Commerce Opportunities On-Line (COOL) is a web-based software system that automates the vacancy announcement, application intake, application evaluation, and application referral processes, for positions in the Department of Commerce (DOC).

In the current employment environment qualified job applicants for federal positions are in great demand. The DOC is in direct competition with private industry for the same caliber of candidates with the requisite knowledge and skills to fulfill the mission of the DOC. Consequently, it is imperative that every available technology be employed if the DOC is to remain competitive and meet hiring goals. The information provided by a job applicant will assist the Human Resources Specialists and hiring managers in determining whether an applicant meets the basic qualification requirements and is best qualified for the position being filled. In addition, the electronic transmission will expedite the hiring process by reducing the time used in application evaluation, candidate referral and selection, and in the recruitment paperwork distribution/workflow process.

COOL will provide the DOC with a more user-friendly on-line employment application process and will enable the DOC to process hiring actions in a more efficient and timely manner. The on-line application will provide an electronic real time candidate list that will allow the DOC to review applications from applicants almost instantaneously. Given the immediate hiring needs of the DOC, time consumed in the mail distribution system or paper review of applications delays the decision-making process by several weeks. The implementation of the COOL electronic application will result in increased speed and accuracy in the employment process. It will also streamline labor and reduce costs.

The use of the COOL on-line application fully meets the intent of 5 U.S.C. 2301, which requires that Federal personnel management be implemented consistent with merit system principles.

Since the COOL on-line application will be used as an alternative form of employment application, the collection and use of the information requires Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval as outlined in Section 6.1 of the Delegated Examining Operations Handbook. The Handbook provides guidance to agencies under a delegated examining authority by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 1104.

Application information is collected electronically from the applicant through COOL. Applicants may contact the DOC web site on the Internet where they will find the COOL on-line application and can fill out and submit the form electronically while connected to the web site. Applicants who do not have access to a personal computer are directed to the servicing Human Resources Office for a paper version of the COOL announcement and application.

OMB Number: 0690-0019.

Type of Review: Regular collection.

Affected Public: Individuals or households and the Federal Government.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 32,832 respondents per year.

Estimated Time Per Response: It is estimated that, depending on the situation, it could take as little as 10 minutes or as long as two hours to complete the on-line application. This is determined by the nature of the position for which the applicant is applying, and whether this is the applicant's first application in COOL, or if he or she already has a resume completed in COOL, which automatically fills in approximately 75% of the application's fields. On average, the time to complete the on-line application is estimated to be 1 hour.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours: 32,832 hours per year.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost Burden: $820,800 per year.

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

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

The CACs on the African American Population, American Indian and Alaska Native Populations, the Asian Population, the Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Populations, and the Hispanic Population are composed of nine members each, appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. The Committees advise the Director, U.S. Census Bureau, and provide an organized and continuing channel of communication between the communities they represent and the Census Bureau on issues concerning race and ethnicity and on issues related to the 2010 Decennial Census, the American Community Survey (ACS), and related programs.

The CAC of Professional Associations is composed of 36 members, appointed by the Presidents of the American Economic Association, the American Statistical Association, the Population Association of America, and the Chairman of the Board of the American Marketing Association. The Committee advises the Director, U.S. Census Bureau, on the full range of Census Bureau programs and activities in relation to the areas of expertise.

The Decennial Census Advisory Committee is composed of a Chair, Vice Chair, and up to 40 member organizations, each appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. The Committee considers the goals of the decennial census and users' needs for information provided by that census. The Committee advises the Secretary of Commerce on policy, research, technological-related issues for the design of the 2010 decennial census, the ACS, and other related programs.

A brief period will be set aside for public comment. However, individuals with extensive statements for the record must submit them in writing to the Commerce Department official named above at least three working days prior to the meeting.

The meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Census Bureau Committee Liason Officer on (301) 457-2070, TDD (301) 457-2540.

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”), as amended, by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all references are made to the Department of Commerce's (“the Department's”) final regulations at 19 CFR Part 351 (2000).

On May 14, 1996, the Department published in the Federal Register an antidumping duty order on polyvinyl alcohol (“PVA”) from Taiwan. See 61 FR 24286. On May 16, 2000, the Department published a notice providing an opportunity to request an administrative review of this order for the period May 1, 1999, through April 30, 2000 (65 FR 31141). On May 31, 2000, we received a timely request for an administrative review from Chang Chun Petrochemical Co., Ltd. (“Chang Chun”). In addition, Chang Chun requested that the Department revoke the antidumping duty order with respect to it. On May 31, 2000, we received a timely request for an administrative review from the petitioner. On July 7, 2000, we published a notice of initiation of this review for Chang Chun (65 FR 41942).

On June 30, 2000, we issued an antidumping questionnaire to Chang Chun. Because the Department disregarded sales that failed the cost test in the last completed review for Chang Chun (at that time) (see Polyvinyl Alcohol from Taiwan: Final Results of Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 32024, 32025 (June 15, 1999) (hereafter “Second Administrative Review-PVA”)), the Department had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Chang Chun's sales of the foreign like product may have been made at prices below the cost of production (“COP”) as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated an investigation to determine whether Chang Chun made home market sales during the period of review (“POR”) at prices below its COP, and required Chang Chun to respond to the COP section of the questionnaire issued on June 30, 2000.

The Department received Chang Chun's response in August 2000. We issued a supplemental questionnaire to Chang Chun in October 2000. The response to this questionnaire was received in November 2000. On October 6, 2000, Chang Chun withdrew its request for revocation, in part, of the antidumping duty order on polyvinyl alcohol from Taiwan.

The product covered by this review is PVA. PVA is a dry, white to cream-colored, water-soluble synthetic polymer. This product consists of polyvinyl alcohols hydrolyzed in excess of 85 percent, whether or not mixed or diluted with defoamer or boric acid. Excluded from this review are PVAs covalently bonded with acetoacetylate, carboxylic acid, or sulfonic acid uniformly present on all polymer chains in a concentration equal to or greater than two mole percent, and PVAs covalently bonded with silane uniformly present on all polymer chains in a concentration equal to or greater than one-tenth of one mole percent. PVA in fiber form is not included in the scope of this review.

The merchandise under review is currently classifiable under subheading 3905.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope is dispositive.

The POR is May 1, 1999, through April 30, 2000.

To determine whether sales of the subject merchandise to the United States were made at prices below normal value, we compared the export price to normal value as described below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the export price of individual transactions to the monthly weighted-average price of sales of the foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade (see section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act).

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced by Chang Chun covered by the description in the “Scope of Review” section, above, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We compared U.S. sales to sales made in the home market within the contemporaneous window period, which extends from three months prior to the U.S. sale and until two months after the sale. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise made in the home market in the ordinary course of trade, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by Chang Chun in the following order: viscosity, hydrolysis, particle size, tackifier, defoamer, ash, color, volatiles, and visual impurities.

In accordance with sections 772(a) and (c) of the Act, we calculated an export price for all of Chang Chun's sales since the merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and because constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of the record. We calculated export price based on the packed, CIF or FOB prices to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight (including harbor construction taxes), and marine insurance in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating normal value (i.e., the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is five percent or more of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared Chang Chun's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to its volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.404(b). For Chang Chun, we determined that the quantity of foreign like product sold in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United States because Chang Chun had sales in its home market which were greater than five percent of its sales in the U.S. market. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based normal value on sales in Taiwan.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determined normal value based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (“LOT”) as the export price transaction. The normal value LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when normal value is based on constructed value, that of the sales from which we derive selling, general, and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses and profit. For export price, the LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from the exporter to the importer.

To determine whether normal value sales are at a different LOT than export price sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which normal value is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732-33 (November 19, 1997).

As in previous administrative reviews, Chang Chun reported one channel of distribution for its U.S. and home market sales (see Second Administrative Review—PVA, 64 FR 32024 (June 15, 1999); Notice of Final Results of Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Polyvinyl Alcohol from Taiwan, 65 FR 60615 (October 12, 2000) (hereafter “Third Administrative Review—PVA”)). Based on Chang Chun's submission of its reported selling functions, we found that the selling activities performed by Chang Chun in both the home market and the United States were similar. In both the home market and the U.S. market Chang Chun made sales directly to customers and provided no post sale services (e.g., typically limited to freight and delivery arrangements). Therefore, we determined that sales in both markets are at the same LOT and consequently no LOT adjustment is warranted. (See Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: PVA From Taiwan, 63 FR 32810, 32812 (June 16, 1998)).

As we stated in the “Case History” section, because we disregarded sales below the COP for Chang Chun in the last completed segment of the proceeding (at that time) (see Second Administrative Review—PVA, 64 FR 32024 (June 15, 1999)), we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Chang Chun's sales of the foreign like product under consideration for the determination of normal value in this review may have been made at prices below the COP, as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP investigation of sales by Chang Chun in the home market.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the weighted-average COP, by grade, based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication, general and administrative (“G&A”) expenses, and packing costs. We relied on Chang Chun's submitted COP for PVA. In addition, as we have done in the investigation and previous administrative reviews of this order, we adjusted the joint production costs between PVA and acetic acid using the relative sales value of each product calculated on the basis of a two-year period prior to the period of the less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) investigation (see January 30, 2001, preliminary results calculation memorandum and Third Administrative Review—PVA, 65 FR 60615 (October 12, 2000), and the accompanying Decision Memorandum at the “Margin Calculations” section).

