Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (“Department”) regulations refer to 19 CFR part 351 (2000).

On November 30, 2000, Shinho Steel Co., Ltd., SeAH Steel Corporation, and Hyundai Pipe Co., Ltd., producers/exporters of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from the Republic of Korea, each requested administrative review of the subject merchandise for the period November 1, 1999 through October 31, 2000. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), the Department of Commerce published the initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order. See, Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Administrative Reviews, 65 FR 82322, (December 28, 2000). On January 5, 2001, Shinho Steel Co., Ltd., withdrew its request for review. On January 19, 2001, Hyundai Pipe Co., Ltd. withdrew its request for review. On January 30, 2001, SeAH Steel Corporation withdrew its request for review.

The Department's regulations, at 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), provide that the Department will rescind an administrative review if a party that requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Since all parties requesting review withdrew their requests for an administrative review within the 90-day deadline, the Department is rescinding this administrative review.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

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. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (2000).

On October 13, 2000, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on SSWR from Spain. See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Spain, 65 FR 60905 (October 13, 2000).

In response to the Department's invitation to comment on the preliminary results of this review, ROLDAN, S.A. (Roldan) and petitioners (i.e., Empire Specialty Steel Inc. (formerly AL Tech Specialty Steel Corp.), Carpenter Technology Corp., Republic Engineered Steels, and the United Steel Workers of America (AFL-CIO/CLC)) filed case briefs on November 13, 2000. On November 20, 2000, Roldan filed a rebuttal brief.

The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

For purposes of this review, SSWR comprises products that are hot-rolled or hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled and/or descaled rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in coils, that may also be coated with a lubricant containing copper, lime, or oxalate.

SSWR is made of alloy steels containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. These products are manufactured only by hot-rolling or hot-rolling, annealing, and/or pickling and/or descaling, are normally sold in coiled form, and are of solid cross-section. The majority of SSWR sold in the United States is round in cross-sectional shape, annealed and pickled, and later cold-finished into stainless steel wire or small-diameter bar.

The most common size for such products is 5.5 millimeters or 0.217 inches in diameter, which represents the smallest size that normally is produced on a rolling mill and is the size that most wire-drawing machines are set up to draw. The range of SSWR sizes normally sold in the United States is between 0.20 inches and 1.312 inches in diameter. Two stainless steel grades, SF20T and K-M35FL, are excluded from the scope of the review. The chemical makeup for the excluded grades is as follows:

The products under investigation are currently classifiable under subheadings 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, and 7221.00.0075 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the scope of this review is dispositive.

The POR is March 5, 1998 through August 31, 1999.

All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (Decision Memorandum) from Holly A. Kuga, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Group II, Import Administration, to Bernard T. Carreau, fulfilling the duties of Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated February 12, 2001, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099, of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

In accordance with section 776 of the Act, we have determined that the use of facts available is appropriate for certain portions of our calculation of Roldan's U.S. indirect selling expenses. For a discussion of our determination with respect to this matter, see comment 2 of Decision Memorandum, accessible in B-099 and on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov.

Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made certain changes in the margin calculation. These changes are discussed in the relevant sections of the Decision Memorandum.

We determine that the following weighted-average percentage margin exists for the period March 5, 1998 through August 31, 1999:

The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the importer-specific sales to the total entered value of the same sales. Where the assessment rate is above de minimis, we will instruct Customs to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to Customs.

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of SSWR from Spain entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for Roldan will be the rate shown above except if the rate is de minimis, then no cash deposit will be required; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not covered in this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will be 4.73 percent, the “all-others” rate established in the LTFV investigation.

These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of administrative review for a subsequent review period.

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

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

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

On October 29, 1999, the Department received a request for an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain steel products from Sweden from SSAB, for the period January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998. On December 3, 1999, the Department published in the Federal Register (64 FR 67846) a notice of “Initiation of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review” initiating the administrative review. On September 7, 2000, the Department published in the Federal Register (65 FR 54229) a notice of “Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review.” On November 2, 2000, the International Trade Commission (ITC) made a negative determination in the sunset review of Certain Steel Products from Sweden; thus the order was to be revoked by the Department of Commerce effective January 1, 2000. On December 15, 2000, the Department published in the Federal Register (65 FR 78467) a notice of “Revocation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders” which revoked the countervailing duty order on certain carbon steel products from Sweden, effective January 1, 2000.

On January 17, 2001, respondent withdrew its request for review because of the revocation of the order. The applicable regulation, 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), states that if a party that requested an administrative review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review, the Secretary will rescind the review. Although the request for recession was made after the 90 day deadline, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary may extend this time limit if the Secretary decides it is reasonable to do so. Due to the fact that SSAB was the only party to request an administrative review, we find it reasonable to accept the party's withdrawal of its request for review. Moreover, we have received no other submissions regarding SSAB's request for withdrawal of the administrative review. Therefore, we are rescinding this review of the countervailing duty order on certain carbon steel products from Sweden for SSAB covering the period January 1, 1998, through December 31, 1998.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4) and 777(i) of the Act.

The petition in this investigation was filed by Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Gallatin Steel Company, IPSCO Steel Inc., LTV Steel Company, Inc., National Steel Corporation, Nucor Corporation, Steel Dynamics, Inc., U.S. Steel Group, a unit of USX Corporation, Weirton Steel Corporation, Independent Steelworkers Union, and the Independent Steelworkers of America (the petitioners).

Since the publication of the notice of initiation in the Federal Register (see Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Argentina, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and Thailand, 65 FR 77580 (December 12, 2000) (Initiation Notice), the following events have occurred: On December 8, 2000, and December 20, 2000, we issued countervailing duty questionnaires to the Government of Argentina (GOA).1 On January 16 and 17, 2001, Siderar Sociedad Anomina Industrial & Commercial (Siderar), a company identified by petitioners as a producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, and the GOA informed us that they were not going to respond to our questionnaire.

The merchandise subject to this investigation is certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths, of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness of not less than 4 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of this investigation.

Specifically included within the scope of this investigation are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, and the substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium or niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum.

Steel products to be included in the scope of this investigation, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), are products in which: (i) iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (ii) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (iii) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

All products that meet the physical and chemical description provided above are within the scope of this investigation unless otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:

• Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including, e.g., ASTM specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, A506).

• SAE/AISI grades of series 2300 and higher.

• Ball bearings steels, as defined in the HTS.

• Tool steels, as defined in the HTS.

• Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTS) or silicon electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent.

• ASTM specifications A710 and A736.

• USS Abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500).

• All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507).

• Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of the HTS.

The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the HTS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel covered by this investigation, including: vacuum degassed fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (2000).

Because Argentina is a “Subsidy Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, the International Trade Commission (ITC) is required to determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from Argentina materially injure or threaten material injury to a U.S. industry. On January 4, 2001, the ITC published its preliminary determination finding that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is being materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports from Argentina of subject merchandise. See Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Argentina, China, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Netherlands, Romania, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, and Ukraine, 66 FR 805 (January 4, 2001).

On January 31, 2001, the petitioners submitted a letter requesting alignment of the final determination in this investigation with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty investigation. Therefore, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act, we are aligning the final determination in this investigation with the final determination in the antidumping duty investigation of hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Argentina.

The period of investigation (POI) for which we are measuring subsidies is calendar year 1999.

Siderar and the GOA failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire. Sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act require the use of facts available when an interested party withholds information that has been requested by the Department, or when an interested party fails to provide the information requested in a timely manner and in the form required. As described in more detail below, Siderar and the GOA have failed to provide information explicitly requested by the Department; therefore, we must resort to the facts otherwise available.

Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act provides that in selecting from among the facts available, the Department may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of a party if it determines that a party has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. In this investigation, the Department requested Siderar and the GOA to submit the information requested in the initial questionnaire. On January 16 and 17 of 2001, Siderar and the GOA informed the Department that they would not participate in the investigation.

The Department finds that by not providing necessary information specifically requested by the Department and failing to participate in any respect in this investigation, Siderar and the GOA have failed to cooperate to the best of their ability. Therefore, in selecting facts available, the Department determines that an adverse inference is warranted.

When employing an adverse inference, the statute indicates that the Department may rely upon information derived from (1) the petition; (2) a final determination in a countervailing duty or an antidumping investigation; (3) any previous administrative review, new shipper review, expedited antidumping review, section 753 review, or section 762 review; or (4) any other information placed on the record. See 19 CFR 351.308(c) (2000). As adverse facts available in this preliminary determination, we have relied upon information in the petition, as well as public information from a number of sources, including other countervailing duty proceedings involving steel products from Argentina. The Department's selection of the information used as adverse facts available is discussed in more detail in the program-specific sections below.

Finally, the Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA clarifies that information from the petition is “secondary information.” See Statement of Administrative Action, accompanying H.R. 5110 (H.R. Doc. No. 103-316) (1994) (SAA), at 870. If the Department relies on secondary information as facts available, section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, “to the extent practicable,” corroborate such information using independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The SAA further provides that to corroborate secondary information means simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. See also, 19 CFR 351.308(c) (2000).

Therefore, to satisfy itself that such information has probative value, the Department will examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and relevance of the information used. However, unlike other types of information, such as publically available data on the national inflation rate of a given country, there typically are no independent sources for data on company-specific benefits resulting from countervailable subsidy programs. The only source for such information is administrative determinations. Thus, if the Department chooses as facts available information based on the Department's prior determinations concerning particular subsidy programs, it is not necessary to question the reliability of the benefit data 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 benefit data not relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the information is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will not use it. See, cf., Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996) (where the Department disregarded the highest dumping margin as best information available because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin). As discussed in more detail below, we do not have any information on the record that would change our determination to rely on previously submitted benefit information from the GOA's supplemental questionnaire responses in another proceeding or other information that was included in the November 13, 2000 petition when analyzing the programs at issue in this investigation.

For those programs in which petitioners did not provide direct information from the GOA or Siderar, we used publicly available sources on the record in another proceeding which we placed on the record of this investigation as necessary. Specifically, for information on equity infusions and government assistance provided during the privatization of the producer of the subject merchandise, we obtained from the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B099 of the main Commerce building, the public version of Attachment 70 of the GOA's November 26, 1993 questionnaire response that was originally placed on the record of the 1991 and 1992 administrative reviews of the CVD order on Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat-Rolled Products from Argentina (C-357-005). This information is included in the February 7, 2001, memorandum to the file, “Calculations for the Preliminary Determination of the Countervailing Duty Investigation: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Argentina,” a public document on file in room B099 of the CRU. Portions of the GOA's November 26, 1993 supplemental questionnaire response, as well as its February 24, 1994 supplemental questionnaire response from the same proceeding, were also submitted with petitioners' November 13, 2000 petition at Exhibits III-1 and III-2. As discussed more fully in the program-specific sections below, because this information was provided by the GOA with respect to the identical programs alleged in this investigation and the same company, and there is nothing on the record to indicate that the use of such information is not appropriate, we determine that this information is both reliable and relevant for use as facts available in this investigation.

On November 29, 2000, we held consultations with the GOA regarding the countervailing duty petition on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Argentina. During the consultations, the GOA indicated that Acindar Industria Argentina de Aceros Sociedad Anomina (Acindar) did not ship subject merchandise to the United States during the POI and, thus, should not be subject to the investigation. For more information, see the November 29, 2000, memorandum to the file, “Consultations with the Government of Argentina Regarding the Countervailing Duty Petition on Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Argentina,” a public document on file in room B099 of the CRU. We preliminarily determine that Acindar did not ship subject merchandise during the POI and, thus, we have not calculated a facts available rate for Acindar nor for the Tax Abatement Program that was included in our Initiation Notice. 2 If Acindar subsequently ships subject merchandise to the United States, the “All Others” rate noted in the “Suspension of Liquidation” section of this notice will apply to its imports for cash deposit purposes.

In 1989, the GOA embarked upon a reform program designed to restructure the economy, reduce public sector debt, and stabilize the currency. A central element of this program was the privatization of large public enterprises. That same year the GOA codified the privatization procedures under Chapter II of Law 23696. Sociedad Mixta Siderurgica Argentina (SOMISA), whose privatization took place in 1992, was among those companies covered by the law.

During the course of privatization, the GOA restructured SOMISA. In this restructuring, portions of SOMISA's productive assets were transferred to a newly formed company, Aceros Parana S.A. (APSA), while the liabilities and nonproductive assets remained with SOMISA. In 1992, the GOA privatized APSA by selling it in a share transaction to the Technit Group via its subsidiary Propulsura Siderurgica S.A.I.C. (Propulsura). Then, in 1993, APSA was merged with four smaller companies, none of which produced subject merchandise, to form Siderar.

As discussed in further detail below, petitioners contend that SOMISA/APSA received numerous subsidies prior to the restructuring and privatization in 1992. Moreover, they contend that the company remained, for all intents and purposes, the same corporate entity throughout the restructuring and privatization. As a result, petitioners argue that all non-recurring subsidies received by SOMISA and APSA are fully attributable to Siderar.

In this preliminary determination, we have applied our new privatization approach, first announced in a remand determination on December 4, 2000, following the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Delverde Srl v. United States, 202 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000), reh'g en banc denied (June 20, 2000) (Delverde III). We have also applied this new approach recently in Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel from Italy: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 2885 (January 12, 2001).

Under this approach, the first requirement is to determine whether the person to which the subsidies were given is, in fact, distinct from the person that produced the subject merchandise exported to the United States. If the two persons are distinct, the original subsidies may not be attributed to the new producer/exporter. The Department would, however, consider whether any subsidy had been bestowed upon that producer/exporter as a result of the change-in-ownership transaction.

On the other hand, if the original subsidy recipient and the current producer/exporter are considered to be the same person, that person benefits from the original subsidies, and its exports are subject to countervailing duties to offset those subsidies. In other words, we will determine that a “financial contribution” and a “benefit” has been received by the “person” that is the firm under investigation. Assuming that the original subsidy had not been fully amortized under the Department's normal allocation methodology as of the POI, the Department would then continue to countervail the remaining benefits of that subsidy.

