, or the summary unintentionally made the reader conclude that the findings reflected EPA's position and not the position of the petitioner.

EPA has received a pesticide petition 0F6113 from AgriVir, LLC, 1625 K Street, NW., Washington DC 20006, proposing pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for the microbial pesticide in or on Indian Meal Moth Granulosis Virus commodity.

The product which contains the microbial pest control agent which is the subject of the present petition for a tolerance exemption is “FruitGuard-V” or “NutGuard-V” (these are alternate names for the same product). This product is a biological insecticide intended to control Indian meal moth, a serious pest of various stored commodities. The product will be used as a protectant for stored, dry commodities such as dried fruits, and nuts, and for crack treatment of facilities where such commodities are handled.

The Indian meal moth (IMM), is a serious cosmopolitan pest of dried commodities. Infestation can occur at any time from harvest to eventual consumption of the commodity. IMM is estimated to be responsible for approximately 90% of the damage done to dried fruits and nuts in storage. In facilities where these types of commodities are handled, fragments and other debris from the commodities get into cracks, crevices, and other places and IMM propagates on this material. This establishes a general infestation and reservoir for the Indian meal moth in such facilities.

Control of IMM by FruitGuard-V/NutGuard-V is by means of a naturally occurring microbial pest control agent (MPCA) which is contained in the product. This MPCA is a granulosis virus (GV) which infects the larvae of the IMM. This virus is, thus, designated as Indian Meal Moth Granulosis Virus (IMMGV). The IMMGV contained in NutGuard-V/FruitGuard-V is a naturally occurring isolate of the IMMGV and has not been genetically modified.

In FruitGuard-V/NutGuard-V, the amount of IMMGV (the MPCA ion in the product) is very small in terms of weight percent. The bulk of the product is, in fact, milled wheat bran (96% + ) and brewers yeast (ca. 3%) to which have been added some vitamins (0.1%) and antioxidants (0.4%). All of these carrier ingredients are either OPP List 4A inerts 1 , are tolerance exempted under 40 CFR 180.1001, and/or are generally recognized as safe (GRAS) or otherwise approved for direct food use under 21 CFR part 184 section 184.1 subpart B pp.446-543.

The product is produced as a milled powder and has the physical appearance of a coarse, off-white to tan powder. Due to the physical characteristics of the powder and of the milled wheat bran which constitutes the bulk of the product, this product does have a potential for producing mild, temporary eye irritation. This has been tested in an eye irritation study which has been submitted by AgriVir in support of this application. The product's labeling, therefore, carries a warning in regard to eye irritation potential.

1. The product can be applied dry or in water suspension. For the latter, it is suspended in water at a concentration of from 2 oz to 4 oz per 10 gallons of water. This provides for a sprayable suspension.

2. The proposed application rate for dried fruits and for nuts is from 30 grams (1 oz) to 140 grams (5 oz) product/ton of commodity to be protected.

3. The proposed application rate for crack, crevice, and surface spot treatments is from 60 grams (2 oz) to 300 grams (10 oz) product/100 square feet.

1. Identity of the pesticide and corresponding residues . This is a microbial pesticide in which the MPCA is IMMGV. This is a naturally occurring insect virus which produced a pathogenic condition termed “granulosis” in larvae of the IMM. Since IMMGV cannot be propagated other than in insect larvae, the pesticide product itself consists of IMMGV viral particles contained in body parts from infected larvae, all of which is mixed in with the wheat bran diet mixture upon which the infected larvae were grown. The residues which would result are:

i. The infected larval parts containing virus.

ii. The wheat bran larval diet mixture.

2. Magnitude of residue at the time of harvest and method used to determine the residue . The rate of application for this pesticide product is from 1 oz to 5 oz product per ton of treated commodity. The product contains > 0.01% MPCA by weight (expressed for this purpose as viral particles). The MPCA is not metabolized in or on the commodity after application. Therefore, at the maximum application rate, maximum MPCA residues will be > 0.00013% or ( > 1.3 parts per billion (ppb)). At the lower rate of application residues will be less than 0.26 ppb.

3. Analytical method . A statement of why an analytical method for detecting and measuring the levels of the pesticide residue are not needed. No analytical method is required because:

i. This application is for a tolerance exemption.

ii. Any method which could be developed to detect IMMGV at the very low maximum levels noted above would be a molecular biology method requiring specialized equipment and procedures not readily available in enforcement laboratories.

It is noted that microbial pet control agents which do not trigger Tier II toxicology concerns do not trigger specific residue chemistry requirements. A brief summary of the identity of the microbial pest control agent IMMGV follows:

AgriVir, LLC has applied to EPA for registration of its microbial pest control product “FruitGuard-V/NutGuard-V” (these are alternate names for the same product). This is a biological insecticide intended to control IMM, a serious pest of various stored commodities. The IMM, is a serious cosmopolitan pest of dried commodities. Infestation can occur at any time from harvest to eventual consumption of the commodity. IMM is estimated to be responsible for approximately 90% of the damage done to dried fruits and nuts in storage. In facilities where these types of commodities are handled, fragments and other debris from the commodities gets into cracks, crevices, and other places and IMM propagates on this material. This established a general infestation and reservoir for the IMM in such facilities.

Control of IMM by FruitGuard-V/NutGuard-V is by means of a naturally occurring microbial pest control agent (or MPCA) which is contained in the product.

The MPCA used in NutGuard-V/FruitGuard-V is a Granulosis Virus which infects the larvae of the IMM. This virus is designated IMMGV in the balance of this summary. The MPCA contained in NutGuard-V/FruitGuard-V is a naturally occurring isolate of the IMMGV. It has not been genetically modified.

IMMGV has no hosts other than larvae of the IMM and acts by making the IMM larvae sick, rather than by a toxic mechanism (i.e., IMMGV does not produce any specific toxin which kills the larvae). IMM larvae succumb to granulosis disease due to serious damage to one of their major organs for storage of nutrients.

The above-cited products are equivalent to a technical grade of IMMGV. They are prepared without isolation of IMMGV and, as such, the MPCA which is the subject of the present petition consists, therefore, of IMMGV occlusion bodies (“viral particles”) and Indian meal moth larval parts mixed into a production larval diet containing wheat bran, brewer's yeast, vitamins, methyl paraben, and sorbic acid.