Consistent with the prior reviews and investigation, we determined that Chang Chun purchased a major input (i.e., vinyl acetate monomer (“VAM”)) used in the production of PVA from an affiliated party (See Final Determination: Polyvinyl Alcohol from Taiwan, 61 FR 14064, 14071 at Comment 8 and 9 (March 29, 1996)). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.407(b), we applied the major input rule to determine the value of the VAM. Under the major input rule, we normally will determine the value of a major input purchased from an affiliated person based on the higher of: (1) the price paid by the exporter or producer to the affiliated person for the major input; (2) the amount usually reflected in sales of the major input in the market under consideration; or (3) the cost to the affiliated person of producing the major input. In this case, for the preliminary results, we used the affiliated person's COP, which was higher than the market price or the affiliate's transfer price (see, Chang Chun's August 2000 Section D response at page D-27, Exhibits D-2 and D-10, and Chang Chun's November 2000 supplemental response at pages supp-22 and 23). Consistent with 19 CFR 351.407(b), in the previous three reviews the Department used Chang Chun's affiliate's transfer price for VAM, which was the highest of the three values discussed above, for purposes of calculating the weight-average COP. For these preliminary results, we have accepted Chang Chun's valuation of VAM based on its affiliate's COP because it meets the requirements under 19 CFR 351.407(b), as noted above.

We compared the weighted-average COP, adjusted where appropriate, to the comparison market sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and whether such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. On a grade-specific basis, we compared the revised COPs to the comparison market prices, less any applicable movement charges, discounts, and direct and indirect selling expenses.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of the respondent's sales of a given product were made at prices below the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of the respondent's sales of a given product were made at prices below the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because such sales were found to be made within an extended period of time in “substantial quantities,” in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and because the below-cost sales of the product were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Based on the COP test, we excluded from our analysis certain comparison-market sales of PVA products.

We calculated normal value based on packed, FOB or delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Taiwan. We made adjustments to the starting price for returns, where appropriate. We also made deductions, where appropriate, for inland freight (inclusive of inland insurance) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411, as well as for differences in circumstances-of-sale (“COS”) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS adjustments by deducting home market direct selling expenses (i.e., credit expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (i.e., credit expenses and bank charges). Finally, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with 773(a)(6) of the Act.

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the following margin exists for the period May 1, 1998 through April 30, 1999:

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Secretary will disclose to the parties to the proceeding the calculations performed in connection with this review, within five days after the date of publication of the preliminary results of this review. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication or the first business day thereafter.

Issues raised in hearings will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested parties and rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the respective case briefs, may be submitted not later than 30 days and 37 days, respectively, from the date of publication of these preliminary results. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties are also encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations and cases cited.

The Department will subsequently issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.

Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. The request should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed.

The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by this review and for future deposits of estimated duties. The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion of this review, the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the U.S. Customs Service.

If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review for which any importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results of this review are above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), in accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). For assessment purposes, we intend to calculate importer-specific assessment rates for the subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales examined.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this antidumping duty review for all shipments of PVA from Taiwan, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a) of the Act: (1) No cash deposits will be required for PVA from Taiwan that is produced by Chang Chun (unless the margin established for Chang Chun in the final results of this review is above de minimis); (2) for exporters not covered in this review, but covered in the LTFV investigation or prior reviews, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate from the LTFV investigation or the prior review; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original 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 continue to be 19.21 percent, the “All Others” rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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 administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213. Effective January 20, 2001, Bernard T. Carreau is fulfilling the duties of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

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, as amended (“the Act”), by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all references are made to the Department of Commerce's (“the Department's”) final regulations at 19 CFR Part 351 (April 2000).

On May 14, 1996, the Department published in the Federal Register an antidumping duty order on polyvinyl alcohol (“PVA”) from Japan (61 FR 24286). On May 16, 2000, the Department published in the Federal Register, a notice advising of the opportunity to request an administrative review of this order for the period May 1, 1999, through April 30, 2000 (65 FR 31141). On May 31, 2000, we received a request from the petitioner, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (“petitioner”), to conduct an administrative review of Kuraray. On June 1, 2000, we received a letter from the petitioner asking the Department to correct the period of review (“POR”) for this review, which was incorrectly stated in the petitioner's May 31, 2000, letter requesting initiation of the administrative review. On July 7, 2000, we published a notice of initiation of this review for Kuraray (65 FR 41942).

On July 5, 2000, the Department issued an antidumping questionnaire to Kuraray. Because the Department disregarded sales that failed the cost test in the last completed review for Kuraray (see Notice of Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Polyvinyl Alcohol from Japan, 65 FR 50182 (August 17, 2000)) (“Final Results of Polyvinyl Alcohol from Japan”), the Department had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Kuraray's sales of the foreign like product may have been made at prices below the cost of production (“COP”), as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated an investigation to determine whether Kuraray made home market sales during the POR at prices below its COP, and required Kuraray to respond to the COP section of the questionnaire issued in July 2000. The Department received Kuraray's responses to the questionnaire in August and September 2000.

We issued a supplemental questionnaire to Kuraray in November 2000. A response to the supplemental questionnaire was received in December 2000.

The product covered by this review is PVA. PVA is a dry, white to cream-colored, water-soluble synthetic polymer. This product consists of polyvinyl alcohols hydrolyzed in excess of 85 percent, whether or not mixed or diluted with defoamer or boric acid. Excluded from this review are PVAs covalently bonded with acetoacetylate, carboxylic acid, or sulfonic acid uniformly present on all polymer chains in a concentration equal to or greater than two mole percent, and PVAs covalently bonded with silane uniformly present on all polymer chains in a concentration equal to or greater than one-tenth of one mole percent. PVA in fiber form is not included in the scope of this review.

The merchandise under review is currently classifiable under subheading 3905.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope is dispositive.

The POR is May 1, 1999, through April 30, 2000.

To determine whether the respondent's sales of the subject merchandise to the United States were made at below normal value, we compared, where appropriate, the export price (“EP”) and constructed export price (“CEP”) to the normal value, as described below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared, where appropriate, the export prices and CEPs of individual transactions to the monthly weighted-average price of sales of the foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade (see section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act).

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced by Kuraray covered by the description in the “Scope of the Review” section, above, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We compared U.S. sales to sales made in the home market within the contemporaneous window period, which extends from three months prior to the U.S. sale until two months after the sale. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise made in the home market in the ordinary course of trade, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by the respondent in the following order: viscosity, hydrolysis, particle size, tackifier, defoamer, ash, color, volatiles, and visual impurities.

During the POR, Kuraray sold subject merchandise to the U.S. market (1) directly through its wholly-owned U.S. affiliate (Kuraray America Inc.); (2) through Kuraray America via its wholly-owned home market affiliate (Kuraray Trading Co., Ltd.) (hereafter referred to as Kuraray Trading); or (3) directly through unaffiliated Japanese trading companies.

We examined the facts surrounding the U.S. sales process for those U.S. sales which Kuraray made through its affiliates. Based on the evidence on the record, we found that Kuraray either sells the subject merchandise directly to its U.S. affiliate or through Kuraray Trading, which in turn sells the subject merchandise to the U.S. affiliate. For U.S. sales made only through its U.S. affiliate, the U.S. customer contacts Kuraray's U.S. affiliate, who then places the order with Kuraray. Kuraray arranges for delivery of the goods from Japan to the unaffiliated U.S. customer and issues its invoice to its U.S. affiliate for payment of the goods. Even though Kuraray's U.S. affiliate does not have a warehouse, it takes title to the goods once it pays Kuraray for the goods. The U.S. affiliate then issues its sales invoice to the unaffiliated U.S. customer and collects payment for the goods (see pages 11 and 12, and 16 through 18, and Exhibits A.3.a.-1, A.3.a.-2 and A.3.c, of the August 31, 2000, antidumping questionnaire response).

For U.S. sales made through Kuraray Trading to the U.S. affiliate, the U.S. affiliate still transmits the U.S. customer's order to Kuraray. However, Kuraray sells the goods to Kuraray Trading in Japan. Kuraray Trading then issues the U.S. affiliate its sales invoice. Kuraray Trading arranges for delivery of the goods from Japan to the unaffiliated U.S. customer, and the U.S. affiliate takes title to the goods once it pays Kuraray Trading for the goods. The U.S. affiliate also issues its sales invoice to the unaffiliated U.S. customer and collects payment for the goods (see pages 11 and 12, and 16 through 18, and Exhibits A.3.a.-1, A.3.a.-2 and A.3.c, of the August 31, 2000, antidumping questionnaire response). Therefore, based on the facts on this record, the Department preliminarily determines that these sales were made “in the United States” within the meaning of section 772(b) of the Act, and, thus, should be treated as CEP transactions (see AK Steel Corp., et al. v. United States, 226 F.3d 1361, 1374 (Fed. Cir 2000)).

For Kuraray's U.S. sales not made in the United States (i.e., not made through its U.S. affiliate), we calculated EP based on the reported packed FOB price between Kuraray and the unaffiliated trading company in Japan. We made deductions, as appropriate, from the starting price for foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of exportation, foreign warehousing expenses, foreign inland insurance, and foreign brokerage and handling expenses, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

For Kuraray's U.S. sales made in the United States through its U.S. affiliate, we based CEP on packed CIF or delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of exportation, foreign inland insurance, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, international freight, palletization charges, foreign warehousing expenses, U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, U.S. Customs duties (which include harbor maintenance and merchandise processing fees), and U.S. inland freight expenses (freight from port to the customer), in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted from CEP direct and indirect selling expenses that were associated with Kuraray's economic activities occurring in the United States. We also deducted from CEP an amount for profit, in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.

In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating normal value (i.e., the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is five percent or more of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared the respondent's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.404(b). We determined that the quantity of foreign like product sold in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United States because Kuraray made sales in its home market which were greater than five percent of its sales in the U.S. market. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based normal value on home market sales in Japan.

In accordance with section 773(a)(7) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determined normal value based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (“LOT”) as the EP or CEP transaction. The normal value LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when normal value is based on constructed value, that of the sales from which we derive selling, general and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses and profit. For export price, the LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from the exporter to the importer. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed export sale from the exporter to the affiliated importer.