In making the “person” determination, where appropriate and applicable, we analyze factors such as (1) continuity of general business operations, including whether the successor holds itself out as the continuation of the previous enterprise, as may be indicated, for example, by use of the same name, (2) continuity of production facilities, (3) continuity of assets and liabilities, and (4) retention of personnel. No single factor will necessarily provide a dispositive indication of any change in the entity under analysis. Instead, the Department will generally consider the post-sale entity to be the same person as the pre-sale entity if, based on the totality of the factors considered, we determine that the entity sold in the change-in-ownership transaction can be considered a continuous business entity because it was operated in substantially the same manner before and after the change in ownership.

Using the approach described above, we analyzed the facts available in the petition to determine whether the subsidies received by SOMISA and APSA continued to benefit Siderar during the POI. As noted in the “Use of Facts Available” section of this notice, the GOA and Siderar have declined to participate in this investigation. Therefore, in determining that all of SOMISA's and APSA's non-recurring subsidies are attributable to Siderar, we relied on adverse inferences with respect to the use of facts available, as mandated by section 776(b) of the Act.

Information in the petition indicates that SOMISA, APSA, and Siderar are, for all intents and purposes, the same corporate entity. For example, the petition contains evidence that APSA, the predecessor of Siderar, was sold to Propulsura via a share transaction, suggesting, without other available information, that all assets and liabilities of APSA were transferred. In addition, page 38 of an article in the Colombia Journal of World Business, which was included as Exhibit IV-4 of the November 13, 2000 petition, states that, as of 1993, SOMISA produced hot-rolled steel at its manufacturing facility in San Nicolás. Furthermore, Siderar's website indicates that the company continues to produce hot-rolled steel at the San Nicolas facility.3 This information demonstrates that SOMISA, APSA, and Siderar all produced hot-rolled steel at the same manufacturing facility, which is indicative of the continuity of the enterprise. In addition, the fact that the same facility produced hot-rolled steel throughout and after the restructuring and privatization periods indicates a continuity of the plant's assets. See e.g., P. Marcus and K. Kirsis, “Siderar: Argentina's Privatization Success Story,” World Steel Dynamics, a Paine Webber report that was included as Exhibit IV-11 of the November 13, 2000 petition.4

On this basis, we preliminarily determine that all subsidies received by SOMISA and APSA are attributable to Siderar. With our “person” determination, all of the elements of a subsidy are established with regard to Siderar.

We also note that information in the petition indicates that the substantial majority of the countervailable non-recurring subsidies were provided to the producer of the subject merchandise during the course of its sale to private interests and were specifically provided for in the bidding and sales documents and contract, as well as in the GOA's law and decrees governing the privatization of the company. Because of our determination that SOMISA, APSA, and Siderar are, for all intents and purposes, the same person, we need not decide whether some of the subsidies at issue have been provided directly to the post-sale entity.

19 CFR 351.524(d)(2) (2000) states that we will presume the allocation period for non-recurring subsidies to be the average useful life (AUL) of renewable physical assets for the industry concerned, as listed in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) 1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range System, as updated by the Department of Treasury. The presumption will apply unless a party claims and establishes that these tables do not reasonably reflect the AUL of the renewable physical assets for the company or industry under investigation, and the party can establish that the difference between the company-specific or country-wide AUL for the industry under investigation is significant.

In this investigation, the Department is considering non-recurring subsidies. Regarding non-recurring subsidies, we have allocated, where applicable, all of Siderar's non-recurring subsidies over the AUL listed in the IRS tables for the steel industry and used in the most recently completed administrative review for Argentine steel companies (see Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat-Rolled Products from Argentina: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 52974 (October 10, 1997) (Final Results of 1991 Cold-Rolled Flat Products)). Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2) (2000), the Department is using, for the purposes of the preliminary determination, an allocation period of 15 years.

The Department has previously determined SOMISA to be unequityworthy for the years 1986 through 1987 and 1988 through 1990 (see Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat-Rolled Products from Argentina: Final Countervailing Duty Review, 56 FR 28527, 28528 (June 21, 1991) (Cold-Rolled Flat Products); Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat-Rolled Products from Argentina: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 38257 (July 17, 1997) and Final Results of 1991 Cold-Rolled Flat Products (collectively referred to as 1991 Cold-Rolled Flat Products). No new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been submitted in this review that would lead us to reconsider these findings.

For years 1986 through 1990, we used U.S. dollar-denominated discount rates (see Private Creditors Interest Rate in U.S. dollars for Argentina as reported in the 1993-1994 World Debt Tables). These rates were the same as those used in the most recently completed administrative review for Argentina. See 1991 Cold-Rolled Flat Products, 62 FR 38257, 38260.

In the petition, petitioners alleged that SOMISA, the corporate predecessor of Siderar, was uncreditworthy in 1991 and 1992. To support this allegation, petitioners stated that the company had negative operating margins and negative return on sales in each of these two years. Petitioners have stated that financial data for the years prior to 1990 is not publically available. In our initiation, we stated that we did not plan to investigate SOMISA's alleged creditworthiness in 1991 and 1992 on the grounds that the presence of “non-current bank and financial debt” on its 1991-1992 Financial Statement indicated that the company was able to obtain commercial financing. See page 14 of the December 4, 2000, Initiation Checklist that accompanied the Initiation Notice, the public version of which is on file in room B099 of the CRU.

However, on January 29, 2001, petitioners submitted additional information supporting their claim that SOMISA was uncreditworthy in 1992. Specifically, petitioners contend that in making its decision not to initiate a creditworthy investigation, the Department mistakenly relied on 19 CFR 351.505(a)(4)(ii) (2000), which states that the presence of long-term commercial financing with a government guarantee generally constitutes dispositive evidence that a firm is creditworthy. Petitioners point out that in the preamble to the CVD Regulations, the Department states that:

In addition, further review of the information in the petition indicates that Siderar was in financial distress as of 1992. According to a 1993 article from the Colombia Journal of World Business that was included as Exhibit IV-4 of the November 13, 2000 petition, by the start of the 1990s the company was losing approximately 20 million dollars a month. Moreover, the article states that at the time of its privatization, “SOMISA was not a viable economic entity on its own and was in a state of technical insolvency.” The article goes on to state that at the time of its sale, SOMISA was having difficulty securing letters of credit and that its suppliers had begun to ship materials on a cash receipt basis, both of which strongly suggest that the company was unable to fulfill its obligations to its creditors.

Based on the information provided by petitioners, we find there is sufficient evidence on the record of this investigation to warrant investigating whether SOMISA was uncreditworthy in 1992. Because the producer of the subject merchandise and the GOA have declined to participate in this investigation, we are relying on adverse facts available and, therefore, have preliminarily determined that the company was uncreditworthy in 1992.5

As our 1992 discount rate, we used the peso-denominated lending rate as reported by the International Monetary Fund's (IMF's) International Statistics, as published in June 1993. Because we have preliminarily determined the producer of the subject merchandise to be uncreditworthy in 1992, we adjusted this discount rate upwards using the uncreditworthy discount rate methodology as described in 19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(iii) (2000).

Petitioners allege that predecessors of Siderar received equity infusions from the GOA during the years 1986 through 1990, a period in which petitioners contend Siderar's predecessor was unequityworthy. Specifically, petitioners requested that the Department examine the equity infusions provided to SOMISA, a predecessor of Siderar, from 1986 to 1987 and additional infusions provided to SOMISA from 1988 through 1990.

In Cold-Rolled Flat Products, we determined that under Decree 2887/78 the GOA provided SOMISA with countervailable equity infusions from 1986 through 1987, a period during which the Department found SOMISA to be unequityworthy. See 56 FR 28527, 28528. We also determined in 1991 Cold-Rolled Flat Products that under the same decree the GOA provided SOMISA with additional countervailable equity infusions from 1988 through 1990, a period in which the Department again found SOMISA to be unequityworthy. See 62 FR 38257, 38259.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.507(c) (2000), we treated the equity infusions as non-recurring subsidies. For each of the infusions received during the years 1986 through 1990, we allocated the subsidy over the time period corresponding to the AUL beginning in the year in which the equity infusions were received using our standard grant allocation methodology. We note that the amounts of the individual equity infusions were obtained from Attachment 70 of the public version of the November 26, 1993 supplemental questionnaire response of the GOA.

In addition, consistent with our treatment of the equity infusions in past proceedings, we have converted the equity infusions into U.S. dollars in order to take into account the periods of high inflation in Argentina and the changes in the Argentine currency that occurred during the time in which the equity infusions were received. See, e.g., 1991 Cold-Rolled Flat Products, 62 FR 38257, 38260. Because we converted the equity infusions into U.S. dollars, we used as our discount rate the U.S. dollar-denominated private creditor's interest rate for Argentina as reported in the World Debt Tables for 1993 and 1994.

To calculate the net subsidy rate, we then divided the benefit amount allocable to the POI by Siderar's estimated U.S. dollar total sales as of June 30, 2000, which was calculated based on facts available in the petitioners' submission. We converted Siderar's total sales as of June 30, 2000 into U.S. dollars using the average peso/U.S. dollar exchange rate for 1999.6 On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy to be 0.18 percent ad valorem.

Petitioners explain that the GOA restructured SOMISA in 1992 by transferring SOMISA's productive assets to a company named APSA. Petitioners allege that, as a part of this restructuring, the GOA directly assumed 1,237 million pesos of SOMISA's debt. Petitioners allege that APSA should have been liable for this debt and, therefore, APSA (a predecessor of Siderar) received countervailable subsidies that benefitted subject merchandise during the POI.

In 1991 Cold-Rolled Flat Products, we reviewed the 1992 privatization of SOMISA. See, 62 FR 38257, 38262. As explained in that review, the general privatization law (Chapter II of Law 23,696) enabled the GOA to (1) decide which assets would be privatized; (2) reorganize going concerns and transfer assets and liabilities from those concerns prior to privatization; and (3) assume the debt of public enterprises undergoing privatization. Further, debt acquired by SOMISA up to April 1, 1991, was forgiven by the GOA. As stated above in the “Use of Facts Available” section of this notice, the GOA and Siderar declined to participate in this investigation. Therefore, as adverse facts available, we preliminarily determine that the GOA's assumption of debt constitutes a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of 771(5) of the Act. Because the debt assumption is limited to the producer of the subject merchandise and to government-owned companies in the process of being privatized, we preliminarily determine that the debt assumption is specific under section 771(5A) of the Act. The debt forgiveness also constitutes a financial contribution in the form of a grant because it is effectively a direct transfer of funds within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.508(c) (2000), we treated the GOA's 1992 assumption of SOMISA's debt as a non-recurring grant. We allocated the subsidy over the time period corresponding to the AUL beginning in 1992 using our standard grant allocation methodology.7 We obtained the amount of SOMISA's debt forgiveness from Attachment 8 of the public version of the GOA's February 24, 1994 supplemental questionnaire response, which was included as Exhibit III-2 of the petition. According to this document, the GOA assumed 1,237 million pesos of the company's debt in the course of the company's privatization.

As stated above in the “Creditworthiness and Calculation of Discount Rate” section, we have preliminarily determined that the company was uncreditworthy in 1992. Therefore, when employing our standard grant allocation methodology, we calculated a discount rate in accordance with the formula for constructing a long-term benchmark interest rate for uncreditworthy companies as stated in 19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(iii) (2000) and applied that discount rate when utilizing our standard grant allocation methodology.

To calculate the net subsidy rate, we divided the benefit amount allocable to the POI by Siderar's estimated total sales as of June 30, 2000. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy to be 21.79 percent ad valorem.

Petitioners allege that, upon transferring SOMISA's productive assets to APSA, the GOA agreed to cover the liquidation costs of SOMISA Residual.8 These alleged costs include closing down and dismantling redundant facilities and environmental liabilities. Petitioners provided a portion of the contract between the GOA and APSA for the transfer of shares. See the GOA's November 26, 1993 supplemental questionnaire response, which was included as Exhibit IV-16 of the November 13, 2000 petition. Petitioners explain that section 5.9.1(i)-(iv) of this contract stipulates that the GOA will compensate APSA for any obligation or damages incurred due to environmental liabilities which occurs during the first 18 months after privatization. They also state that section 5.8 of the contract stipulates similar indemnities regarding occupational health and safety liabilities.

As explained above, the GOA had the discretion to reorganize going concerns and transfer assets and liabilities from those concerns prior to privatization as well as covering liabilities arising from these actions. As stated above in the “Use of Facts Available” section of this notice, the GOA and Siderar declined to participate in this investigation. Therefore, based on adverse facts available, we preliminarily determine that the above-mentioned information in the petition indicates that the GOA undertook liquidation costs that should have been attributed to APSA. Because this relief of liquidation expenses is limited to the producer of the subject merchandise and to government-owned companies in the process of being privatized, we preliminarily determine that this program is specific under section 771(5A) of the Act. The relief from the liquidation costs also constitutes a financial contribution in the form of a grant because it is effectively a direct transfer of funds within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act.

To calculate the countervailable benefit under this program, we treated the GOA's 1992 assumption of liquidation costs as a non-recurring grant. We then allocated the subsidy over the time period corresponding to the AUL beginning in the year in which the liabilities were assumed by the GOA using our standard grant allocation methodology. Because we have preliminarily determined that the company was uncreditworthy in 1992, we used as our discount rate the uncreditworthy benchmark discussed above. We obtained the amount of the liquidation expenses from page 28 of the GOA's November 26, 1993 supplemental questionnaire response, which was included as Exhibit III-1 of the petition. According to this document, the GOA assumed 43,700,000 pesos in claims against the company during the privatization and liquidation process of the company. We have not been able to determine the amount of environmental liabilities assumed by the GOA on behalf of the producer of the subject merchandise. We will continue to try to quantify these liabilities for the final determination. Therefore, for the purpose of this preliminary determination, the estimated subsidy rate is based solely on the reported 43,700,000 figure of assumed relief from liquidation expenses.