To determine whether normal value sales are at a different LOT than export price or CEP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which normal value is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the normal value level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels between normal value and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust normal value under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).

We note that the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) has held that the Department's practice of determining LOT for CEP transactions after CEP deductions is an impermissible interpretation of section 772(d) of the Act. See, e.g., Borden, Inc., v. United States, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1221, 1241-42 (CIT 1998) (Borden); and Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States, 40 F. Supp. 2d 481 (CIT 1999). The Department believes, however, that its practice is in full compliance with the statute. On June 4, 1999, the CIT entered final judgement in Borden on the LOT issue. See, i.e., Borden, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 96-08-01970, Slip Op. 99-50 (CIT June 4, 1999). The government has filed an appeal of Borden, which is currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Consequently, the Department has continued to follow its normal practice of adjusting CEP under section 772(d) prior to starting a LOT analysis, as articulated by the Department's regulations at section 351.412.

In this case, Kuraray reported two customer categories (i.e., distributors and end users) and three channels of distribution (sales through unaffiliated distributors to end users, direct sales to end users, and sales through its affiliate to end users) for its home market sales. In its response, Kuraray claims that its sales to unaffiliated home market customers (i.e., end users and distributors) are at the same LOT as its sales made through affiliated customers because Kuraray provides the same selling services to its unaffiliated and affiliated customers. Specifically, Kuraray identified the following selling services to both types of customer: (1) Salespeople visits; (2) inventory maintenance; (3) after-sale service and technical advice; (4) advertising; (5) freight and delivery; and (6) handling of rejected merchandise. Based on our review of the record evidence, we agree with the respondent's claim that all home market sales are at the same LOT (see exhibit A.3.c. of the August 31, 2000, submission).

Kuraray had both EP and CEP sales in the U.S. market. Kuraray reported that its EP sales were made through one channel of distribution (i.e., sales through unaffiliated Japanese trading companies to U.S. end users). Kuraray also reported that its CEP sales were made through two channels of distribution (i.e., sales through its U.S. affiliate via its home market affiliate and sales through its U.S. affiliate only), which we have treated as one LOT because there is no apparent difference in the selling functions performed by Kuraray (see exhibit A.3.c. of the August 31, 2000, submission). In analyzing Kuraray's selling activities for its EP sales, we found that the EP sales involved basically the same selling functions associated with the home market LOT described above (i.e., inventory maintenance, freight and delivery, and handling of rejected merchandise). Therefore, based upon this information, we preliminarily determine that the LOT for all EP sales is the same as that in the home market.

For sales which we categorized as CEP sales, after making the appropriate deductions under section 772(d) of the Act, we found that the remaining expenses associated with selling activities performed by Kuraray are limited to general and administrative expenses that are reflected in the CEP price. In contrast, the normal value prices include selling expenses attributable to selling activities performed by Kuraray for the home market, such as sales support, freight and delivery functions (see exhibit A.3.c. of the August 31, 2000, submission). Accordingly, we have concluded that CEP is at a different LOT from the normal value LOT.

We then examined whether a LOT adjustment or CEP offset may be appropriate. In this case, Kuraray only sold at one LOT in the home market; therefore, there is no information available to determine a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which normal value is based and the comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, in accordance with the Department's normal methodology as described above (see Final Results Polyvinyl Alcohol from Japan; and Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico Final Results of Administrative Review, 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000), and accompanying Decision Memorandum at Comment 6). Further, we do not have information which would allow us to examine pricing patterns based on respondent's sales of other products, and there are no other respondents or other record information on which such an analysis could be based. Accordingly, because the data available do not provide an appropriate basis for making a LOT adjustment, but the LOT in the home market is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of the CEP, we made a CEP offset adjustment in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP investigation of sales made by Kuraray in the home market.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the weighted-average COP, by grade, based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication, general and administrative (“G&A”) expenses, and packing costs. We relied on the submitted COP data except for the following: (1) we adjusted Kuraray's reported per-unit costs to account for the overstatement of acetic acid amounts; and (2) we adjusted Kuraray's reported labor cost for one product where Kuraray failed to report a value (i.e., a positive value) (see Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum from Team to the File, dated January 30, 2001).

We compared the weighted-average COP to the comparison-market sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and whether such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. On a grade-specific basis, we compared the COP to the comparison-market prices, less any applicable movement charges, discounts, and direct and indirect selling expenses.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of the respondent's sales of a given product were made at prices below the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of the respondent's sales of a given product were made at prices below the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because such sales were found to be made within an extended period of time in “substantial quantities,” in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and because the below-cost sales of the product were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.

Based on this test, we excluded from our analysis certain comparison-market sales of PVA products that were made at below-COP prices (see Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum from Team to the File, dated January 30, 2001).

We calculated normal value based on both packed, FOB or delivered prices Kuraray charged to its unaffiliated purchasers in Japan and packed, FOB or delivered prices Kuraray Trading charged to its unaffiliated purchasers in Japan. We made adjustments to the starting price for discounts, where appropriate. We also made deductions, where appropriate, for inland freight (i.e., plant to warehouse and warehouse to customer), inland insurance and warehousing expenses, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act.

For all comparisons, we made a circumstance-of-sale adjustment, where appropriate, for differences in credit expenses, pursuant to section 773 (a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 C.F.R. 351.410(c).

For comparisons to CEP sales, we also deducted from normal value the lesser of comparison-market indirect selling expenses and indirect selling expenses deducted from CEP (the CEP offset), pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412(f).

For comparisons to both export price and CEP sales, we made adjustments to normal value for differences in packing expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act. We also made adjustments to normal value, where appropriate, for differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411.

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the following margin exists for the period May 1, 1999, through April 30, 2000:

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will conduct disclosure within five days after the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication or the first business day thereafter.

Issues raised in hearings will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested parties and rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the respective case briefs, may be submitted not later than 30 days and 37 days, respectively, from the date of publication of these preliminary results. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties are also encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations and cases cited.

The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.

Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. The request should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed.

The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by this review and for future deposits of estimated duties.

The Department shall determine and the Customs Service shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service upon completion of this review. For Kuraray, for duty assessment purposes, we intend to calculate importer-specific assessment rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the same sales of subject merchandise for each importer. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct the Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent).

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this antidumping duty administrative review for all shipments of PVA from Japan, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Kuraray will be the rate established in the final results; (2) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior 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 (3) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 77.49 percent, the “All Others” rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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 administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213. Effective January 20, 2001, Bernard T. Carreau is fulfilling the duties of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

The petition in this investigation was filed by the Magnesium Corporation of America (“Magcorp”), the United Steel Workers of America, Local 8319, and the United Steelworkers of America, Local 482 (the petitioners).

Since the publication of the notice of initiation in the Federal Register (see Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation: Pure Magnesium from Israel, 65 FR 68126 (November 14, 2000) (Initiation Notice)), the following events have occurred. On November 8, 2000, we issued countervailing duty questionnaires to the Government of Israel (GOI) and the sole producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Dead Sea Magnesium Ltd. (DSM). On December 20, 2000, we postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation until no later than February 14, 2001. See, Pure Magnesium from Israel: Postponement of Time Limit for Preliminary Determination of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 65 FR 81489 (December 26, 2000). We received responses to our initial questionnaires from the GOI and DSM on January 3, 2001. Between January 11 and 30, 2001, we issued supplemental questionnaires to the GOI and DSM, and we received responses to those questionnaires in January and February.

On January 11, 2001, the petitioners requested that the Department include an additional program, the Israeli Foreign Trade Risk Insurance Corporation (IFTRIC), in our investigation. On January 22, 2001, the GOI and DSM submitted comments opposing the investigation of IFTRIC. On February 12, 2001, the Department declined to investigate the IFTRIC program. See, February 12, 2001, Memorandum to Susan H. Kuhbach, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, from the Team, Allegation of Possible Subsidy: Magnesium from Israel.

The scope of this investigation includes imports of pure magnesium products, regardless of chemistry, form, or size, including, without limitation, ingots, raspings, granules, turnings, chips, powder, and briquettes.

Pure magnesium includes: (1) Products that contain at least 99.95 percent primary magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as “ultra-pure” magnesium); (2) products that contain less than 99.95 percent but not less than 99.8 percent pure magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as “pure” magnesium); and (3) chemical combinations of pure magnesium and other material(s) in which the pure magnesium content is 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 percent, by weight, that do not conform to an “ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy” 1 (generally referred to as “off-specification pure” magnesium); and (4) physical mixtures of pure magnesium and other material(s) in which the pure magnesium content is 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 percent, by weight, except that mixtures containing 90 percent or less pure magnesium, by weight, when mixed with lime, calcium metal, calcium silicon, calcium carbide, calcium carbonate, carbon slag coagulants, and/or fluorspar, are excluded.

The merchandise subject to this investigation is classifiable under 8104.11.00, 8104.19.00, and 8104.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.

In the Initiation Notice, 65 FR at 68126, we invited comments on the scope of this proceeding. On December 1, 2000, we received comments from the petitioners clarifying that finished mixtures containing pure magnesium and/or off-specification pure magnesium that are prepared solely for use as a desulfurizer in steel-making are excluded from the scope of the investigation, unless such mixtures contain only minimal amounts of non-magnesium materials in order to circumvent an antidumping or countervailing duty order. On January 30, 2001, the petitioners submitted proposed language to further clarify their intent with respect to the scope of this investigation. The resulting revised scope language is reflected in the “Scope of Investigation” section above.

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 Israel is a “Subsidies 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 Israel materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry. On December 13, 2000, 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 Israel of the subject merchandise. (See Pure Magnesium from China, Israel, and Russia: Determinations, 65 FR 77910 (December 13, 2000).)

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

DSM, the sole producer/exporter of subject merchandise from Israel, is a joint venture between the Israeli company, Dead Sea Works (DSW) and Volkswagen (VW). DSW, in turn, is owned by the Israeli company Israel Chemicals Ltd. (ICL). The subsidies were received by DSW and later, by DSM, after the formation of the joint venture.

In 1991, the GOI announced its plan to privatize ICL, under the supervision of the Government Corporation Authority. Prior to that, in 1987, the Ministry of Finance, which controlled the Government Corporation Authority, commissioned an investment banking firm, First Boston, to assist in the initial steps of the privatization process of government-owned corporations. The GOI's objective in privatizing these companies was to promote and strengthen free-market mechanisms in Israel, enhance competitiveness, and raise funds to reduce internal and external debt. See GOI Response at II-5. First Boston identified a number of government-owned corporations that were suitable for private sale or public offering, suggested schedules for each sale, and addressed technical issues relating to the Government Companies Law, accounting and tax issues, and privatization methods.

In 1988, the Ministry of Finance's Government Economic Committee adopted First Boston's recommendations as the framework for a five-year plan for privatization. The Government Corporation Authority updated this plan in 1991 to include the sale of shares in government-owned companies on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. In February 1992, the Committee on Privatization approved the sale of up to 72 percent of ICL through public and private sales.

The GOI privatized ICL through a series of private sales and public offerings of existing shares of ICL conducted in the years 1992 through 1995, and 1997 through 1999. The privatization of ICL, the parent company of DSW/DSM, directly and necessarily resulted in the privatization of the government's interest in DSW/DSM. The first partial privatization was conducted under a prospectus for sale of ICL's shares to the public and its employees that was published on February 19, 1992. According to the prospectus, the share capital of ICL consisted of 1,199,999,999 ordinary shares registered on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, and one special state share. Under this prospectus, the state sold 20 percent of ICL's shares, including 226,619,916 shares sold to the public, and 13,068,999 shares sold to ICL employees. The GOI continued to hold the special state share after this and subsequent privatizations. See GOI Response at II-9 through II-12 for information relating to shares sold at each privatization.

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.

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” have 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 in question 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 information provided by the GOI and DSM to determine whether the subsidies received by DSW and DSM prior to the privatization of ICL continued to benefit DSM during the POI. When we apply this approach to the facts and circumstances of the instant countervailing duty investigation of pure magnesium from Israel and the relevant privatization of ICL and its subsidiary, DSW/DSM, we find that the pre-sale and post-sale entities are not distinct persons.2 Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the subsidies provided to DSW/DSM, prior to the privatization of ICL, continue to benefit DSW/DSM post-privatization.

Due to the proprietary nature of the information submitted on the record by DSM, a more specific discussion of the factors considered in the change of ownership transactions of ICL is included in our Memorandum to the File dated February 14, 2001, Change in Ownership in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Pure Magnesium from Israel (Change in Ownership Memorandum).

In the Initiation Notice, 65 FR at 68128, the Department stated that it would investigate DSM's creditworthiness, based on the petitioners' allegation that DSM has been uncreditworthy since its inception.3 On January 11, 2001, the Department issued questions concerning DSM's creditworthiness and on February 1, 2001, DSM responded to those questions.

Because the only grants that were approved for DSM in 1996 or subsequent years, were either expensed in the year of receipt or did not give rise to a benefit during the POI, we have not addressed DSM's creditworthiness in this preliminary determination.

19 CFR 351.524(d)(2) 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 and 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. The Department will use the criteria found in 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2)(ii) and (iii) to decide whether the presumption has been rebutted.

In this investigation, DSM has alleged that the IRS AUL is inaccurate for DSM and has supplied gross book values of depreciable productive assets, as well as the depreciation expenses recorded in the company's normal accounting records, for purposes of calculating a company-specific AUL. We have reviewed DSM's calculation of AUL and made several minor adjustments which are fully documented in the Department's Calculation Memorandum, dated February 14, 2001, on file in Room B-099 at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. Since DSM's AUL differs significantly from the IRS AUL, we have used DSM's AUL of 21 years to allocate all non-recurring subsidies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2).

In selecting a discount rate to allocate non-recurring subsidies over time, the Department prefers to use:

(1) The cost of long-term fixed-rate loans of the firm in question, excluding any loans that the Secretary has determined to be countervailable subsidies;

(2) The average cost of long-term fixed-rate loans in the country in question; or,

(3) A rate that the Secretary considers to be most appropriate. (See 19 CFR 351.524(d)(3)(i)).

DSW and DSM reported that they had long-term, variable-rate borrowings but no fixed-rate borrowings. In addition, based on the GOI's response there is no indication that long-term, fixed rate loans were available to private companies in Israel during these years. This is consistent with the Department's finding in the Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Israel, 60 FR 10569, 10570 (February 27, 1995) (Butt-Weld Fittings), that during the period examined in that case only variable-rate lending was available on a long-term basis to private companies in Israel. Thus, we lack information on the first two preferred sources for a discount rate.

Lacking fixed interest rates, we looked to DSW and DSM's reported interest rates. DSM stated that the interest rates on its long-term borrowings were calculated as a fixed percentage above the London Interbank Offer Rate (LIBOR). For purposes of this preliminary determination, we have calculated an annual average rate, based on DSM's reported borrowing rate of LIBOR plus the fixed percentage, for the years in which grants were approved to use as DSM's discount rate. This calculation is consistent with the discount interest rate used in Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel: Final Results and Partial Recision of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 49460, 49461 (September 13, 1999) (IPA). We will request additional information from DSM on its long-term loans which we will examine at verification.

The ECIL is a regional development program aimed at providing assistance to enterprises located in disadvantaged regions of the country. This program is administered under the Law for the Encouragement of Capital Investments 5719-1959. Amendment No. 4 of the Law authorized grants beginning in 1967. The program contributes to the development of industrial enterprises to improve the economic situation in disadvantaged regions by encouraging population distribution, creating new sources of employment, aiding the absorption of immigrants, and developing the economy's production capacity.

There are three mutually exclusive programs under the ECIL: grants, corporate income tax exemptions, and accelerated depreciation of assets. Investment grants are provided to companies as a specified percentage of the company's investment in eligible fixed assets. The amounts vary based on the region in which the assets are located. Companies can also receive reduced tax rates or a full tax exemption for the first two years in certain circumstances. Accelerated depreciation on eligible buildings and equipment is available for qualifying enterprises for the first five years of use at rates of 200 percent of the ordinary rate for equipment and 400 percent of the ordinary rate for buildings, with depreciation on buildings not exceeding 20 percent per annum.

To be eligible for benefits under ECIL applicants must be located within one of the designated development zones and meet one of the following requirements: utilize natural resources and existing plants to their full potential, absorb newly migrated persons, help to spread the population across the country, or create new jobs.

For purposes of the ECIL program, Israel is divided into three zones—Development Zones A and B, and the Central Zone. DSM is located in Zone A and received ECIL grants for the construction of its magnesium plant.

We preliminary determine that the investment grants provide countervailable subsidies within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Act. The grants are a direct transfer of funds from the GOI providing a benefit in the amount of the grant. The grants are specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iv) because they are limited to firms located in a designated geographic regions.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(c)(1), we have treated these grants as non-recurring subsidies and have allocated the benefit over time. To calculate the countervailable subsidy, we divided the benefit attributable to the POI by the value of DSM's total sales during the POI. On this basis, we determine the countervailable subsidy for this program to be 12.99 percent ad valorem.

Under the Infrastructure Grant Program, the GOI has established new industrial areas by partially reimbursing companies for their costs of developing the infrastructure in certain geographical zones. DSM received assistance under this program.

We preliminary determine that the investment grants provide countervailable subsidies within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Act. The grants are a direct transfer of funds from the GOI providing a benefit in the amount of the grant. The grants are specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iv) because they are limited to firms located in a designated geographic regions.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(c)(1), we have treated these grants as non-recurring subsidies and have allocated the benefit over time. To calculate the countervailable subsidy, we divided the benefit attributable to the POI by the value of DSM's total sales during the POI. On this basis, we determine the countervailable subsidy for this program to be .40 percent ad valorem.

The EIRD was established in 1984 and is administered by the Office of Chief Scientist (OCS) of the Ministry of Industry and Trade. The benefits under this program include grants, loans, and tax exemptions. The OCS provides grants for 30 to 66 percent of the approved research and development expenditures (R&D), depending on the type of project to be undertaken and the location where the proposed R&D will be done. The typical level of support is 50 percent of the investment. Support for improvements in existing products is 30 percent of the investment. Support for R&D in Development Zone A is 60 percent of the investment. Support for R&D for which sole financing comes from the company performing the R&D is 66 percent of the investment.

Persons applying for a grant are required to submit information to the OCS regarding the nature, aims and budget of the proposed project. The OCS considers the following criteria in determining whether to grant EIRD funds: (1) Whether the applicant company shows innovation in the development of new technologies; (2) the management, production and marketing capabilities of the firm, as well as any marketing strategy for the new product; (3) whether the product will be able to successfully compete in international markets; (4) whether the proposed R&D project will result in the introduction of new technology or scientific manpower. The OCS provided grants to DSM for industrial research and development projects which contribute to the Israeli economy and to its scientific and technological development. There is no indication that DSM's receipt of benefits was related to export performance.

The grants provided under the program are subject to repayment, through the payment of royalties, if the supported R&D yields a commercially successful product. With respect to the grants provided to DSM for production of magnesium, one grant was partially repaid.

We preliminarily determine that the grants received under the EIRD program are countervailable subsidies. The grants are a direct transfer of funds from the GOI. If not repaid, the grants confer a benefit in the amount equal to the difference between the non-specific base rate of 30 percent and the Development Zone A rate of 60 percent. In instances where the grant is repaid, the benefit is the company's interest-free use of money. The EIRD program is specific, at least for R&D undertaken in Development Zone A, because the level of assistance is greater for companies located in that zone.