To calculate the net subsidy rate, we divided the benefit amount allocable to the POI by Siderar's estimated total sales as of June 30, 2000. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy to be 0.90 percent ad valorem.

Petitioners allege that, pursuant to Decree 1144/92, the GOA cancelled all of SOMISA's debt that it had incurred from April 1, 1991, through January 1, 1992, exempted SOMISA from the stamp tax and from other taxes which were imposed on the transfer of assets and land, and assumed SOMISA's early retirement benefit liabilities that it had incurred prior to its privatization. In 1991 Cold-Rolled Flat Products, the Department acknowledged the bestowal of these subsidies under Decree 1144/92 but determined that any potential benefits would have been realized subsequent to the period covered by that proceeding (see 62 FR 38257, 38262).

As stated above in the “Use of Facts Available” section of this notice, the GOA and Siderar declined to participate in this investigation. Therefore, based on adverse facts available, we preliminarily determine that this program conferred countervailable benefits upon Siderar during the POI in the form of (1) retirement payments to employees made by the GOA on behalf of SOMISA; (2) stamp tax exemptions; (3) SOMISA's retention of labor liabilities that should have passed on to APSA, a Siderar predecessor; and (4) the GOA's forgiveness of SOMISA debt that accrued between April 1, 1991, through January 1, 1992. Because this assistance was limited to the producer of the subject merchandise and to government-owned companies in the process of being privatized, we preliminarily determine that this program is specific under section 771(5A) of the Act. The benefits received under this program also constitute a financial contribution in the form of a grant because they are effectively a direct transfer of funds within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act.

To calculate the benefits under this program, we treated the subsidies described above as non-recurring grants received in 1992. With respect to the stamp tax exemption, we note that this exemption was tied to the capital assets of the company. Therefore, we are also determining this tax exemption to be a non-recurring benefit under 19 CFR 351.524(c)(2) (2000). We then allocated the subsidies over the time period corresponding to the AUL using our standard grant allocation methodology. Because we have preliminarily determined that the company was uncreditworthy in 1992, we used as our discount rate the uncreditworthy benchmark discussed above.

We derived the grant amounts for the retirement payments, retention of labor liabilities, and stamp tax exemptions by using information from the public version of the GOA's November 26, 1993 and February 24, 1994 questionnaire responses, which were included as Exhibits III-1 and III-2 of the petition. According to page 35 of the November 26, 1993 GOA questionnaire response, the amount of the stamp tax exemption was equal to 6,396,179.88 pesos. In addition, according to page 18 of the November 26, 1993 GOA questionnaire response, the GOA also assumed 12,576,399.85 pesos of the company's labor and social security obligations during the company's privatization. Furthermore, according to page 8 of the February 24, 1994 supplemental questionnaire response, the GOA paid 164,470,422.93 pesos to restructure the company's workforce during its privatization.

We derived the grant amount for the forgiveness of debt that accrued between April 1, 1991, through January 1, 1992 by taking the difference between SOMISA's “Other Debt” liabilities between June 30, 1991, and June 30, 1992. Based upon this data, we derived a reported debt assumption of 126,296,883 pesos. We obtained information on SOMISA's liabilities from the company's 1992 Financial Statement, which was included as Exhibit III-15 of the petition. We assumed that the difference in these liabilities was the result of debt assumed by the GOA. We assumed that the reduction in these liabilities was the result of the GOA's debt assumption because the company could not pay its own liabilities because it was losing approximately 20 million dollars a month during this time and its operations were being supported by the accumulation of debt. See R. Mooney and S. Griffith, “Privatizing a Distressed State-Owned Enterprise: Lessons Learned through Privatization Work in Argentina's Steel Sector,” Columbia Journal of World Business (Spring 1993) which was included as Exhibit IV-4 of the November 13, 2000 petition.

To calculate the net subsidy rate for this program, we divided the above-listed benefit amounts allocable to the POI by Siderar's estimated total sales as of June 30, 2000. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy to be 5.46 percent ad valorem.

Petitioners allege that, at the time of the company's privatization in 1992, the GOA required all bidders to infuse $100 million into the company within two years of the sale. Petitioners allege that the investment commitment constitutes an indirect subsidy induced by GOA action in which the GOA “directed or entrusted” the purchasers of the producer of the subject merchandise to make a $100 million infusion into the company. Petitioners further allege that Siderar continued to benefit from this $100 million contribution during the POI. In support of the allegation, petitioners cite to a section of GOA Law 24,045 and to GOA questionnaire responses from a prior proceeding in which the terms of the investment commitment are described.

As stated above in the “Use of Facts Available” section of this notice, the GOA and Siderar declined to participate in this investigation. Therefore, based on adverse facts available, we preliminarily determine that the investment commitment was conducted at the behest of the GOA, and that this investment conferred countervailable benefits upon Siderar during the POI. Because this assistance was limited to the producer of the subject merchandise, we preliminarily determine that this program is specific under section 771(5A) of the Act. The investment commitment received under this program also constitutes a financial contribution within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(iv) of the Act.

Information from the GOA's November 26, 1993 questionnaire response, which was included as Exhibit III-1 in the petition, indicates a portion of the investment commitment was made in 1993. Accordingly, we have treated that portion of the investment commitment as a non-recurring grant received in 1993. In addition, we are assuming that the remaining balance of the investment commitment was made in the following year because the full amount of the investment commitment had to be paid within two years of the company's sale. Thus, we have treated the remaining balance as a non-recurring grant received in 1994. We note that information in the petition indicates that the company was transferred by the GOA to private parties in 1992. Therefore, we have used 1992 as the date of approval for the investment commitment.

To calculate the benefits under this program, we treated the investment commitment as a non-recurring grant. We then allocated the subsidies over the time period corresponding to the AUL using our standard grant allocation methodology. Because we have preliminarily determined that the company was uncreditworthy in 1992, we used as our discount rate the uncreditworthy benchmark discussed above.

To calculate the net subsidy rate, we divided the benefit amounts allocable to the POI by Siderar's estimated total sales as of June 30, 2000. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy to be 2.03 percent ad valorem.

Under the Reembolso program, the GOA provides a cumulative tax rebate paid upon export and the rebate is calculated as a percentage of the f.o.b. invoice of the exported merchandise. In October 1986, the GOA through Decree 1555/86 established three broad rebate levels covering all products and industry sectors. The rates for levels I, II, and III were 10 percent, 12.5 percent, and 15 percent, respectively. According to the petition, the subject merchandise is classified in level I and is eligible for a 10 percent rebate. The Department has previously found that this program provides a countervailable benefit to Argentine exporters. See, e.g., Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations and Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube Products From Argentina, 53 FR 37619 (September 27, 1988).

Under 19 CFR 351.518(a)(4) (2000), the entire amount of the rebate confers a benefit unless the government of the country subject to the investigation has confirmed which inputs are consumed in the production of the exported product and in what amounts, and has confirmed which indirect taxes are imposed on those inputs. We note that according to the company's financial statement covering the POI, it received export rebates under this program during 1999. Because the GOA has not established that the Reembolso rebate only refunds the actual indirect taxes incurred on inputs of items consumed in the production of exports of the subject merchandises, we preliminarily determine that the entire rebate is countervailable under 19 CFR 351.518(a)(4) (2000). Therefore, the calculated net countervailable subsidy for this program during the POI is 10.00 percent ad valorem.

On September 24, 1982, the Central Bank of Argentina established a post-financing program for exports under Circular OPRAC 1-9. OPRAC 1-9 loans are granted for up to 30 percent of the peso equivalent of the foreign currency in which the export transaction was paid. The term of the loan is 180 days. The interest rate charged on OPRAC 1-9 loans is the regulated rate used by commercial banks, as required under the regulations of the Central Bank of Argentina.

Petitioners allege that Siderar benefitted from pre- and post-export financing during the POI. As stated above in the “Use of Facts Available” section of this notice, the GOA and Siderar declined to participate in this investigation. Therefore, based on adverse facts available, we preliminarily determine that Siderar received countervailable benefits under this program. We note that according to the company's financial statement covering the POI, it received import and export financing during 1999.

In Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat-Rolled Products from Argentina: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order, 49 FR 18006, 18007 (April 26, 1984) (Investigation of Cold-Rolled Flat Products), we determined that SOMISA, a predecessor of Siderar, used and benefitted from pre- and post-shipment export financing. In the absence of a response from the GOA and Siderar, we are assuming, as adverse facts available, that the level of financing Siderar and its predecessors received under this program has remained unchanged since the Investigation of Cold-Rolled Flat Products. Therefore, to calculate the net subsidy rate for Siderar under this program, we are using the net subsidy rate calculated for its predecessor, SOMISA, in the Investigation of Cold-Rolled Flat Products.

We note that in an attempt to corroborate the net subsidy rate calculated in the Investigation of Cold-Rolled Flat Products, we reviewed the information in the petition, including SOMISA's 1991 and 1992 Financial Statements and Siderar's June 30, 2000 Financial Statement. However, the petition and the financial statements did not provide any data that could be used to quantify SOMISA's or Siderar's use of the program. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy to be 0.01 percent ad valorem.

Petitioners allege that the GOA, through the state-owned Investment and Foreign Trade Bank (BICE), provides duty exemptions/reductions that are contingent upon export performance.

Information from a World Trade Organization publication indicates that “direct assistance has been provided to exports under turn key contracts.” Furthermore, an article from the newspaper La Nación states that under the program, companies designated as turn key plants would benefit from “subsidized import tariffs.” We note that both of these articles were included in the petition. See Exhibits IV-5 and IV-9 of the November 13, 2000 petition, respectively. As stated in the “Use of Facts Available” section of this notice, the GOA and Siderar declined to participate in this investigation. Therefore, based on adverse facts available, we preliminarily determine that the information in the petition indicates that Siderar received countervailable benefits under this program. Because this program is only available to exporters, we preliminarily determine that this program constitutes an export subsidy under section 771(5A)(A) of the Act. A financial contribution is also conferred by this program in the form of revenue forgone within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act.

The article from La Nación states that in 1997 the GOA approved under the turn key bill $207 million in tariff exemptions for 114 investment projects, including investment projects undertaken by Siderar. As adverse facts available, we are assuming that Siderar's share of exemptions was equal to those received by the other projects. We note that 19 CFR 351.524(c) (2000) states that tax exemptions can be treated as recurring benefits that are allocated (e.g., expensed) in their entirety to the year of receipt. As adverse facts available, we are assuming that Siderar received the tariff exemptions on a recurring basis in an amount equal to the tariff exemptions that we estimated for 1997. On this basis, we preliminarily determine that Siderar received a countervailable benefit under this program during the POI.

To calculate the benefit from this program, we divided the amount of Siderar's 1999 tariff exemptions by its estimated value of total exports for the POI.9 We used the estimated value of total exports rather than total sales because this program is an export subsidy under section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. We note that Siderar's estimated tariff exemptions were denominated in U.S. dollars. Therefore, we converted the amount of the tariff exemptions into pesos using the average peso/U.S. dollar exchange rate for 1999. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy rate to be 0.42 percent ad valorem.

In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we have calculated an individual rate for the company under investigation, Siderar. With respect to the “all others” rate, section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act provides that if the countervailable subsidy rates established for all exporters and producers individually investigated are determined entirely under section 776 of the Act, the Department may use any reasonable method to establish an “all others” rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated. In this case, although the rate for the only other investigated company is based entirely on facts available under section 776 of the Act, there is no other information on the record upon which we could determine an “all others” rate. As a result, we have used the rate for Siderar as the “all others” rate.

In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we are directing the U.S. Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of the subject merchandise from Argentina, which are entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, and to require a cash deposit or bond for such entries of the merchandise in the amounts indicated above. This suspension will remain in effect until further notice.

In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and nonproprietary information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

In accordance with section 705(b)(2) of the Act, if our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination within 45 days after the Department makes its final determination.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.310, we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on this preliminary determination. The hearing is tentatively scheduled to be held 57 days from the date of publication of the preliminary determination at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230. Individuals who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.

Requests for a public hearing should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and, (3) to the extent practicable, an identification of the arguments to be raised at the hearing. In addition, six copies of the business proprietary version and six copies of the non-proprietary version of the case briefs must be submitted to the Assistant Secretary no later than 50 days from the date of publication of the preliminary determination. As part of the case brief, parties are encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Six copies of the business proprietary version and six copies of the non-proprietary version of the rebuttal briefs must be submitted to the Assistant Secretary no later than 5 days from the date of filing of the case briefs. An interested party may make an affirmative presentation only on arguments included in that party's case or rebuttal briefs. Written arguments should be submitted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309 and will be considered if received within the time limits specified above.

This determination is published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act. Effective January 20, 2001, Bernard T. Carreau is fulfilling the duties of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Under section 80HHC of India's Income Tax Act, exporters of iron-metal castings are eligible to claim tax exemptions based on their export profits. In Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 60 Fed. Reg. 44,849 (Aug. 29, 1995) (the 1990 period of reveiw), the Department calculated these subsidies without adjusting for other subsidies received under India's International Price Reimbursement Scheme (IPRS) and India's Cash Compensatory Support Scheme (CCS). In Crescent Foundry Co. Pvt. Ltd., et al. v. United States, Slip Op. 00-148 (CIT Nov. 9, 2000), the court remanded the final results of the 1990 administrative review and directed the Department to recalculate these subsidies by subtracting IPRS rebates and CCS rebate from taxable income before determining any section 80HHC benefit. The Department's subsequent remand determination reflected the Court's instructions and was affirmed in Crescent Foundry Co. Pvt. Ltd, et al. v. United States, Slip Op. 01-6 (CIT Jan. 24, 2001).

In its decision in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to 19 USC section 1516a(e), the Department must publish a notice of a court decision which is not “in harmony” with a Department determination, and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The CIT's opinion in Crescent Foundry Co. Pvt. Ltd, et al. v. United States, Slip Op. 01-6 (CIT Jan. 24, 2001), constitutes a decision not in harmony with the Department's final affirmative results of countervailing duty administrative review. Publication of this notice fulfills the Timken requirement.