To calculate the benefit to DSM from the EIRD grants, we first tested whether the amounts approved exceeded 0.5 percent of sales in the year of approval. If not, we expensed the grant in the year of receipt. DSM received no disbursements in the POI. If the grant exceeded 0.5 percent of sales in the year of approval, we treated it as a zero-rate loan. For “loans” outstanding during the POI, the subsidy was less than 0.005 percent under any calculation methodology. Therefore, we are not computing a benefit for this program. See the February 14, 2001, Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Pure Magnesium from Israel Calculation Memorandum for DSM.

The following programs were not used:

In accordance with section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we will verify the information submitted by the respondents prior to making our final determination.

In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we have calculated an individual rate for DSM, the sole manufacturer of the subject merchandise. We preliminarily determine that the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rate is 13.39 percent ad valorem. Because we only investigated one producer/exporter, DSM's rate will also serve as the “all others” rate. Therefore, the “all others” rate is 13.39 percent ad valorem.

In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we are directing the U.S. Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of pure magnesium from Israel 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 nonprivileged 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. 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 or the next business day thereafter, at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 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, NW, Washington, DC 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 nonproprietary 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.

The Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) is authorized under 15 U.S.C. 713c-3(d) to carry out a national program of research and development addressed to such aspects of U.S. fisheries (including, but not limited to, harvesting, processing, marketing and to associated infrastructures), if not adequately covered by projects assisted under 15 U.S.C. 713c-3(c), as the Secretary deems appropriate.

This program is described in the “Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance” (CFDA) under program number 11.433, Marine Fisheries Initiative (MARFIN).

MARFIN is a competitive Federal assistance program that funds projects that seek to optimize research and development benefits from U.S. marine fishery resources through cooperative efforts involving the best research and management talents to accomplish priority activities. Projects funded under MARFIN provide answers for fishery needs covered by the NMFS Strategic Plan, available from the Southeast Regional Office (see ADDRESSES), particularly those goals relating to: rebuilding overfished marine fisheries, maintaining currently productive fisheries, and integrating conservation of protected species and fisheries management. Areas of emphasis for MARFIN are formulated from recommendations received from non-Federal scientific and technical experts, and from NMFS research and operations officials.

Approximately $2.20 million may be available in fiscal year (FY) 2001 for funding projects. This amount includes possible in-house projects and $750,000 for 1-year projects for red snapper research. (See XI. Project Funding Priorities.) Publication of this notice does not obligate NMFS to award any specific cooperative agreement nor to obligate all or any parts of the available funds.

Project proposals accepted for funding for a project period over 1 year that include multiple project components and severable tasks to be funded during each budget period do not compete for funding in subsequent budget periods within the approved project period. However, funding for subsequent project components is contingent upon the availability of funds and satisfactory performance and will be at the sole discretion of the agency.

Cost-sharing is not required for the MARFIN program. Applications must provide the total budget necessary to accomplish the project, including contributions and/or donations. The appropriateness of all cost-sharing will be determined on the basis of guidance provided in applicable Federal cost principles. If an applicant chooses to cost-share, and if that application is selected for funding, the applicant will be bound by the percentage of the cost share reflected in the cooperative agreement award.

The non-Federal share may include the value of in-kind contributions by the applicant or third parties or funds received from private sources or from state or local governments. Federal funds may not be used to meet the non-Federal share of matching funds, except as provided by Federal statute. Third party in-kind contributions may be in the form of, but are not limited to, personal services rendered in carrying out functions related to the project and use of real or personal property owned by others (for which consideration is not required) in carrying out the projects. 15 U.S.C. 713c-3(c)(4)(B) provides that the amount of the grant is no less than 50 percent of the estimated cost of the project.

Costs incurred in either the development of a project or the financial assistance application, or time expended in any subsequent discussions or negotiations prior to the award, are neither reimbursable nor recognizable as part of the recipient's cost share.

The funding instrument will be a cooperative agreement since NMFS will be substantially involved in developing each project’s research priorities and assisting in the research.

A. Eligible applicants include institutions of higher education, hospitals and other nonprofit organizations, commercial organizations, and state, local and Indian tribal governments. Federal agencies or institutions are not eligible. Foreign governments, organizations under the jurisdiction of foreign governments, and international organizations are excluded for purposes of this solicitation since the objective of the MARFIN program is to optimize research and development benefits from U.S. marine fishery resources (see III. Program Description).

B. The Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (DOC/NOAA) is strongly committed to broadening the participation of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges and Universities in its educational and research programs. DOC/NOAA’s goals are to achieve full participation by Minority Serving Institutions (MSI) in order to advance the development of human potential, to strengthen the nation’s capacity to provide high-quality education, and to increase opportunities for MSIs to participate in and benefit from Federal financial assistance programs. DOC/NOAA encourages all applicants to include meaningful participation of MSIs.

The award period for the project may be up to 3 years, consisting of one, two, or three budget periods. The award period depends upon the duration of funding requested in the application, the decision of the NMFS selecting official on the amount of funding, the results of post-selection negotiations between the applicant and NOAA officials, and pre-award review of the application by NOAA and Department of Commerce (DOC) officials. Normally, each project budget period will be 12 months in duration.

The total dollar amount of the indirect costs proposed in an application under this program must not exceed the indirect cost rate negotiated and approved by a cognizant Federal agency prior to the proposed effective date of the award or 25 percent of the Federal share of the total proposed direct costs dollar amount in the application, whichever is less. A copy of the current, approved, negotiated Indirect Cost Agreement with the Federal Government must be included with the application.

Before submitting an application under this program, applicants should contact the NMFS Southeast Regional Office for a copy of this solicitation's MARFIN Application Package (see ADDRESSES).

Applications for this project’s funding must be complete and in accordance with instructions in the MARFIN Application Package. Project applications must identify the principal participants, and include copies of any agreements describing the specific tasks to be performed by participants. Project applications should: give a clear presentation of the proposed work, the methods for carrying out the project, its relevance to managing and enhancing the use of Gulf of Mexico and/or South Atlantic fishery resources, and cost estimates as they relate to specific aspects of the project. Budgets must include a detailed breakdown, by category of expenditures, with appropriate justification for both the Federal and non-Federal shares.

Applications should exhibit familiarity with related work that is completed or ongoing. Where appropriate, proposals should be multi-disciplinary. In addition to referencing specific area(s) of special interest, proposals should state whether the research applies to the Gulf of Mexico only, the South Atlantic only, or to both areas. Successful applicants may be required to collect and manage data in accordance with standardized procedures and formats approved by NMFS and to participate with NMFS in specific cooperative activities that are determined by consultations between NMFS and successful applicants before project grants are awarded. All applications must include funding for the principal investigator to participate in an annual MARFIN Conference in Tampa, FL at the completion of the project.

Coordinated efforts involving multiple institutions or persons are encouraged. Women and minority owned and operated non-profit organizations are encouraged to apply. Applicants should not assume prior knowledge on the part of NMFS as to the merits of the project described in the application. Applications must be one-sided and unbound. All incomplete applications are returned to the applicant. Ten copies (one original and nine copies) of each application are required and should be submitted to the NMFS Southeast Regional Office, State/Federal Liaison Office (see). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved 10 copies, under OMB Control No. 0648-0175.

A. Priority is given to funding projects that have the greatest probability of recovering, maintaining, improving, or developing fisheries; improving the understanding of factors affecting recruitment success; and/or generating increased values and recreational opportunities from fisheries. Projects are evaluated as to the likelihood of achieving these objectives, with consideration of the magnitude of the eventual economic or social benefits that may be realized. Priority is given to funding projects in the subject areas listed below, but proposals in other areas are considered on a funds-available basis. There is no preference between short-term projects and long-term projects.

The bycatch of biological organisms (including interactions with sea turtles and marine mammals) by various fishing gears can have wide-reaching impacts from a fisheries management and an ecological standpoint, with the following major concerns:

a. Shrimp trawl fisheries. Studies are needed to contribute to the regional shrimp trawl bycatch program (including the southern U.S. Atlantic rock shrimp fishery) being conducted by NMFS in cooperation with state fisheries management agencies, commercial and recreational fishing organizations and interests, environmental organizations, universities, Councils, and Commissions. Specific guidance and research requirements are contained in the Cooperative Bycatch Plan for the Southeast, available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). In particular, the studies should address:

The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR parts 18 and 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 17 and 222-226).

The Applicant requests authorization to conduct aerial surveys for marine mammals and sea turtles in near-shore waters of Vieques, Puerto Rico. Marine mammal species include: from Suborder Mysticeti, Family Balaenopteridae: Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera edeni), fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus), sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata); from Suborder Odontoceti, Family Physeteridae: Sperm whale (Physeter macrocepahalus), pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps), dwarf sperm whale (Kogia simus); from Suborder Odontoceti, Family Ziphiidae: Cuvier’s beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris), Blainville’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon densirostris), Gervis’ beaked whale (Mesoplodon europaeus), True’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon mirus); from Suborder Odontoceti, Family Delphinidae: Melon-headed whale (Peponocephala electra), short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorynchus), Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus), false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens), pygmy killer whale (Feresa attenuata), bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), rough-toothed dolphin (Steno bredanensis), Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenella frontalis), pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata), striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba), spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris), clymene dolphin (Stenella clymene), common dolphin (Delphinus delphis (capensis)), killer whale (Orcinus orca), Fraser’s dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei); from Order Carnivora, Suborder Pinnipedia, Family Phocidae: Hooded seal (Cystophora cristata); from Order Sirenia, Family Trichechidae: West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus). Sea turtle species include: from Suborder Cryptodira, Family Dermochelyidae: Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea); from Family Cheloniidae: Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), olive ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea).