Accordingly, the Department will continue to suspend liquidation pending the expiration of the period of appeal, or, if appealed, upon a “conclusive” court decision.

Under section 80HHC of India's Income Tax Act, exporters of iron-metal castings are eligible to claim tax exemptions based on their export profits. In Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 60 Fed. Reg. 44,843 (Aug. 29, 1995) (the 1991 period of review), the Department calculated these subsidies without adjusting for other subsidies received under India's International Price Reimbursement Scheme (IPRS) and India's Cash Compensatory Support Scheme (CCS). In Kajaria Iron Castings Pvt. Ltd., et al. v. United States, Slip Op. 00-147 (CIT Nov. 9, 2000), the court remanded the final results of the 1991 administrative review and directed the Department to recalculate these subsidies by subtracting IPRS rebates and CCS rebates from taxable income before determining any section 80HHC benefit. The Department's subsequent remand determination reflected the Court's instructions and was affirmed in Kajaria Iron Castings Pvt. Ltd, et al. v. United States, Slip Op. 01-5 (CIT Jan. 24, 2001).

In its decision in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to 19 USC section 1516a(e), the Department must publish a notice of a court decision which is not “in harmony” with a Department determination, and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The CIT's opinion in Kajaria Iron Castings Pvt. Ltd, et al. v. United States, Slip Op. 01-5 (CIT Jan. 24, 2001), constitutes a decision not in harmony with the Department's final affirmative results of countervailing duty administrative review. Publication of this notice fulfills the Timken requirement.

Accordingly, the Department will continue to suspend liquidation pending the expiration of the period of appeal, or, if appealed, upon a “conclusive” court decision.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (2000).

On December 27, 2000, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated the CVD investigations of low enriched uranium from France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. See Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations: Low Enriched Uranium from France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, 66 FR 1085 (January 5, 2001). Currently, the preliminary determinations are due no later than March 2, 2001. However, pursuant to section 703(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we have determined that these investigations are “extraordinarily complicated” and are therefore extending the due date for the preliminary determinations to no later than May 7, 2001.

Under section 703(c)(1)(B), the Department can extend the period for reaching a preliminary determination until not later than the 130th day after the date on which the administering authority initiates an investigation if:

(B) The administering authority concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating and determines that—

(i) The case is extraordinarily complicated by reason of—

(I) The number and complexity of the alleged countervailable subsidy practices;

(II) The novelty of the issues presented;

(III) The need to determine the extent to which particular countervailable subsidies are used by individual manufacturers, producers, and exporters; or

(IV) The number of firms whose activities must be investigated; and

(ii) Additional time is necessary to make the preliminary determination.

Regarding the first requirement, we find that in each case all concerned parties are cooperating. Regarding the second requirement, we find that each of these four cases is extraordinarily complicated for the following reasons.

The French CVD investigation is extraordinarily complicated because of the novelty of the issues presented. We are investigating an allegation that the Government of France through its national electric utility, Electricite de France, purchased uranium from the producer of the subject merchandise at prices that constitute “more than adequate remuneration” under section 771(5)(E)(iv) of the Act. This is a novel issue because this is the first time the Department has investigated this type of subsidy allegation.

These three investigations are extraordinarily complicated because of the novelty of the issue presented. Petitioners have alleged that a single cumulative CVD rate applicable to all of Urenco Ltd.'s operations in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom should be applied. Urenco Ltd. is the holding company for a group of companies located in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom which produce enriched uranium for commercial sale. The Urenco Group was created in 1971, pursuant to the Treaty of Almelo, signed by the governments of Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Therefore, the Department is investigating, and must determine, whether the subsidies provided by the three Treaty of Almelo countries to the Urenco Group's operations in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom should be attributed to the sales of all of Urenco's international operations because Urenco is an “international consortium” under section 701(d) of the Act. To date, the provisions of section 701(d) have never been used in any CVD investigation or administrative review. Thus, we determine this to be a novel issue.

Accordingly, we deem these four investigations to be extraordinarily complicated and determine, with regard to the third requirement noted above, that additional time is necessary to make the preliminary determinations. Therefore, pursuant to section 703(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are postponing the preliminary determinations in these investigations to no later than May 7, 2001.

This notice is published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act. Effective January 20, 2001, Bernard T. Carreau is fulfilling the duties of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 12, 2001, that portions of the meeting of the visiting Committee on Advanced Technology which involve discussion of proposed funding of the Advanced Technology Program and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program may be closed in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), because those portions of the meetings will divulge matters the premature disclosure of which would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of proposed agency actions; and that portions of meetings which involve discussion of the staffing issues of management and other positions at NIST may be closed in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6), because divulging information discussed in those portions of the meetings is likely to reveal information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Tuesday, March 6, 2001, 10 a.m.—Scientific and Statistical Committee

Location: Rossi’s, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950; telephone: (978) 499-0240.

The SSC committee will develop plans to provide the Council advice on the priorities identified by the Council. These include: (1) Review of fishing mortality and biomass reference points for selected groundfish species and skates; (2) Review of changes in the scallop reference points that might result from a rotational area management strategy and the scientific basis of proposed scallop rotational area management measures as developed by the Council and Scallop Plan Development Team (PDT); (3) Evaluation of the available information on the stock structure of monkfish and its implications for management. Review of the monkfish assessment update (to be done by the Monkfish Monitoring committee, and review of fishing mortality and biomass reference points; (4) Review of the update of whiting status that will be completed by the Whiting PDT; (5) Other issues that it might advise the Council on such as the potential value of marine protected areas (MPAs) and closed areas (quantify benefits from existing closed areas) and multispecies management issues.

Tuesday, March 6, 2001, 9:30 a.m.—Joint Skate Committee and Advisory Panel Meeting.

Location: Radisson Airport Hotel, 2081 Post Road, Warwick, RI 02886; telephone: (401) 739-3000.

Issuance of permits and permit modifications, as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (ESA), is based on a finding that such permits/modifications: (1) are applied for in good faith; (2) would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species which are the subject of the permits; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits. Permits and modifications are issued in accordance with and are subject to the ESA and NMFS regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 222-226).

Those individuals requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see ADDRESSES). The holding of such hearing is at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA. All statements and opinions contained in the permit action summaries are those of the applicant and do not necessarily reflect the views of NMFS.

The following species and evolutionarily significant units (ESU's) are covered in this notice:

Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka): endangered Snake River (SnR).

Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha): endangered, naturally produced and artificially propagated, upper Columbia River (UCR) spring; threatened, naturally produced and artificially propagated, SnR spring/summer; threatened SnR fall; threatened lower Columbia River (LCR); threatened upper Willamette River (UWR).

Chum salmon (O. keta): threatened Columbia River.

Steelhead (O. mykiss): endangered, naturally produced and artificially propagated, UCR; threatened SnR; threatened middle Columbia River (MCR); threatened LCR; threatened UWR.

The Fish Ecology Division of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center, NMFS requests a 5-year permit (1290) for annual takes of 11 of the 12 ESA-listed anadromous fish species identified in this notice (all ESU’s except endangered SnR sockeye salmon) associated with research to be conducted in the Columbia River estuary. The purpose of the research is to determine the prevalence and intensity of pathogens in juvenile salmonids. The research will benefit ESA-listed salmonids by contributing information on the extent to which diseases affect the growth and survival of juvenile salmonids in the estuarine and early ocean environments. This proposed research project is intended to complement the pathogen research that is being conducted by the Environmental Conservation Division, NWFSC, NMFS under scientific research permit 1140 (see 63 FR 18891, April 16, 1998). ESA-listed juvenile fish are proposed to be captured, handled, and released or taken lethally. ESA-listed juvenile fish indirect mortalities are also requested. ESA-listed juvenile fish indirect mortalities are proposed to be retained for research purposes or returned to the water.

The Columbia River Research Laboratory, USGS requests a 5-year permit (1291) for annual takes of SnR sockeye salmon, SnR spring/summer chinook salmon, SnR fall chinook salmon, UCR spring chinook salmon, SnR steelhead, UCR steelhead, and MCR steelhead associated with scientific research at John Day, The Dalles, and Bonneville Dams on the lower Columbia River in the Pacific Northwest. The purpose of the research is to monitor juvenile fish movement, distribution, behavior, and survival from John Day Dam downstream past Bonneville Dam using radiotelemetry technology. The research will benefit ESA-listed fish species by providing information on spill effectiveness, forebay residence times, and guidance efficiency under various flow regimes that will allow Federal resource managers to make adjustments to bypass/collection structures to optimize downriver migrant survival at the hydropower projects. The proposed research is intended to complement the research that is being conducted by USGS under scientific research permit 1130 (see 63 FR 9505, February 25, 1998). ESA-listed juvenile fish are proposed to be obtained from Smolt Monitoring Program (SMP) personnel at Bonneville and/or John Day Dams, handled, and released or implanted with radio transmitters, transported, held for as long as 24 hours, released, and tracked electronically. SMP personnel are authorized to collect ESA-listed juvenile fish under a separate take authorization. ESA-listed juvenile fish indirect mortalities associated with the research are also requested.

The Pacific Northwest Research Station of USFS requests a 2-year permit (1292) for annual takes of UCR spring chinook salmon, UCR steelhead, and MCR steelhead associated with research to be conducted in the Yakima River subbasin, the Wenatchee River subbasin, the Entiat River subbsasin, and the Methow River subbasin in Washington. The purpose of the research is to determine the extent and distribution of hybridization between westslope cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, and anadromous steelhead for selected populations in the MCR and UCR Basins. The research will benefit ESA-listed species by providing information on westslope cutthroat trout and rainbow trout/steelhead interactions and could provide insight into possible genetic introgression of introduced rainbow trout stocks in the areas of native rainbow trout/steelhead distribution. USFS also proposes to analyze phenotypic characteristics that may be used by biologists in the future to more definitively distinguish cutthroat trout, rainbow trout/steelhead, and hybrid forms in the field. ESA-listed juvenile fish are proposed to be captured by the use of angling with flies that have barbless hooks. After being captured, the juvenile fish are proposed to be released immediately (in the case of non-target species) or examined for biological information, sampled non-lethally for caudal fin tissue, and released. ESA-listed juvenile fish indirect mortalities associated with the research are also requested.

On December 27,2000 notice was published in the Federal Register (65 FR 81844) that an amendment of Permit No. 782-1446, issued May 8, 1998 (63 FR 27265), had been requested by the above-named organization. The requested amendment has been granted under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216).

Permit No. 782-1446 authorizes the permit holder to annually conduct aerial, ground and vessel surveys and capture and tagging studies for stock assessment of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), California sea lions (Zalophus californianus), Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus), and northern elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris).

The amendment now authorizes the capture, sampling and local or gas anesthesia for California sea lions of both sexes and ages 1 month through 5 years at hauling and breeding sites and incidental harassment of northern elephant.

A notice published in the Federal Register on December 29, 2000 (65 FR 82978), established limits for the period January 1, 2001 through March 31, 2001, per the Bilateral Textile Agreement, effected by exchange of letters dated January 10, 1997, May 2, 1997 and December 10, 1997, as amended and extended, concerning textiles and textile products, produced or manufactured in Taiwan. This directive cancels and supersedes that directive.

The Memorandum of Understanding, dated February 9, 2001, between the Governments of the United States and Taiwan establishes new limits for the period January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001. It also removes Category 622 from Group I and gives it an individual limit.

In the letter published below, the Chairman of CITA directs the Commissioner of Customs to establish the 2001 limits.

These limits may be revised if Taiwan becomes a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the WTO agreement is applied to Taiwan.

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 65 FR 82328, published on December 28, 2000).

Copies of the terms and conditions will be available for inspection at the Office of the Secretariat, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581. Copies of the terms and conditions can be obtained through the Office of the Secretariat by mail at the above address or by phone at (202) 418-5100.

Other materials submitted by the CME in support of the request for approval may be available upon request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and the Commission's regulations thereunder (17 CFR part 145 (2000)), except to the extent they are entitled to confidential treatment as set forth in 17 CFR 145.5 and 145.9. Requests for copies of such materials should be made to the FOI, Privacy and Sunshine Act Compliance Staff of the Office of Secretariat at the Commission's headquarters in accordance with 17 CFR 145.7 and 145.8.

Any person interested in submitting written data, views, or arguments on the proposed terms and conditions, or with respect to other materials submitted by the CME should send such comments to Jean A. Webb, Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581 by the specified date.

The termination settlement proposal forms (Standard Forms 1435 through 1440) provide a standardized format for listing essential cost and inventory information needed to support the terminated contractor's negotiation position. Submission of the information assures that a contractor will be fairly reimbursed upon settlement of the terminated contract.

Respondents: 864.

Responses Per Respondent: 2.4.

Total Responses: 2,074.

Hours Per Response: 2.5.

Total Burden Hours: 5,185.

Requester may obtain a copy of the proposal from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVRS), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0012, Termination Settlement Proposal Forms—FAR (SF's 1435 through 1440), in all correspondence.

Written objections must be filed within 15 days from publication date of this notice in the Federal Register.

The proposed project is to construct a controlled access tollway from Otay Mesa Road to State Route 54 with interchanges at Route 54, future Mount Miguel Road, East “H” Street, Telegraph Canyon Road, Olympic Parkway, and Otay Mesa Road. From Olympic Parkway to SR-54, four lanes would be initially constructed, with grading for the ultimate configuration to accommodate eight mixed flow lanes (plus a truck climbing lane where needed), a wide median for possibly two future high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes or a transit facility. The ultimate typical roadbed would be approximately 194 feet in width. From Otay Mesa Road to Olympic Parkway, four lanes (plus a truck climbing lane where needed) would be initially constructed, with grading for the ultimate configuration to accommodate two additional mixed flow lanes, and a wide median for possibly two future HOV lanes or transit facilities. The ultimate typical roadbed would be approximately 170 feet in width. The project would be 11.2 miles in length and the total right-of-way would encompass approximately 760 acres. Impacts to aquatic resources would encompass an area of approximately 8.16 acres of wetlands (of which 0.24 acre is comprised of 34 vernal pools) and 2.15 acres of non-wetland waters of the United States (U.S.).