The surveys would take place from fixed-wing and rotary wing aircraft flying no lower than 500 ft (152 m) above ground or sea level. level. The objective of the surveys is to determine occurrence, migration routes, and habitat utilization for the species occurring in the Inner Range, Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training Facility, Vieques. This area includes all waters surrounding the east end of Vieques for a distance of approximately 2 miles offshore. The results of this study will be used to assist the Navy in the planning of exercises conducted in this area. Data from these surveys would also be used in ongoing section 7 consultation under the ESA.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this application should be mailed to the Chief, Permits and Documentation Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular request would be appropriate.

Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301) 713-0376, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period. Please note that comments will not be accepted by e-mail or by other electronic media.

Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, NMFS is forwarding copies of this application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

Documents associated with this application are in the following locations:

Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13130, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/713-2289);

Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930 (978/281-9138)

Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive North, St. Petersburg, FL 33702-2432 (813/570-5312); and

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203 (1-800-358-2104).

Under the Fishery Management Plan for the Crustacean Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region, 50 CFR 660.50(b)(2), NMFS is required to publish by February 28 of each year, the harvest guidelines for lobster Permit Area 1 around the NWHI. The year 2000 NWHI lobster fishery was closed because of concerns raised by NMFS scientists about the health of the fishery and as a precautionary measure to prevent overfishing of the lobster resources. Furthermore, NMFS is under a Court Order issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii to keep the crustacean fisheries closed until an Environmental Impact Statement and a Biological Opinion have been prepared and issued for the crustacean fisheries. In addition, recently issued Executive Orders 13178 and 13196 appear to close indefinitely the entire NWHI crustacean fishery. Given these events, NMFS announces that it will not be publishing any harvest guidelines for this fishery for the year 2001. Although no regulatory action has been taken to close the NWHI lobster fishery for 2001, NMFS anticipates that this will occur in the near future. Therefore, no harvest of NWHI lobster resources will be allowed and effectively the harvest guideline will be zero. In addition, there is still uncertainty regarding the model assumptions used by NMFS scientists to estimate the exploitable lobster population. However, as indicated in the NMFS 2001 “Report to Congress” on the status of fisheries, the lobster stock is not overfished. NMFS intends to conduct biological research on the status of NWHI lobster resources and to examine the resulting data for indications as to the appropriate direction for future fishery management actions.

Respondents are authorized guests of Air Force Lodging. The AF Forms 3211 can be used for assessing background documentation/supporting material for all types of management decisions. Higher headquarters also reviews them during lodging assistance and Innkeeper Award competitions.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is using Biennial Report data to establish a national data base on hazardous waste generation and management. These data will be used to characterize the demographics of and trends in hazardous waste generation and management. Under EPA Contract No. GS-35F-0063K, DPRA, Inc. will assist the Information Management Branch, Communications, Information, and Resources Management Division, Office of Solid Waste, in assessing the quality of the 1999 Biennial Report data, establishing the National Biennial Report data base, and preparing the 1999 National Report based on those analyses. Some of the information being transferred may be claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). In accordance with 40 CFR 2.305(h), EPA has determined that DPRA, Inc. requires access to CBI submitted to EPA under the authority of RCRA to perform work satisfactory under the above noted contract. EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of CBI on their 1989, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997 and 1999 Hazardous Waste Report Forms (EPA Form 8700-13 A/B), or State developed biennial report forms, that EPA may transfer to this firm, on a need-to-know basis, CBI collected under the authority of RCRA. Upon completing their review of materials submitted, DPRA, Inc. will return all material to EPA.

DPRA, Inc. has been authorized to have access to RCRA CBI under the EPA “Contractor Requirements for the Control and Security of RCRA Confidential Business Information Security Manual.” EPA will approve the security plan of the contractor to ensure that their facility complies with security procedures outlined in the security manual prior to RCRA CBI being transmitted to the contractors. Contractor personnel will be required to sign non-disclosure agreements and will be briefed on appropriate security procedures before they are permitted access to confidential information.

IRIS is an EPA data base containing Agency consensus scientific positions on potential adverse human health effects that may result from chronic (or lifetime) exposure to chemical substances found in the environment. IRIS currently provides health effects information on over 500 specific chemical substances.

IRIS contains chemical-specific summaries of qualitative and quantitative health information in support of the first two steps of the risk assessment process, i.e., hazard identification and dose-response evaluation. IRIS information includes the reference dose for non-cancer health effects resulting from oral exposure, the reference concentration for non-cancer health effects resulting from inhalation exposure, and the carcinogen assessment for both oral and inhalation exposure. Combined with specific situational exposure assessment information, the summary health hazard information in IRIS may be used as a source in evaluating potential public health risks from environmental contaminants.

EPA's process for developing IRIS consists of: (1) An annual Federal Register notice announcing EPA's IRIS agenda and call for scientific information from the public on the selected chemical substances, (2) a search of the current literature, (3) development of health assessments and draft IRIS summaries, (4) peer review within EPA, (5) peer review outside EPA, (6) EPA consensus review and management approval, (7) preparation of final IRIS summaries and supporting documents, and (8) entry of summaries and supporting documents into the IRIS data base.

The following assessments were completed and entered into IRIS in FY 2000 and early FY 2001. These assessments were listed in the Federal Register of January 12, 2000. All health endpoints, cancer and non-cancer, were assessed unless otherwise noted. Where information was available, both qualitative and quantitative assessments were developed.

The following assessments are underway or generally complete, and are planned for entry into IRIS in FY 2001 or FY 2002. These assessments were announced in the January 12, 2000, or May 17, 2000, Federal Registers. All health endpoints, cancer and non-cancer, are being assessed unless otherwise noted. Pesticides denoted with an asterisk (*) will have only oral reference dose and carcinogenicity endpoints assessed. For all endpoints assessed, both qualitative and quantitative assessments are being developed where information is available.

The following assessments in progress have been delayed and are now expected in FY 2003:

Completed IRIS summaries and support documents for the substances listed above will be provided on the IRIS web site at www.epa.gov/iris. This publicly-available web site is EPA's primary location for IRIS documents. In addition, external peer review drafts of IRIS documents can be found via the “What's New” page of the IRIS web site, as discussed in the January 12, 2000 Federal Register notice. Interested parties should check the “What's New” page frequently for the availability of these drafts.

In addition to the assessment of the individual polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) benzo[a]pyrene, EPA conducted a literature review and will be sponsoring a workshop on approaches to assessing the health effects of a larger set of PAHs. As mentioned in the January 12, 2000 Federal Register, additional health assessments on this class of chemicals will be considered for initiation in FY 2001.

In addition to the opportunity for public input via the IRIS Submission Desk described above, EPA is testing ways to involve the public in the development of health assessment documents that are submitted to EPA by external parties as supporting documents for IRIS. This was described in the January 12, 2000, Federal Register notice. Considerable expertise in assessing health risks exists outside of EPA, such as in other government agencies, industries, universities, professional organizations, and other non-governmental organizations. Cooperation between EPA and external parties in the assessment development process can improve the quality of IRIS supporting documents by providing greater scientific input to EPA's assessments.

EPA announced in the January 12, 2000 and May 17, 2000, Federal Register notices that external parties are developing several assessment documents with dialogue and feedback from EPA. Currently, external party assessments are addressing ethylene oxide, ethylbenzene, styrene, toxaphene, hexachlorobenzene, and hexahydro-1,3,5-trinito-triazine (“RDX”). When complete, EPA will consider these documents, in whole or in part, as possible sources or supporting documents for IRIS assessments. In FY 2001, EPA will continue to evaluate its experience with these externally-generated assessments in terms of process efficiency and quality of the documents produced. If the experience is positive, EPA will consider inviting similar involvement on future health assessments in the IRIS program.

EPA will continue building and updating the IRIS data base. The Agency recognizes that many of the assessments on IRIS need updating to incorporate new scientific information and methodologies. Further, many additional substances are candidates for adding to IRIS. However, due to limited resources in the Agency to address the spectrum of needs, EPA developed a list of priority substances for attention beginning in FY 2001. The following list of substances are priorities for IRIS due to one or more reasons: (1) Agency statutory, regulatory, or program implementation need; (2) new scientific information or methodology is available that might significantly change current IRIS information; (3) interest to other levels of government or the public; (4) most of the scientific assessment work has been completed while meeting other Agency requirements, and only a modest additional effort will be needed to complete the review and documentation for IRIS.

The following IRIS health assessments have recently begun or will be started in FY 2001, with completion expected in FY 2003. It is for these substances that the Agency is primarily requesting information from the public for consideration in the assessments. Unless otherwise noted, noncancer and cancer endpoints will be assessed for each substance. Pesticides denoted with an asterisk (*) will have only oral reference dose and carcinogenicity endpoints assessed. For all endpoints assessed, both qualitative and quantitative assessments are being developed where information is available.

As in previous Federal Registers announcing the annual IRIS agenda, EPA is soliciting public involvement in new assessments starting in FY 2001. While EPA conducts a thorough literature search for each chemical substance, there may be other articles or unpublished studies we are not aware of. We would greatly appreciate receiving scientific information from the public during the information gathering stage for the list of “new assessments” listed above. Interested persons should provide scientific comments, analyses, studies, and other pertinent scientific information. The most useful documents for EPA are unpublished studies or other primary technical sources that we may not otherwise obtain through open literature searches. Also note that if you have submitted certain information previously then there is no need to resubmit that information. Information from the public is being solicited for 60 days via this notice.