On April 19, 2000, the Caltrans submitted an application for a Department of the Army permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to discharge fill material into 10.34 acres of waters of the U.S., including jurisdictional wetlands, to construct a controlled access tollway from Otay Mesa Road to State Route 54 with interchanges at Route 54, future Mount Miguel Road, East “H” Street, Telegraph Canyon Road, Olympic Parkway, and Otay Mesa Road. Impacts to aquatic resources would encompass approximately 8.16 acres of jurisdictional wetlands (of which 0.24 acre is comprised of 34 vernal pools which are within the NEPA Scope of Analysis) and 2.15 acres of non-wetland waters of the U.S. Specifically, the main stem of the roadway would impact 7.21 acres of waters of the U.S., including 5.65 acres of wetlands and 1.56 acres of non-wetland waters of the U.S.; the East “H” Street interchange would impact 2.15 acres of wetlands; the Telegraph Canyon Road interchange would impact 0.39 acre of wetlands; and the Olympic Parkway interchange would impact 0.59 acre of non-wetland waters of the U.S.

Prior to the development of the Draft EIS (DEIS), several scoping meetings were held by the FHWA/California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to identify local issues and areas of concern. On June 21, 1996, the DEIS was filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The DEIS was circulated for public review from July 12 to September 3, 1996. During the public review period, the FHWA/Caltrans held a public hearing on August 15, 1996. A Supplemental DEIS was signed on March 29, 1999, and circulated for public review from April 9, 1999, until May 24, 1999. The purpose of the Supplemental DEIS was to address potential impacts on the Federally-listed Endangered Species (the Quino checkerspot butterfly) and to notify the public of several minor design and alignment changes to avoid or minimize Corps jurisdictional impacts and conform to existing topography. A public hearing was held by Caltrans/FHWA on May 12, 1999, relative to the Supplemental DEIS. The FEIS was signed by the FHWA on January 21, 2000, and circulated for public review from February 8, 2000, to March 20, 2000. On June 9, 2000, the FHWA signed the Record of Decision.

The Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program at 33 CFR 320-330 requires compliance with the NEPA, the EPA's 404(b)(1) Guidelines, and a public interest evaluation. Accordingly, for purposes of the Army Corps of Engineers' compliance with the NEPA and to prevent duplication of effort, the Army Corps of Engineers intends to adopt all or a portion of the FEIS. However, we have determined further analysis is necessary to document compliance with our public interest requirements and the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. We will be distributing a notice to the public of the receipt of an application by the Caltrans and solicit comments on the proposed project. An Environmental Assessment will be prepared to address the additional analysis and comments received in response to the Public Notice.

Comments concerning the Caltrans' proposed project must be provided in response to the Los Angeles District Public Notice of the project application, which we anticipate, will be circulated on February 16, 2001. This Public Notice can be obtained by submitting a written request to Mr. Terry Dean at the above listed address or by accessing our Internet web page at http://www.spl.usace.army.mil.

As a result of section 605 of the legislation of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) Public Law 106-53, August 17, 1999, as amended by WRDA 2000, Title VI—Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and State of South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Act, the Secretary of the Army is required to transfer approximately 92,000 acres of land and recreation areas at Lake Oahe, Lake Sharpe, Lewis & Clark Lake, and Lake Francis Case in South Dakota to the Department of Game, Fish & Parks of the State of South Dakota (SDGFP) for fish and wildlife purposes, or recreation uses, in perpetuity. These lands are located above the top of the exclusive flood pool levels of the Oahe, Big Bend, Fort Randall and Gavin's Point projects; were acquired by the Secretary for the implementation of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin program; are located outside the external boundaries of a reservation of an Indian Tribe; and are located within the State of South Dakota. Section 605 also states that the following provisions of law shall apply to land transferred to the State: (1) The National Historic Preservation Act, (2) the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, and (3) the Native American Graves Protection Act and Repatriation Act.

Approximately 54 recreation areas will be transferred. WRDA 2000 requires transfer of recreation areas by January 1, 2002. The legislation also requires 42,000 acres of land to be transferred to the Department of the Interior to be held in trust for two Indian Tribes (Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe). That action is categorically excluded from preparation of a NEPA document and will occur separately.

1. Because the Corps of Engineers has no discretion with respect to transfer of the land, no reasonable alternatives to the transfer of land to the State of South Dakota exist as a result of the legislation associated with the action (WRDA, Public Law 106-53). The alternatives that will be discussed are (1) the transfer of all required lands to the State of South Dakota, and (2) the No Action alternative. NEPA requires consideration of the “No Action” alternative, which in this case would be no transfer (continued management by the Corps of Engineers). Implementation of the “No Action” alternative is not within the authority of the Corps. To rescind Public Law 106-53, congressional action would be required. Since there is no agency decision-making associated with this action, the EIS is being prepared for the purposes of public disclosure.

2. Nothing in the Title VI (title) diminishes or affects (a) any water right of an Indian Tribe; (b) any other right of an Indian Tribe, except as specifically provided in another provision of the title; (c) treaty right that is in effect on the date of enactment of this Act; (d) any external boundary of an Indian reservation of an Indian Tribe; (e) any authority of the State of South Dakota that relates to the protection, regulation, or management of fish, terrestrial wildlife, and cultural and archaeological resources, except as specifically provided in the title; or (f) any authority of the Secretary, the Secretary of the Interior, or the head of any other Federal agency under a law in effect on the date of enactment of the Act, including the National Historic Preservation Act, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Act entitled “An Act for the protection of the bald eagle” approved June 8, 1940, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the “Clean Water Act”), the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

3. Public scoping meeting will be held on the following dates at the following locations: March 12, 2001 at 5PM at the Cedar Shore Resort, 1500 Shoreline Drive in Oacoma, SD; March 13, 2001 at the Wrangler Motor Inn, 800 West Grand Crossing in Mobridge, SD; March 14, 2001 at the Best Western Ramkota Hotel, 920 West Sioux Avenue in Pierre, SD; and March 15, 2001 at Dave's at the Best Western, 1607 East Hwy 50 in Yankton, SD. An Open House session will be held at 5 PM, with the formal session beginning at 7 PM.

Results from the public scoping meeting(s) with the District and Federal, State and local agency coordination will be addressed in the DEIS. Parties interested in receiving notices of public scoping meeting(s) or copies of the Scoping Document should contact Patsy Freeman at the above address.

4. Federal agencies interested in participating as a Cooperating Agency are requested to submit a letter of intent to Colonel Mark E. Tillotson, District Engineer, at the above address.

5. Estimated Date of DEIS availability: July 2001.

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

On February 6, 2001, the Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) received an application from OERI to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada. OERI is an Oklahoma corporation created for the purposes of marketing electricity, natural gas and other energy commodities throughout North America. OERI will purchase the power to be exported from electric utilities and Federal power marketing agencies in the United States.

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

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

Comments on the OERI application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with Docket EA-232. Additional copies are to be filed directly with Michael J. Foster, Esq., Contract Administration, Enogex Inc., 600 Central Park Two, 515 Central Park Drive, Oklahoma City, OK 73105.

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

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

Title II of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), provides that no new baseload electric powerplant may be constructed or operated without the capability to use coal or another alternate fuel as a primary energy source. In order to meet the requirement of coal capability, the owner or operator of such facilities proposing to use natural gas or petroleum as its primary energy source shall certify, pursuant to FUA section 201(d), to the Secretary of Energy prior to construction, or prior to operation as a base load powerplant, that such powerplant has the capability to use coal or another alternate fuel. Such certification establishes compliance with section 201(a) as of the date filed with the Department of Energy. The Secretary is required to publish a notice in the Federal Register that a certification has been filed. The following owners/operators of the proposed new baseload powerplants have filed a self-certification in acccordance with section 201(d).

Owner: Wise County Power Company, LLC (C&E 01-44).

Operator: Wise County Power Company, LLC.

Location: Wise County, Texas.

Plant Configuration: Combined-cycle.

Capacity: 700 MW.

Fuel: Natural gas.

Purchasing Entities: Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT).

In-service Date: January 1, 2003.

Owner: Panda Gila River, L.P.(C&E 01-45).

Operator: Panda Gila River, L.P.

Location: Gila Bend, Arizona.

Plant Configuration: Combined-cycle.

Capacity: 2300 MW.

Fuel: Natural gas.

Purchasing Entities: To be determined.

In-service Date: March 2003.

Owner: CPV Atlantic, Ltd (C&E 01-46).

Operator: CPV Atlantic, Ltd.

Location: St. Lucie County, Florida.

Plant Configuration: Combined-cycle.

Capacity: 250 MW.

Fuel: Natural gas.

Purchasing Entities: Sold into Florida's wholesale power market.

In-service Date: 4th quarter of 2003 or the 1st quarter of 2004.

Owner: Baytown Energy Center, LP (C&E 01-47).

Operator: Calpine Central, L.P.

Location: Chambers County, Texas.

Plant Configuration: Combined-cycle.

Capacity: 722 MW.

Fuel: Natural gas.

Purchasing Entities: 290 MW-340 MW to Bayer; excess sold into the ERCOT wholesale market.

In-service Date: January 2004.

Affected Entities: Parties potentially affected by this action are manufacturers of light duty vehicles and light duty trucks.

Title: Regulations for A Voluntary Emissions Standards Program Applicable to Manufacturers of Light-Duty Vehicles and Trucks Beginning in Model Year 1997, OMB 2060-0345, Expiration date 01/31/01.

Abstract: The information collection will be conducted to support averaging, banking, and trading provisions included in the National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program. These averaging, banking, and trading provisions will give the automobile manufacturers a measure of flexibility in meeting the fleet average non-methane organic gas (NMOG) standards and the five-percent cap on Tier 1 vehicles and transitional low emission vehicles (TLEVs) in the ozone transport region (OTR). EPA will use the reported data to calculate credits and debits and otherwise ensure compliance with the applicable production levels and emissions standards. When a manufacturer has opted into the Voluntary National LEV program, reporting will be mandatory.

Manufacturers would submit information regarding the annual sales, calculation, generation, and usage of emission credits in an annual report. In addition, upon transferring credits to another manufacturer, the manufacturer would submit this information along with their annual report. This information will be submitted to EPA in annual reports and will involve approximately 25 respondents at a total annual cost of about $318,995.

EPA currently has in place an ICR and clearance for annual sales/production reporting for light-duty vehicles and trucks. This ICR reflects additional requirements (beyond the annual sales/production reporting requirement) to collate the annual sales/production data, and implement the credit calculation program. In the future, this ICR will be integrated with ICR 783.39, (Reporting and Recordingkeeping Requirements for Motor Vehicle Certification under the Proposed Tier 2 Rule), as part of the consolidation under the certification and fuel program reporting requirements.

The information collection activity complies with the guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.6 except for the following:

First, to provide EPA with a mechanism for auditing the accuracy of these required reports, EPA will require pertinent production information to be maintained and kept for eight model years. The eight-year requirement arises from the phase-in periods and the fact that credits have a four-model year lifetime. EPA enforcement action regarding the credit program could require documentation justifying credit or debit generation from the beginning of the phase-in and/or four-year credit lifetime period. Pertinent production information includes, but is not limited to, the number of vehicles or trucks sold in each averaging set, the EPA engine family, assembly plant, VIN number, and the NMOG standard to which the vehicle or truck is certified. Pertinent information, whether kept by the manufacturer or by a contractor, is subject to auditing by EPA. Consequently, EPA officials will require voluntary entry and access to facilities.

The EPA would like to solicit comments to:

(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

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

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

Burden Statement: The estimated annual burden attributed to the collection in this ICR is 241.3 hours for each of the 25 potential respondents. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Parties potentially affected by this action are manufacturers of light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 25.

Frequency of Response: Annually.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden Per Respondent: 241.3.

Estimated Total Annualized Cost Burden Per Respondent: $12,759.80.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the addresses listed above. Please refer to EPA ICR No. 1761.02 and OMB Control No. 2060-0345 in any correspondence.

Eligible Entities: State, local, multi-state, and tribal agencies actively involved with transportation, air quality, and/or climate change issues. Such entities must be interested in undertaking a project with the purpose of reducing transportation sector emissions through voluntary efforts to decrease VMT and/or transportation-related emissions. Eligible entities must already be engaged in some form of partnership with other entities in the community (e.g., non-governmental organizations, departments of transportation, departments of energy, other state organizations, metropolitan planning organizations, councils of government, planning departments, private companies and business associations, public transit agencies, universities, public health organizations, state-wide or community-based non-profit organizations, and so forth) related to transportation and air quality/climate change issues or some aspect of transportation and/or air quality planning. EPA would like to emphasize that it is very interested in receiving applications from tribal governments, which have historically not have had high representation among the recipients of OTAQ grants. In addition, EPA particularly desires that multi-state organizations apply, in the expectation that their proposals would have a high potential for replication among the members of such organizations.

Title: “Clean Air Transportation Communities: Innovative Projects to Improve Air Quality and Reduce Greenhouse Gases: Solicitation Notice”

Background: EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) recognizes that achieving future reductions in transportation-related emissions will require more attention to limiting VMT, through such means as enhancing transportation system efficiency and the availability of transportation alternatives, promoting smart growth initiatives and brownfield/infill redevelopment, and addressing travel behavior. It is worth mentioning that efforts to reduce VMT also yield an array of other potential benefits, including congestion mitigation, more liveable communities, reduced demand for additional construction of roadways (with the associated social, economic, and environmental consequences), reduced water pollution, waste reduction, and improved quality of life as a result of spending less time (and money) on travel.

Historically, OTAQ (formerly the Office of Mobile Sources) has encouraged the adoption of technological means of reducing criteria pollutants and toxic emissions from vehicles, with great success. Per-mile emissions of gaseous criteria pollutants from new vehicles are already reduced over 90% compared to their predecessors before the era of emission controls. However, as of 1999, 62 million people in the United States still lived in areas that do not meet the health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards for at least one of six major air pollutants. And Americans are, on average, driving more miles every year.