Similar to the process described in the January 12, 2000, Federal Register, submissions will be handled in a three-step process:

1. Submission Inventory: First, you should simply provide a list within 60 days of this notice briefly identifying all the information (reports, papers, articles, etc.) you wish to submit. The list should specify by name and CASRN (Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number) the chemical substance(s) to which the information pertains, state the type of assessment that is being addressed (e.g., carcinogenicity), and describe briefly the information to be submitted for consideration. Where possible, documents should be listed in scientific citation format, that is, author(s), title, journal, and date. Your cover letter should state that the correspondence is an IRIS submission, describe in general terms the purpose of the submission, and include names, addresses, and telephone numbers of persons to contact for additional information. Mail two copies of the submission to the IRIS Submission Desk, c/o Courtney R. Johnson, National Center for Environmental Assessment (8601D), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460.

Alternatively, you may submit the submission inventory and cover letter electronically to IRIS.desk@epa.gov. Electronic information must be submitted in WordPerfect format or as an ASCII file. Information will also be accepted on 3.5″ floppy disks. All information in electronic form must be identified as an IRIS submission.

2. EPA Replies to Submission Inventory: In the second step, EPA will compare the submission inventory to existing files and identify the information that should be submitted. This step will help prevent an influx of duplicative information. You will receive notification requesting full submission of the selected material.

3. Full Submission of Selected Material: In the third step, you should send in the information indicated by EPA within 30 days of EPA's reply. Prompt response to EPA will ensure that your material can be considered in the assessment in a timely fashion. Submittals should include a cover letter addressing all of the points in item 1 above. In addition, when you submit results of new health effects studies concerning existing substances on IRIS, you should include a specific explanation of how and why the study results could change the information in IRIS.

Please send two copies, at least one of which should be unbound, to the IRIS Submission Desk, as described in Step 1. The IRIS Submission Desk will acknowledge receipt of your information.

Confidential Business Information (CBI) should not be submitted to the IRIS Submission Desk. CBI must be submitted to the appropriate EPA Office via established procedures for submission of CBI (see 40 CFR, Part 2, Subpart B). If you believe that a CBI submission contains information with implications for IRIS, please note that in the cover letter accompanying the submission to the appropriate office.

You may also request to augment your submission with a scientific briefing to EPA staff. Such requests should be made directly to Amy Mills, IRIS Program Manager (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION).

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 contain at section 184 provisions for the “Control of Interstate Ozone Air Pollution.” Section 184(a) establishes an “Ozone Transport Region” (OTR) comprised of the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, parts of Virginia and the District of Columbia.

The Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation of the Environmental Protection Agency convened the first meeting of the commission in New York City on May 7, 1991. The purpose of the Ozone Transport Commission is to deal with ground level ozone formation, transport, and control within the OTR.

The purpose of this notice is to announce that this Commission will meet on March 6, 2001. The meeting will be held at the address noted earlier in this notice.

Section 176A(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 specifies that the meetings of the Ozone Transport Commission are not subject to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This meeting will be open to the public as space permits.

Type of Meeting: Open.

Agenda: Copies of the final agenda will be available from Allison R. M. Mitchell of the OTC office (202) 508-3840 (by e-mail: ozone@sso.org or via our website at http://www.sso.org/otc) on Tuesday, February 27, 2001. The purpose of this meeting is to review air quality needs within the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States, including reduction of motor vehicle and stationary source air pollution. The OTC is also expected to address issues related to the transport of ozone into its region, including actions by EPA under sections 110 of the Clean Air Act, and to discuss potential regional emission control measures.

This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public concerning the proposed collection of information to (1) evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the paper 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 (minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond: including through the use of appropriated automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses.

OMB Number: Not yet assigned.

Titles and form numbers: Export-Import Bank of the U.S. Foreign Content Report EIB 01-02 and Export-Import Bank of the U.S. Cause Report EIB 01-02-A.

Type of Review: New collection.

Need and Use: The information requested will create less of a burden on our exporters who currently must certify foreign content for each shipment of goods. With the use of the new forms, Ex-Im Bank will now be documenting the amount of foreign content in transactions through up-front reporting and back-end verification.

Affected Public: Business and other for-profit/not-for-profit institutions, Farms.

Respondents: Entities involved in the export of U.S. goods and services, including exporters, banks, and other non-financial lending institutions that act as facilitators.

Estimated annual respondents: 600.

Estimated time per respondent: 2 hours.

Estimated annual burden: 1,200 hours.

Frequency of response: On occasion.

Copies of these submissions may be obtained from Carlista D. Robinson, Export-Import Bank of the United States, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571, (202) 565-3351. Comments and recommendations concerning the submissions should be sent to Mr. David Rostker, Office Of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB, Room 10202, Washington, DC 20503.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0182.

Title: Section 73.1620, Program Tests.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 1,416.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1-5 hours.

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

Total Annual Burden: 1,480 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Needs and Uses: The notification to the FCC regarding program tests (Section 73.1620(a)) alerts FCC that station construction is complete and the station is ready to broadcast program material. The notification to UHF translator stations (Section 73.1620(f)) alerts the station that the potential for interference exists. The report to FCC regarding deviations (Section 73.1620(g)) ensures that comparative promises relating to services are not inflated.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0621.

Title: Rules and Requirements for C & F Block Broadband PCS Licenses.

Form No.: FCC Form 175.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Individuals or households, businesses or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions, and state, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 3,000.

Estimated Time Per Response: .50 to 20 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement and recordkeeping requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 14,044 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Needs and Uses: The Commission's rules require applicants to file information so that the Commission can determine whether the applicant is legally, technically and financially qualified to be licensed and to determine whether the applicant(s) claiming different eligibility statuses are entitled to certain benefits.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0767.

Title: Auction Forms and License Transfer Disclosures—Supplement for the Second Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 92-297.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Individuals or households, businesses or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions, and state, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 22,000.

Estimated Time Per Response: .25-3.75 hours.

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

Total Annual Burden: 762,000 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $45,333,000.

Needs and Uses: The Commission's rules require small business applicants to submit ownership information and gross revenue calculations, and all applicants must submit joint bidding agreements. In the case of default, the FCC retains the discretion to re-auction such licenses. Finally, licensees transferring licenses within 3 years are required to maintain a file of all documents and contracts pertaining to the transfer. Certification is required for entities dropping out of auction to secure certain ownership interests in participants.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0600.

Title: Application to Participate in a FCC Auction.

Form No.: FCC Form 175.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Individuals or households, businesses or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions, and state, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 11,000.

Estimated Time Per Response: .25 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 2,750 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Needs and Uses: This information collection allows the FCC to ascertain whether or not applicants for spectrum have ever been in default on any Commission licenses or have ever been delinquent on any non-tax debt owed to a Federal agency. The information will allow the Commission to determine the amount of the up-front payment to be paid by each applicant and will help ensure that auctions are conducted fairly and efficiently, thereby speeding the flow of payments to the U.S. Treasury and accelerating the provision of wireless service to the public.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0261.

Title: Transmitter Measurements, 47 CFR Section 90.215.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions; Individuals or households; and State, local, or tribal governments.

Number of Respondents: 20,075.

Estimated Time Per Response: 2 mins. (0.033 hrs.).

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 663 hours.

Total Annual Costs: None.

Needs and Uses: This information collection, 47 CFR section 90.251, requires licensees to measure carrier frequency, output power, and modulation of each transmitter authorized to operate with power in excess of two watts when the transmitter is initially installed and when any changes are made that would likely affect such parameters. This information, which is required to be maintained in the station's records, helps to assure proper operation of transmitters—that the equipment is operating within prescribed tolerances, thereby reducing instances of interference to other users.

The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) authorizes manufacturers of dietary supplements to claim effects on the “structure or function” of the body, but not to make claims to mitigate, treat, prevent, cure, or diagnose disease (21 U.S.C. 343(r)(6)). To explain how this part of DSHEA was to be implemented, FDA published the “structure/function rule” on January 6, 2000 (65 FR 1000) (§ 101.93(f) and (g) (21 CFR 101.93(f) and (g))). This rule distinguishes between disease claims, which create a requirement that evidence of safety and efficacy be presented to the agency before marketing, and structure/function claims, which do not create such a requirement. In the preamble to that final rule, FDA stated that it would publish guidance on applying the rule. FDA is seeking public comment on the topics that should be included in the guidance.

In the preamble to the structure/function rule, FDA stated that it would provide, through guidance, examples of labeling claims that would and would not be considered disease claims under the rule, including examples of product names. FDA also stated that it would issue guidance, if necessary, on the citation of a publication or a reference implying the treatment or prevention of a disease (§ 101.93(g)(2)(iv)(C)). The agency invites comments on whether guidance on this topic is necessary. Because issues pertaining to the substantiation of structure/function claims are outside the scope of the rule (see 65 FR 1000 at 1032), the agency does not plan to address such issues in the guidance that is the subject of this notice. However, the agency does plan to issue a separate guidance on the substantiation of claims.

FDA invites all interested parties to comment on the topics to be included in the guidance, to suggest additional topics for inclusion in the guidance, and to address any other issue appropriate for this guidance. Interested persons may submit to the Dockets Management Branch (address above) written comments by May 23, 2001. Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

In the Federal Register of June 29, 2000 (65 FR 40109), FDA published the notice of availability of the draft guidance entitled “How to Use E-Mail to Submit information to the Center for Veterinary Medicine” giving interested persons until August 28, 2000, to submit comments. We received no comments.

In the Federal Register of March 20, 1997 (62 FR 13430), FDA published the electronic records; electronic signatures regulation. This rule in part 11 (21 CFR part 11) provides for the voluntary submission of parts, or all, of regulatory records in electronic format without an accompanying paper copy. This rule also established public docket number 97S-0251 to provide a permanent location for a list of the documents or parts of documents that are acceptable for submission in electronic form without paper records and the agency units to which such submissions may be made. CVM will identify in this public docket the types of documents which may be submitted in electronic form. In addition, CVM will identify those documents in guidances or regulations. This docket is accessible on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/92s0251/92s0251.htm. The GPEA of 1998 (Public Law 105-277) requires Federal agencies, by October 21, 2003, to provide: (1) For the option of the electronic maintenance, submission, or disclosure of information, if practicable, as a substitute for paper; and (2) for the use and acceptance of electronic signatures, when practicable.