Moreover, with the growing interest in achieving reductions in GHG emissions, the issue of reducing all types of pollutant emissions is even more problematic. The technological measures that have lead to reductions in a vehicle's tailpipe emissions in the past have done little to reduce GHG emissions. The trend toward decreasing average fuel economy in recent years translates directly into increasing GHG emissions on a per-mile basis. Combined with the steady growth in VMT, this means that, while most criteria pollutant emissions have trended downwards in recent years, GHG emissions have been rising steadily.

EPA, its state counterparts, and local governments are increasingly examining travel choice and smart growth strategies as they affect VMT and transportation-related emissions. In this context, OTAQ is committed to encouraging voluntary efforts as an important part of its approach. Voluntary efforts to improve the efficiency of the U.S. transportation system and expand the availability of environmentally-sensitive transportation alternatives are essential elements in helping communities balance their charges to protect the natural environment, human health, economic vitality, and quality of life. This solicitation advances OTAQ's support of such voluntary efforts.

EPA also recognizes that, despite huge gains in vehicle-related emission reductions over the past two decades, there is still the potential to especially reduce GHG emissions with technology that would improve the fuel economy of vehicles, and perhaps further reduce GHG emissions through the use of alternative fuels.

However, consumers have in the past typically ranked fuel economy relatively low, when compared to other attributes they look for when acquiring a vehicle. Consequently, automobile manufacturers have applied recent technological advances to increased vehicle size, power, and luxury, rather than to improved fuel economy. In order to encourage the market penetration of cleaner, more fuel-efficient vehicles and cleaner renewable fuels, EPA desires to help stakeholders promote and expand the use of advanced vehicle and fuel technologies, as they become available. A comprehensive program which combines improved vehicle choices, reduced emissions, and reduced VMT can provide the information and resources that the pu blic needs to make more informed transportation choices.

EPA recognizes that innovations in reducing VMT and encouraging the use of cleaner vehicles and cleaner, renewable fuels have been implemented across the United States in recent years. It is increasingly clear that the most successful of these have not been one-time, stand-alone efforts, but rather have been conceived to fit into a larger, coordinated strategy for transportation-related emissions reduction over a multi-year scheme. Such programs have typically been those most successful in productively capitalizing on partnerships among different types of organizations sharing a common interest in VMT and/or emission reduction, and in leveraging resources through these partnerships and other funding sources. Therefore, EPA desires to help meet its stakeholders' need for seed money and technical assistance to help them implement more multifaceted approaches to VMT reduction and the promotion of cleaner vehicles and fuels that have a higher potential for long-term success.

Therefore, OTAQ seeks to support up to ten pilot projects through seed funding, ranging from $50,000 to $300,000 per award (depending upon the project), and other assistance. OTAQ intends that the assistance award will help communities identify and launch suites of innovative and practical transportation solutions that both reduce impacts on the environment and enhance mobility and access. Through this Notice, OTAQ seeks proposals for pilot projects in support of voluntary, consensus-supported activities to improve community designs, spur transportation innovations, develop and implement incentives, make more efficient use of transportation systems, promote use of cleaner fuels and vehicles, create effective partnerships, support the measurement of results, and recognize exemplary projects. OTAQ encourages applicants to explore comprehensive approaches that combine VMT reduction, smart growth, cleaner vehicles, and clean renewable fuels, thereby providing enhanced opportunities for emissions reductions. In order to encourage the most successful approaches to accomplish these objectives, OTAQ is seeking proposals that represent strong transportation/air quality partnerships among a broad range of perspectives.

Because this sort of funding is made available from EPA under the authority of section 103(b)(3) of the Clean Air Act, the Agency must assure that a project selected for funding meet two “threshold determinations” for funding; in this context:

• It must address the causes, effects, extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of air pollution—in short, it will act to control pollution.

• It must consist of such activities as research, investigations, experiments, demonstrations, and similar activities that are within the scope of Section 103(b)(3) of the Clean Air Act. Therefore, the proposals should focus on the learning opportunities they present for future pollution control efforts, rather than on simply addressing pollution problems through well-established methods.

Examples of activities that OTAQ is interested in funding are outlined in Section IV., “Program Emphasis.”

In today's notice, OTAQ is soliciting proposals to encourage innovations in improving air quality (with regard to both criteria pollutants and GHG) in the U.S., by reducing VMT, promoting smart growth, and encouraging the use of cleaner vehicles and cleaner, renewable fuels. There are serious environmental implications in relying solely upon the “conventional” approach to transportation—typically, a single driver, in a vehicle that often is not highly fuel-efficient. Clearly, the very limited penetration of traditional alternatives to driving alone (transit, carpooling, and non-motorized modes) into American's travel choices suggests that more integrated and flexible alternatives need to be developed. Ultra-clean, highly fuel-efficient vehicles are beginning to become more available; their use needs to be encouraged. The impact of community design and location on livability and environmental concerns is receiving enhanced visibility with the rise of smart growth initiatives. OTAQ is especially interested in proposals that implement pilot projects allowing the replication of promising practices, methodologies, technologies, incentives, and applications pertinent to these areas. It is looking for the creative, groundbreaking approaches that stakeholders are generating, and wants to see how they actually perform for the lessons that can be gained for future efforts.

Moreover, OTAQ has especially committed in this competition to support community-level efforts that employ a suite of tools for achieving reductions in transportation-related emissions and VMT, to stimulate and reward planning that incorporates individual projects into a coordinated, broader-focus strategy. An example might be a program that integrates a Commuter Choice strategy with the construction of bicycle commuter centers (secure parking, rental, and repair) at transit hubs; or a “Green Fleets”-type program that makes low-emission vehicles and/or vehicles with high fuel economy ratings available for car-sharing, perhaps focusing upon institutions that have a “campus” layout; or a brownfields/infill project that incorporates transit-oriented development programs and practices. Proposals that make an effort to logically integrate various VMT- and emission-reduction program components (both proposed and existing), rather than presenting a piecemeal approach, will receive higher priority.

An important aspect of the evaluation of proposals will be an assessment of their potential effectiveness in bringing these innovations into significant, replicable pilot projects relative to the dollar amount of the grant. Also important in the evaluation will be the degree of innovation, estimated amount of environmental benefit, and apparent resources, capability, and commitment to succeed. Effective leveraging of other sources of available funding will count favorably in the evaluation process. Examples of relevant sources of potential leveraging funds include the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program, the Transportation and Community and Systems Preservation (TCSP) program, the Federal Transit Administration's “New Starts” program (which supports mass transit projects), the U.S. Department of Energy's “Clean Cities” program (which promotes alternative fuel vehicles; see their website at www.ccities.doe.gov), the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives' “Green Fleets” program (see their website at www.greenfleets.org), or other state and local funding sources (e.g., HOV lane programs). Special attention should be provided to the details of pilot implementation and the mechanisms proposed to enable broad-scale replication. OTAQ also places a high priority on proposals that indicate clearly how they will estimate and count the tons of emissions reduced as a result of their project.

Interested persons can obtain copies of this solicitation at no charge by accessing “What's New?” on the OTAQ Website at “www.epa.gov/otaq” or “www.epa.gov/otaq/whatsnew.htm”.

In order to efficiently manage the selection process, the Office of Transportation and Air Quality requests that an informal “Intent to Apply” within 30 days of the publication of this notice. (Please provide project title or subject and email address). An “Intent to Apply” simply states in the form of e-mail, phone, or fax that your organization intends to submit a proposal to be received by the deadline. Submitting an “Intent to Apply” does not commit an organization to submit a final proposal. The “Intent to Apply” is an optional submission; those not submitting an “Intent to Apply” may still apply by the deadline.

The deadline for submitting completed final proposals (original and six copies, plus one fully-completed Application for Federal Assistance, forms SF 424 and 424A) is Tuesday, April 24. The Office of Transportation and Air Quality expects to complete the Evaluation/Selection process in May, 2001.

While cooperative agreements with federal agencies are available to a range of governmental and non-profit organizations, for the purposes of this solicitation, proposals may only be accepted from state, local, multi-state, or tribal agencies. EPA strongly encourages applicants to incorporate partnerships with a broad range of agencies and organizations. It will give priority to proposals from agencies actively partnering with organizations showing a diversity of perspectives (e.g., environmental justice, community development, land use/smart growth, etc.).

EPA encourages private sector, not-for profit, and public health organizations that provide leadership in meeting national environmental objectives by effecting substantial reductions in vehicle emissions and VMT to enter into a partnership with an eligible entity. To illustrate, some examples of private sector organizations that might seek partnerships with qualifying agencies to make a proposal include (but are not limited to) local homebuilders' associations pursuing smart growth strategies, car insurance companies offering pay-as-you-drive insurance, car rental companies offering low-emission and/or car sharing products, automobile manufacturing companies and dealers offering per-mile car leases or special incentives for cleaner cars and those using clean renewable fuels, and companies with innovative ideas for reducing commuting via the single-occupant vehicle and encouraging infill and mixed-use development. Likewise, eligible agencies are encouraged to seek out partnerships with these sorts of organizations. Note that applicants must ensure that any financial transactions with project partners comply with applicable EPA assistance regulations relating to procurement contracts, subgrants, and allowable costs contained in 40 CFR Part 31 (in the case of state or local agencies and tribes) and 40 CFR Part 30 (in the case of nonprofit multi state organizations).

OTAQ wishes to particularly encourage the participation of tribal agencies because it desires to improve its communication and coordination with tribal agencies. It would like to increase awareness of opportunities for tribal agencies to access EPA assistance in achieving their air quality goals. Likewise, through substantial involvement in the assisted activity, OTAQ will have an opportunity to gain better understanding of tribal air management issues and strategies, and their context.

Regarding multi-state organizations, OTAQ believes that such entities, which may represent state, local, regional, or tribal organizations themselves, have unique opportunities for the placement, replication, and dissemination of promising approaches to pollution control. OTAQ wishes to encourage such organizations to step up to the challenge of developing and promoting innovative pilot projects for the control of air pollution through cleaner vehicles and fuels and the reduction of VMT.

Approximately $750,000 is anticipated to be available in fiscal 2001 for this competition.

Subject to the availability of funds, EPA plans to fund as many high-quality projects as possible. The Agency may exercise its discretion to fund a mix of large and small projects.

No. However, the Agency will consider voluntary financial or in kind commitments of resources as an evaluation factor which maximizes the effective use of EPA seed money.

Yes, provided the recipient follows applicable procurement and subgrant procedures. Please note that EPA will not be a party to these transactions and approval of a funding proposal does not relieve recipients of their obligations to compete for service contracts, conduct cost and price analyses, and use subgrants only for financial assistance purposes in accordance with Section .210 of OMB Circular A-133.

This program is designed to provide seed money for transportation and air quality projects specifically to spur innovations in transportation to reduce VMT and vehicular emissions, and thereby positively impact air quality and/or climate change. EPA is particularly interested in proposals designed to implement pilot projects which yield measurable reductions in VMT, CO2, and/or criteria air pollutants and other GHG, and that promote the replication of promising practices, methodologies, technologies, incentives, and applications. EPA considers that the element of innovation lies not solely in the program components proposed, but in how they fit into a comprehensive strategy.

Innovative approaches of particular interest to OTAQ encourage community design that promotes alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle mode of travel, reduce the need to travel, increase use of higher occupancy modes of travel, and promote low- or non-polluting means of travel. As mentioned above, proposals should show how the project will be part of a coordinated plan for VMT and/or transportation-related emissions reduction. Elements that EPA is especially interested in seeing in proposals include the following (although strong proposals that contain elements other than these will certainly be considered):

• Smart Growth/Development Patterns That Minimize VMT—support state, local, multi-state, and tribal efforts to define best practices, implement effective incentives, and design livable communities that would provide better access to jobs, entertainment, and services while reducing miles driven. (To learn more about EPA's land use guidance and policy, access the web page at www.epa.gov/otaq/traq/traqsusd.htm).

• “Green Fleets”—type program—support adoption of energy conservation and VMT reduction strategies for light-duty fleets and freight distribution systems; e.g., fleets comprised of cleaner (low-emission) vehicles and/or vehicles with higher fuel economy or that utilize cleaner, renewable fuels. (To learn more about the Green Fleets program developed by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, see their website at www.greenfleets.org; “Green Your Fleet” is a downloadable document that gives a basic overview of their program.)

• Commuter Choice—support implementation of employer provided benefits for increased parking cashout, telework, compressed work schedule, carpooling, transit, bus and vanpool ridership, bicycling and pedestrian commuting. (To be considered a Commuter Choice program for the purposes of this solicitation, a project must meet EPA's six conditions for “leaders” described in the Commuter Choice program announcement on its website at: www.epa.gov/otaq/traq/comchoic/ccweb.htm; select the document “Commuter Choice Leadership Initiative.” EPA's commitments to its partners are also described therein.)

• Clean Vehicles—incentives for the purchase by individuals of vehicles designed to emit lower lifetime emissions of GHG and criteria pollutants. (Applicants may wish to review EPA within-class vehicle rankings developed to assist consumers with choosing the cleanest and most fuel efficient vehicle that meets individual needs at: www.epa.gov/autoemissions.)

In addition to the examples of possible program elements mentioned above, an applicant might want to consider such elements as:

• Improvements to “connecting” activities at campus institutions (e.g., hospitals and universities)—initiatives focused upon reducing VMT and/or emissions at organizations having various buildings or facilities located over a limited geographic distance that require transportation, teleconferencing, video conferencing, telecommuting or other “connecting” activities as a major component of conducting business (may address movement within the campus area, movement on/off the campus area, or both). This is a high-priority area for innovation.

• Youth demonstration projects to mobilize the implementation of youth-oriented tools. Examples of previously funded projects that engage youth, especially pre-drivers, in transportation/air quality/climate issues include Let Kids Lead Starter Guide (see the website www.letkidslead.org), Going Places, Making Choices Curriculum (see the website www.fourhcouncil.edu/ycc/gpmc), the Cleaner Cars Module for driver's education, and projects funded through the Mobile Sources Outreach Assistance Competition.

• Real time casual carpool ride matching.

• Pay-as-you-drive car leases.

• Pay-as-you-drive automobile insurance.

• Automobile insurance incentives for driving cleaner vehicles and/or vehicles having higher fuel economy or that utilize cleaner, renewable fuels.

• HOV-lane access for ultra-clean vehicles and/or those having high fuel economy or that utilize cleaner, renewable fuels.

Each eligible proposal (section VIII.R., below, summarizes basic requirements for eligibility) will be evaluated according the criteria set forth below. Proposals which are best able to directly and explicitly address the primary criteria will have a greater likelihood of being selected for award in this assistance competition. Each proposal will be rated according to how well it addresses the criteria. Please note that projects that do not meet the threshold legal criteria for funding under Section 103(b)(3) of the Clean Air Act cannot be considered at all.

• Problem: States clearly the air quality, climate change, and/or transportation problem the proposal is trying to address in terms of the purpose/focus of this solicitation. Be sure to identify what specific types of emissions reductions are needed, and/or the need to reduce VMT.

• Approach: Demonstrates an innovative strategy to address environmental goals of improved air quality and/or reduced GHG production from the transportation sector through VMT reduction and use of cleaner vehicles and fuels, coordinated as part of a broad context of efforts to achieve these goals; providing a sound basis for encouraging positive transportation behavior change.

• Measurement/Effectiveness: Includes measure of program results; i.e., shows how the project will be evaluated by the applicant in terms of quantifiable reductions in CO2 emissions, and (if targeted in the problem statement) other pollutant emissions and/or VMT, whether by measurement or modeling, and indicates a significant reduction in tons of CO2 (and, if targeted, tons of other emissions and/or reductions in VMT). Note: Regardless of what other benefits are identified, all qualifying proposals must indicate that CO2 emissions will be reduced through implementation of the proposal, and must estimate tons reduced.

• Cost Effectiveness: Demonstrates that proposed transportation/air quality/climate change innovation is cost effective (i.e., indicates a relatively high amount of emissions reduction as compared to amount of the grant), including a prediction of emissions reduction from the pilot in a reasonable scenario.

• Partnering: Demonstrates how it will make use of an existing coalition or collaborative established to address transportation and air quality/climate change issues (indicate partners in this coalition), and describes how the partner(s) can provide a diversity of perspectives—each applicant must delineate how it and its partner(s) will allocate responsibility for the various aspects of the program to be funded. Applicants should make it clear that they—and their partners—have the skills, resources, previous performance, capability, and commitment to make the proposed project fully successful. Applicants must also demonstrate that any transfers of funding to project partners comply with EPA financial assistance regulations.

• Replicability: Demonstrates national or regional applicability (i.e., is designed to have a high potential for being adapted for use elsewhere, and to serve as a resource that will assist others planning similar endeavors; including lessons learned, productive types of contacts/collaborations to make, “roadmap” of the process, etc.).

• Integration/leveraging of funding: Maximizes the effective use of EPA's limited funding through integration with existing programs: this may include coordination with other OTAQ-funded efforts and activities, linkages with other funding programs, such as those mentioned in Section I.A. (“Overview”), or financial or in-kind contributions from non-federal sources.

• Budget: Exhibits clearly-stated and appropriate levels of funding; indicating where funds are allocated to provide for interested parties to get information on the project, including costs for materials reproduction.

• Action-orientation. Must be capable of generating reductions in CO, and, if targeted, other pollutants and/or VMT, as a direct result of the pilot program.

• Reasonable time frames. Timetables must reflect a realistic appreciation of the time required to properly conduct the indicated activity.

• Past Performance. The applicant's experience with effectively administering Federal financial assistance and successfully carrying out projects supported by EPA and other Federal agencies will be carefully considered. This may include the results of audits conducted by EPA's Office of Inspector General, other Federal agencies, or State, local or tribal oversight entities. Applicants are strongly encouraged to discuss their performance history and to provide the names of contacts for EPA to obtain additional information.

Moreover, every applicant should understand that EPA will consider the ramifications that the proposal may generate, and it wishes to ascertain whether each proposal shows consistency with EPA's broader mission beyond the realm of transportation-related emissions. That is, the proposed project should, for example, present no cross-media concerns, and should respect environmental justice considerations.

The EPA Evaluation Team will be chosen in such a way that it can address a full range of transportation/air quality/climate change matters. Each EPA Regional office will be given the opportunity to review those proposals generated by eligible organizations within that Region. The Evaluation Team will base its evaluation solely on the criteria referenced in this Notice. Completed evaluations will be referred to a Selection Committee representing OTAQ staff and senior managers and Regional representatives who are responsible for further consideration and final selection. Selected proposals will be submitted to EPA's grants office for final approval for award. Applicants will be notified promptly after this process concerning their proposal's status.

The proposal must contain a narrative, letters of commitment from partners, and EPA's federal assistance application forms (“Application for Federal Assistance and Budget Information,” SF 424 and SF 424A). (Please do not use binders or spiral binding for your submission.) The narrative, which should be approximately 7-8 pages in length, must explicitly address how the proposal meets each of the evaluation criteria. Again, in the course of describing how it meets the criteria, the narrative must include:

(1) A concise statement of the nature of the problem, project background, and objectives;

(2) A detailed project summary—description of specific actions to be undertaken, and the responsible organizations, including estimated time line for each task;

(3) The associated work products to be developed;

(4) An explanation of project benefits;

(5) An explanation of how project outcomes will be designed for replication in other communities;

(6) A detailed budget—clearly explain how funds will be used, including estimated cost for each task, and funds set aside for resources to promote replication;

(7) A detailed explanation of how the project shall be evaluated;

(8) The projected time frame for project from initiation through completion;

(9) Project contact(s) (must provide name, organization, phone, fax, and e-mail), and;

(10) A description of the roles of the applicant and partners.

Special attention should be provided to the details of pilot implementation and the mechanisms proposed to enable broad-scale replication of its innovations. This includes access to tools and information for interested parties seeking to replicate as appropriate and build upon the project's outcomes. This includes materials generated through the project, contact information, keys/barriers to success, a narrative or “roadmap” of the process, etc.

In addition to the narrative, the proposal should include a letter of commitment from each partner organization that briefly summarizes its roles and goals in the partnership. Again, please keep in mind that any contracts or subgrants awarded to partner organizations must comply with applicable regulations.

EPA financial assistance procedures require that the official and complete federal assistance application forms (“Application for Federal Assistance and Budget Information,” SF 424 and SF 424A) be submitted by all applicants with their proposals. For those in need of guidance in filling out these forms, an Application Kit for Federal Assistance (which includes the forms) can be obtained from EPA's Grants Administration Division at (202) 564-5305. These forms can also be downloaded from the following website: www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/#forms.

Funding does not expire at the end of Fiscal Year 2001. If a proposal with a two-year project period is submitted, OTAQ simply requires that the budget and cost estimate be designed to indicate what will be accomplished in each of the first and second years. However, the total amount of the grant does not change if the project period extends to two years.

Yes. However, more than one proposal may be submitted only if the proposals are for different projects.

Yes. Applicants awarded funding in previous competitions may submit new proposals to fund a different project. As mentioned previously, this program is designed to provide seed money to initiate new projects, or to add new dimensions to existing projects (e.g., new focus on youth, additional locations, innovative approaches, different constituencies). Awards will not be given to extend or supplement an ongoing program if the proposal adds nothing that is new in some significant way.

Yes. However, those proposals will be measured against the evaluation criteria described above.

These are two distinct competitions, though offered in fiscal year 2001 at approximately the same time. While they may share some goals, such as providing assistance to stakeholders wishing to implement innovative programs that reduce mobile source related emissions, they differ in important ways. While the Mobile Source Outreach Assistance Competition was originated with the expressed purpose of promoting outreach in the mobile source emissions arena, the scope of eligible projects is broader under this solicitation. However, this solicitation limits eligible applicants to state, local, tribal, and multi-state agencies involved with transportation, air quality, and/or climate change issues. Moreover, this competition requires that the applicant demonstrate how CO2 and, depending upon the problem identified, other emissions and/or VMT will be reduced, and an estimate of those reductions in VMT/tons of emissions through implementation. The demonstration and estimate are not required for the Mobile Source Outreach Assistance Competition.

Applicants to this competition may submit a proposal that includes a component that was submitted to the Mobile Source Outreach Assistance Competition. However, due to the differing nature of the requirements, it is unlikely that an exact duplication of a proposal submitted to one would be suitable to be submitted to the other.

A proposal will be determined to be ineligible if :

• It is not submitted by a state, local, tribal, or multi-state agency involved with transportation, air quality, or climate change issues, or;

• It does not satisfy the requirements for funding authorized under section 103 of the Clean Air Act (described in the “Background” section, above).

A proposal will be considered non responsive if:

• It does not address each criterion and each component outlined in Section VII.L., above, or;

• It lacks the completed forms “Application for Federal Assistance and Budget Information,” SF 424 and SF 424A, or;

• If hard copies of the proposal are received or postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service after the deadline.

No. Letters of recommendation or commendation will not be considered. However, letters from partners expressing their commitment to the proposed project will strengthen an application's standing; those documenting successful performance on Federal assistance projects will be given greater weight than letters which express only general support for the applicant.

Intents to Apply may take the form of email, fax or phone call to the Program Contact, Mary E. Walsh (address listed below; phone: (734) 214-4205; fax: (734) 214-4052; e-mail: walsh.mary@epa.gov. Include organization, contact, phone number, and project title/subject. Please submit informal Intents to Apply by Wednesday, March 14, 2001. (Remember, the Intent to Apply is not required and will have no bearing on the judging process, but we do request it for the benefit of our planning process.) Submission of an Intent to Apply or a final proposal does not guarantee funding.

Completed application packages must be postmarked or received via regular mail or express mail on or before midnight, Tuesday, April 24, 2001 (please provide original proposal + six copies—no binders or spiral binding, please!—plus one completed set of forms SF 424 and SF 424A, “Application for Federal Assistance and Budget Information”), addressed to: Mary E. Walsh (TRPD), US EPA Office Transportation and Air Quality, 2000 Traverwood Dr., Ann Arbor, MI 48105.

Proposals must be received or postmarked no later than midnight on April 24, 2001.

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,” “Regulations and Proposed Rules,” 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/.

To access a fact sheet which provides more detail on this registration, go to the Home Page for the Office of Pesticide Programs at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/, and select “fact sheet.”

2. In person. The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPP-30482B. 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 Hwy., 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.

In accordance with section 3(c)(2) of FIFRA, a copy of the approved label, the list of data references, the data and other scientific information used to support registration, except for material specifically protected by section 10 of FIFRA, are available for public inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, Arlington, VA (703) 305-5805. Requests for data must be made in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and must be addressed to the Freedom of Information Office (A-101), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such requests should: Identify the product name and registration number and specify the data or information desired.

A paper copy of the fact sheet, which provides more detail on this registration, may be obtained from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.

A conditional registration may be granted under section 3(c)(7)(C) of FIFRA for a new active ingredient where certain data are lacking, on condition that such data are received by the end of the conditional registration period and do not meet or exceed the risk criteria set forth in 40 CFR 154.7; that use of the pesticide during the conditional registration period will not cause unreasonable adverse effects; and that use of the pesticide is in the public interest. The Agency has considered the available data on the risks associated with the proposed use of Flucarbazone-Sodium, and information on social, economic, and environmental benefits to be derived from such use. Specifically, the Agency has considered the nature and its pattern of use, application methods and rates, and level and extent of potential exposure. Based on these reviews, the Agency was able to make basic health and safety determinations which show that use of Flucarbazone-Sodium during the period of conditional registration will not cause any unreasonable adverse effect on the environment, and that use of the pesticide is, in the public interest.

Consistent with section 3(c)(7)(C) of FIFRA, the Agency has determined that these conditional registrations are in the public interest. Use of the pesticides are of significance to the user community, and appropriate labeling, use directions, and other measures have been taken to ensure that use of the pesticides will not result in unreasonable adverse effects to man and the environment.

EPA published a notice in the Federal Register of October 20, 1999 (64 FR 56500) (FRL-6382-8), announcing that Bayer Corporation 8400 Hawthorne Rd., P.O. Box 4913, Kansas City, MO 64120, had submitted applications to conditionally register the pesticide products Flucarbazone-Sodium Technical Herbicide, Flucarbazone-Sodium 70% Water Dispersible Granular In Water Soluble Packets, and Flucarbazone-Sodium 70% Water Dispersible Granular Herbicide (EPA File Symbols 3125-LGG, 3125-LGU, and 3125-LGL), containing the active ingredient flucarbazone-sodium, 4,5-dihydro-3-methoxy-4-methyl-5-oxo-N-[[2-(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl]sulfonyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-carboxamide, sodium salt at 95.6%, 70%, and 70% respectively, an active ingredient not included in any previously registered products. The name of the products “Flucarbazone-Sodium” was subsequently changed to “Everest” prior to registration.

The applications submitted by Bayer Corporation were conditionally approved as Everest on September 29, 2000, for one technical and two end-use products, containing the active ingredient flucarbazone-sodium, 4,5-dihydro-3-methoxy-4-methyl-5-oxo-N-[[2-(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl]sulfonyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-carboxamide, sodium salt as listed below:

1. EPA Registration Number 3125-533). Product name: Everest Technical Herbicide. For formulation of herbicides for use on spring and winter wheat.

2. EPA Registration Number 3125-534). Product name: Everest 70% Water Dispersible Granular In Water Soluble Packets. For post emergence control of wild oat and green foxtail in spring and winter wheat.

3. EPA Registration Number 3125-535). Product name: Everest 70% Water Dispersible Granular Herbicide. For post emergence control of wild oat and green foxtail in spring and winter wheat.

Additional information about the NCC and NCC-related matters can be found on the NCC website located at: http://www.fcc.gov/wtb/publicsafety/ncc.html.

All principal campaign committees of candidates who participate in the Pennsylvania Special General and all other political committees that support candidates in the Special General shall file a 12-day Pre-General Report on May 3, 2001, with coverage dates from the close of the last report filed, or the day of the committee's first activity, whichever is later, through April 25, 2001; and a 30-day Post-General Report on June 14, 2001, with coverage dates from April 26 through June 4, 2001.

Committees filing monthly that support candidates in the Pennsylvania Special General should continue to file according to the non-election year monthly reporting schedule.

In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (the 1984 amendments) (Public Law 98-417), which authorized the approval of duplicate versions of drug products under an ANDA procedure. ANDA sponsors must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same strength and dosage form as the “listed drug,” which is a version of the drug that was previously approved. Sponsors of ANDA's do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA). The only clinical data required in an ANDA are data to show that the drug that is the subject of the ANDA is bioequivalent to the listed drug to which the ANDA refers.

The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” generally known as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are withdrawn from the list if the agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness, or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162). Under § 314.161(a)(2) (21 CFR 314.161(a)(2)) the agency must make a determination as to whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness if ANDA's that refer to the drug that was withdrawn are approved. Section 314.161(d) provides that if FDA determines that the listed drug was removed from sale for safety or effectiveness reasons, the agency will begin proceedings to withdraw approval of the ANDA's that refer to the drug that was withdrawn from sale.

FDA has received a letter, dated April 7, 2000, from Merck, holder of NDA 6-536 for bethanechol chloride 5-mg/mL injection and bethanechol chloride 5-, 10-, 25-, and 50-mg tablets, stating that Merck has withdrawn those products from sale. Danbury Pharmacal, Inc., Roberts Laboratories, Inc., Glenwood, Inc., and Sidmak Laboratories, Inc. (Sidmak), all hold approved ANDA's that refer to one or more of Merck's bethanechol chloride drug products. Merck sold its bethanechol chloride drug products under the trade name of Urecholine. In their April 7, 2000, letter, Merck also informed FDA that Merck has assigned the trademark Urecholine to Sidmak for use in the sale of Sidmak's bethanechol chloride drug products.

FDA has reviewed its records and, under § 314.161, has determined that bethanechol chloride 5-mg/mL injection and bethanechol chloride 5-, 10-, 25-, and 50-mg tablets were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. Accordingly, the agency will list Merck's bethanechol chloride 5-mg/mL injection and bethanechol chloride 5-, 10-, 25-, and 50-mg tablets in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” identifies, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. The approval status of the ANDA's that refer to bethanechol chloride 5-mg/mL injection and bethanechol chloride 5-, 10-, 25-, and 50-mg tablets is unaffected. ANDA's for bethanechol chloride 5-mg/mL injection and bethanechol chloride 5-, 10-, 25-, and 50-mg tablets may be approved by the agency.

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

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

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Mortgage Record Change.

OMB Control Number, if applicable: 2502-0422.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The Mortgage Record Change information is used by FHA-approved mortgages to comply with HUD requirements for reporting the sale of a mortgage between investors, 24 CFR 203.431, and/or the transfer of the mortgage servicing responsibility, 24 CFR 203.502, as appropriate. The information required is used to update HUD's Single Family Insurance System and other related systems. Current data is necessary to establish mortgage premium liability, forward annual premium mortgage data to the appropriate mortgagee/servicer, and maintain premium receivables and program data regarding investors/servicer activity. Without the required data, the premium collection/monitoring function would be severely impeded and program data would be unreliable. The annual expected amount for regular Monthly Insurance Premiums (Section 530) is $3.23 billion and $1.85 billion for Risk-based premiums. This information is essential because HUD does case level accounting in recording premium payments by mortgagees.

Agency form numbers, if applicable: Not applicable. Form HUD-92080 is now obsolete.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The number of respondents is approximately 9,100, the frequency of response is as required, and the volume per respondent is 20—20,000 annually depending on the size of their FHA portfolio.

Status of the proposed information collection: Reinstatement, with change, of previously approved collection for which approval has expired.

The Department has submitted the proposal for the collection of information, as described below, to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The Notice lists the following information: (1) The title of the information collection proposal; (2) the office of the agency to collect the information; (3) the OMB approval number, if applicable; (4) the description of the need for the information and its proposed use; (5) the agency form number, if applicable; (6) what members of the public will be affected by the proposal; (7) how frequently information submissions will be required; (8) an estimate of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information submission including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response; (9) whether the proposal is new, an extension, reinstatement, or revision of an information collection requirement; and (10) the name and telephone number of an agency official familiar with the proposal and of the OMB Desk Officer for the Department.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: This information collection covers application qualification and certification processes for participants in HUD-FHAs 203(k) Rehabilitation Mortgage insurance program.

OMB Approval Number: 2502-0527.

Form Numbers: HUD-92700 and HUD-9746-A.

Description of the Need for the Information and Its Proposed Use: This information collection covers application, qualification, and certification processes for participants in HUD-FHAs 203(k) Rehabilitation Mortgage Insurance program.

Respondents: Business or other for profit, Not-for-profit institutions, Federal Government.

Frequency of Submission: On occasion.

Reporting Burden:

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 319,450.

Status: Reinstatement, without change.

The Department has submitted the proposal for the collection of information, as described below, to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The Notice lists the following information: (1) The title of the information collection proposal; (2) the office of the agency to collect the information; (3) the OMB approval number, if applicable; (4) the description of the need for the information and its proposed use; (5) the agency form number, if applicable; (6) what members of the public will be affected by the proposal; (7) how frequently information submissions will be required; (8) an estimate of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information submission including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response; (9) whether the proposal is new, an extension, reinstatement, or revision of an information collection requirement; and (10) the name and telephone number of an agency official familiar with the proposal and of the OMB Desk officer for the Department.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Tenant Opportunities Program (TOP) Semi-Annual Report.

OMB Approval Number: 2577-0087.

Form Numbers: HUD-52370.

Description of the Need for the Information and Its Proposed Use: HUD announces funding for the Tenant Participation and Tenant Opportunities in Public Housing (TOP) inviting eligible applicants to submit an application for grant funding for this Program. Housing agencies consult with tenants, resident councils adopt written procedures, grant agreements are executed, and the HUD-52370 is submitted. HUD uses this information to evaluate the grantee's progress in carrying out the approved TOP Work Plan/Budget.

Respondents: State, Local or Tribal Government.

Frequency of Submission: Annually.

Reporting Burden:

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 3,832.

Status: Reinstatement, with change.

The Department has submitted the proposal for the collection of information, as described below, to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The Notice lists the following information: (1) The title of the information collection proposal; (2) the office of the agency to collect the information; (3) the OMB approval number, if applicable; (4) the description of the need for the information and its proposed use; (5) the agency form number, if applicable; (6) what members of the public will be affected by the proposal; (7) how frequently information submissions will be required; (8) an estimate of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information submission including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response; (9) whether the proposal is new, an extension, reinstatement, or revision of an information collection requirement; and (10) the name and telephone number of an agency official familiar with the proposal and of the OMB Desk Officer for the Department.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Economic Development and Supportive Services Program: Reporting Requirements.

OMB Approval Number: 2577-0211.

Form Numbers: None.

Description of the Need for the Information and Its Proposed Use: Under the Economic Development and Supportive Services Program (EDSS), HUD awarded grants to Housing Agencies (HAs) to provide economic development and supportive services to assist HA residents, the elderly and persons with disabilities to become economically self-sufficient and to live independently. This information collection requires HAs to submit an annual progress report, participant evaluation and assessment data and other information, regarding the effectiveness of the (EDSS) activities.

Respondents: State, Local or Tribal Government.

Frequency of Submission: Annually.

Reporting Burden:

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 1,792.

Status: Reinstatement, without change.

The Department has submitted the proposal for the collection of information, as described below, to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The Notice lists the following information: (1) The title of the information collection proposal; (2) the office of the agency to collect the information; (3) the OMB approval number, if applicable; (4) the description of the need for the information and its proposed use; (5) the agency form number, if applicable; (6) what members of the public will be affected by the proposal; (7) how frequently information submissions will be required; (8) an estimate of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information submission including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response; (9) whether the proposal is new, an extension, reinstatement, or revision of an information collection requirement; and (10) the name and telephone number of an agency official familiar with the proposal and of the OMB Desk Officer for the Department.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Description of Materials.

OMB Approval Number: 2502-0192.

Form Numbers: HUD-92005.

Description of the Need for the Information and Its Proposed Use: This information collection provides information on the materials used and assembly required of new single family home construction and improvements. HUD-FHA uses this information to estimate the value of the homes and compute the maximum mortgage amount for FHA insurance.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit, Federal Government.

Frequency of Submission: On occasion.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 25,000.

Status: Extension of a currently approved collection.

The Department has submitted the proposal for the collection of information, as described below, to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The Notice lists the following information: (1) The title of the information collection proposal; (2) the office of the agency to collect the information; (3) the OMB approval number, if applicable; (4) the description of the need for the information and its proposed use; (5) the agency form number, if applicable; (6) what members of the public will be affected by the proposal; (7) how frequently information submissions will be required; (8) an estimate of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information submission including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response; (9) whether the proposal is new, an extension, reinstatement, or revision of an information collection requirement; and (10) the name and telephone number of an agency official familiar with the proposal and of the OMB Desk Officer for the Department.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Adjustable Rate Mortgage (ARMS).

OMB Approval Number: 2502-0322.

Form Numbers: None.

Description of the Need for the Information and Its Proposed Use: The Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act of 1983 amended the National Housing Act to permit FHA to insure adjustable rate mortgages (ARMS). The terms of all ARMS insured by HUD-FHA are required to be fully disclosed as part of the loan approval process. Additionally, an annual disclosure is required to reflect the adjustment to the interest rate and monthly mortgage amount.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit, Federal Government.

Frequency of Submission: On occasion.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 7,000.

Status: Extension of a currently approved collection.

In accordance with NAWCA (Pub. L. 101-233, 103 Stat. 1968, December 13, 1989, as amended), the State-private-Federal Council meets to consider wetland acquisition, restoration, enhancement, and management projects for recommendation to, and final funding approval by, the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, established by the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715-715d, 715e, 715f-715g). Proposals require a minimum of 50 percent non-Federal matching funds.

Title: Office of Indian Royalty Assistance Customer Satisfaction Postcard.

OMB Control Number: 1010-0098.

Bureau Form Number: N/A.

Abstract: The Department of the Interior (DOI) is responsible for matters relevant to mineral resource development on Federal and Indian Lands and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) is responsible for managing the production of minerals from Federal and Indian Lands and the OCS; for collecting royalties from lessees who produce minerals; and for distributing the funds collected in accordance with applicable laws. The Secretary also has an Indian trust responsibility to manage Indian lands and seek advice and information from Indian beneficiaries. We perform the royalty management functions and assist the Secretary in carrying out DOI's Indian trust responsibility.

MMS's Office of Indian Royalty Assistance (OIRA) often resolves questions and issues related to individual Indian royalty payments. When an individual Indian mineral owner requests assistance from an OIRA office, we include a Customer Satisfaction Postcard, consisting of four questions, when responding to the owner's request to help us determine if our service was effective and to identify how we can improve our service.

Responses to this information collection are voluntary. No proprietary, confidential, or sensitive information is collected.

Frequency: On occasion.

Estimated Number and Description of Respondents: 200 Individual Indian mineral owners.

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden: 7 hours.

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-hour Cost” Burden: N/A.

Comments: The PRA provides that an agency shall not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires each agency * * * to provide notice * * * and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information * * *” Agencies must specifically solicit comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

To comply with the public consultation process, we published a 60-day Federal Register Notice on April 19, 2000 (65 FR 21007), with the required 60-day comment period soliciting comments on this information collection. No comments were received.

If you wish to comment in response to this notice, send your comments directly to the offices listed under the ADDRESSES section of this notice. OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collection but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, to ensure maximum consideration, OMB should receive public comments by March 23, 2001.

MMS Information Collection Clearance Officer: Jo Ann Lauterbach, telephone (202) 208-7744.

The draft and final environmental impact statement will be distributed to all known interested parties and appropriate agencies. Full public participation by federal, state, and local agencies as well as other concerned organizations and private citizens is invited throughout the preparation process of this document.

Biscayne National Park boundaries encompass approximately two-thirds of Biscayne Bay, protect a rare combination of terrestrial and undersea life, preserve a scenic subtropical setting and provide outstanding recreational opportunities. Proclaimed as Biscayne National Monument in 1968, the area was redesignated in 1980 as Biscayne National Park to protect both the historical and natural features. These features include the natural environment of Biscayne Bay, the subtropical marine ecosystem, populations of fish and wildlife, and submerged cultural resources. The environmental impact statement will evaluate a range of alternative methods to provide a diverse visitor experience while maximizing protection of resources and operational efficiency.

The responsible official for this environmental impact statement is Jerry Belson, Regional Director, National Park Service, Southeast Region, 100 Alabama Street, SW, 1924 Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. If you wish for us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

The Global Justice Information Network Advisory Committee was established pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463), as amended.

The Global Justice Information Network Advisory Committee (GAC) will act as the focal point for justice information systems integration activities in order to facilitate the coordination of technical, funding, and legislative strategies in support of the Administration's justice priorities.

The GAC will guide and monitor the development of the Global concept. It will advise the Attorney General, the President (through the Attorney General), and local, state, tribal, and federal policymakers in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches and advocate for strategies for accomplishing a Global Network capability.

The Committee will meet to address the Global Initiative, as described in Initiative A07 “Access America: Re-Engineering Through Information Technology.” This meeting will be open to the public, and registrations will then be accepted on a space available basis. Interested persons whose registrations have been accepted may be permitted to participate in the discussions at the discretion of the meeting chairman and with the approval of the Designated Federal Employee (DFE). Further information about this meeting can be obtained from Karen Sublett, DFE, at (202) 616-3463.