CVM accepts certain types of submissions by e-mail with no requirement for a paper copy. These types of documents are listed in public docket 97S-0251 as required by § 11.2. CVM’s ability to receive and process information submitted electronically is limited by its current information technology capabilities and the requirements of the electronic records; electronic signatures regulation. This guidance outlines general standards that should be used for the successful electronic submission of any information by e-mail.

This Level 1 guidance is being issued consistent with FDA’s good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115; 65 FR 56468, September 19, 2000). The guidance represents the agency’s current thinking about using e-mail to submit information electronically. The document does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and will not operate to bind FDA or the public. Alternative methods may be used as long as they satisfy the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

In the notice announcing the availability of the draft version of this guidance, FDA published notice of the proposed collection of information related to the guidance. The Federal Register notice also requested comments on the burden estimates for the guidance documents. No comments were received on the estimated annual reporting burden. The annual reporting burden estimate of 140 hours therefore remains unchanged. In the Federal Register of September 21, 2000 (65 FR 57192), the agency announced that it was submitting the collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection provisions related to this guidance document have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0453. This approval expires November 30, 2003. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at http://www.fda.gov/cvm.

As with all of FDA’s guidances, the public is encouraged to submit written comments with new data or other new information pertinent to this guidance. FDA will periodically review the comments in the docket and, where appropriate, will amend the guidance. The agency will notify the public of any such amendments through a notice in the Federal Register.

Interested persons may, at any time, submit written comments on the guidance to the Dockets Management Branch (address above). Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. The guidance and received comments are available for public examination in the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

In the Federal Register of June 29, 2000 (65 FR 40106), FDA published the notice of availability of the draft guidance entitled “How to Use E-Mail to Submit a Notice of Intent to Slaughter for Human Food Purposes.” Interested persons were given until August 28, 2000, to submit comments. FDA received no comments.

In the Federal Register of March 20, 1997 (62 FR 13430), FDA published the electronic records; electronic signatures regulation. This regulation (21 CFR part 11) provides for the voluntary submission of parts or all of regulatory records in electronic format without an accompanying paper copy. This rule also established public docket number 92N-0251 to provide a permanent location for a list of the documents or parts of documents that are acceptable for submission in electronic form without paper records and the agency units to which such submissions may be made. CVM will identify in this public docket the types of documents which may be submitted in electronic form, as an e-mail attachment by Internet, as those documents are identified in final guidance or regulations. This docket is accessible on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/92s0251/92s0251.htm.

The electronic submission of slaughter notices is part of CVM’s ongoing initiative to provide a method for paperless submissions. The final guidance implements provisions of the GPEA. The GPEA of 1998 (Public Law 105-277) requires Federal agencies, by October 21, 2003, to provide: (1) For the option of the electronic maintenance, submission, or disclosure of information, if practicable, as a substitute for paper; and (2) for the use and acceptance of electronic signatures, when practicable.

Section 512(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360(b)(j)) gives FDA the authority to issue regulations setting out conditions for marketing animals treated with investigational new animal drugs for food use. Under this authority, FDA issued § 511.1(b)(4) (21 CFR 511.1(b)(4)), which requires that sponsors obtain authorization to slaughter these animals for use as human food. Under § 511.1(b)(5), CVM issues to sponsors a slaughter authorization letter that sets the terms under which the animals treated with investigational new animal drugs may be slaughtered. USDA also monitors the slaughter of animals treated with investigational new animal drugs under the authority of the Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601-95). To assist CVM and USDA with this monitoring, the slaughter authorization states that sponsors must submit slaughter notices each time such animals are to be slaughtered unless CVM waives the notice in the authorization letter. Currently, slaughter notices are submitted to CVM on paper. This guidance will give sponsors the option to submit a slaughter notice as an e-mail attachment to CVM and USDA by the Internet.

Before submitting slaughter notices by e-mail, sponsors should first register and follow the instructions in the guidance for industry (#108) entitled “How to Use E-mail to Submit Information to the Center for Veterinary Medicine.”

This Level 1 guidance is being issued consistent with FDA’s good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115; 65 FR 56468, September 19, 2000). The guidance represents the agency’s current thinking about using e-mail to submit a slaughter notice. This guidance does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirement of the applicable statutes and regulations.

In the notice announcing the availability of the draft version of this guidance, FDA published a notice of the proposed collection of information related to the guidance. The Federal Register notice also requested comments on the burden estimates for the guidance documents. No comments were received on the estimated annual reporting burden. The annual reporting burden estimate of 27 hours therefore remains unchanged. In the Federal Register of September 21, 2000 (65 FR 57192), the agency announced that it was submitting the collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection provisions related to this guidance document have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0450. This approval expires November 30, 2003. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at http://www.fda.gov/cvm.

As with all of FDA’s guidances, the public is encouraged to submit written comments with new data or other new information pertinent to this guidance. FDA will periodically review the comments in the docket and, where appropriate, will amend the guidance. The agency will notify the public of any such amendments through a notice in the Federal Register.

Interested persons may, at any time, submit written comments on the guidance to the Dockets Management Branch (address above). Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. A copy of the document and received comments are available for public examination in the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Labeling OTC Human Drug Products; Updating Labeling in ANDA's.” This is one of several guidances the agency is developing to help manufacturers, packers, and distributors implement the recently issued final rule establishing standardized content and format requirements for the labeling of all OTC drug products. Once finalized, these guidances will supersede all other statements, feedback, and correspondence provided by the agency on these matters since the issuance of the final rule.

In the Federal Register of March 17, 1999 (64 FR 13254), FDA published a final rule establishing standardized content and format requirements for the labeling of OTC drug products. This rule is intended to standardize labeling for all OTC drug products so consumers can easily read and understand OTC drug product labeling and use these products safely and effectively.

The regulation for this new standardized labeling requires manufacturers to present OTC drug labeling information in a prescribed order and format. This new format will require revision of all existing labeling.

Following issuance of the final rule, the agency received several inquiries from manufacturers of generic OTC drug products seeking guidance on whether they may convert products to the new labeling format before the applicable innovator (or RLD) product revises its labeling. This guidance addresses those inquiries.

Generally, the agency believes manufacturers of generic OTC drug products (i.e., products marketed under ANDA's) need not wait to implement the new labeling format until after the RLD holder has submitted its labeling. This guidance is intended to facilitate the updating of labeling in ANDA's to meet the new OTC drug products format requirement. Accordingly, the agency has developed labeling examples as guidance for manufacturers to follow. Two such labeling examples are attached to the draft guidance. The additional labeling examples that the agency proposes to develop will be made available for review in this docket and at the Internet site referenced in this draft guidance before the close of the comment period.

This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115; 65 FR 56468, September 19, 2000). The draft guidance represents the agency's current thinking on updating labeling in ANDA's consistent with the new OTC drug products standardized labeling content and format. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such an approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

Interested persons may, on or before April 23, 2001, submit written comments on the draft guidance to the Dockets Management Branch (address above). Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. The draft guidance and received comments are available for public examination in the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Separate Marketing Applications and Clinical Data for Purposes of Assessing User Fees.” This draft guidance revises the July 1993 interim guidance.

The agency is deleting from the 1993 interim guidance the list of routes of administration in appendix A and dosage forms in appendix B.

FDA is deleting appendices A and B so that the guidance reflects current agency policy, as developed over the past few years (see Docket Nos. 93P-0421, 95P-0262, 96P-0317, and 96P-0459). Among other things, in the review of abbreviated new drug applications, the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research generally has not considered different mechanisms of release, particularly for suppository, delayed, and controlled release products, as different dosage forms.

Instead, the draft guidance refers readers to the Orange Book appendix C, “Uniform Terms.” Although the Orange Book appendix C is not binding on the agency or industry, it does serve as informal guidance on what the “same” or “identical” dosage form or route of administration would be.

The draft guidance also updates the July 1993 interim guidance for consistency with the agency's good guidance practices (GGP's) regulation (21 CFR 10.115; 65 FR 56468, September 19, 2000). The agency anticipates making additional revisions to this procedural guidance in the future.

This Level 1 draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's GGP's. The draft guidance represents the agency's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. The draft guidance will be updated as appropriate.

Interested persons may submit to the Dockets Management Branch (address above) written comments on the draft guidance at any time. Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. The draft guidance and received comments are available for public examination in the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1955 (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: Management Reviews of Multifamily Projects.

OMB Control Number, if applicable: 2502-0178.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The form is completed by HUD staff and Contractor Administrators gathering and recording information during an on-site review of the project operations.

Agency form numbers, if applicable: Form HUD-9834.

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 estimated number of respondents for HUD staff and Contract Administrators is 1,120; the frequency of response is 1, estimated time to prepare form is approximately 4 hours; and the estimated total annual burden hours are 4,480.

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

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: Minimum Property Standards for Housing.

OMB Control Number, if applicable: 2502-0321.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: Section 304(a)(3) of the Housing and Urban Rural Recovery Act of 1983, permits the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development to assist properties that comply with State and local codes which are the equivalent to model building codes. This Act makes the Secretary responsible for determining equivalence.

Agency form numbers, if applicable: HUD Handbook 4910.1.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: An estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection is 10,800, the number of respondents is approximately 1,350, frequency of response is once a year, and the hours per response is 8 hours.

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

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.

Title of Proposal: Use of Materials Bulletins Used in the HUD Building Products Standards and Certification Program.

OMB Control Number, if applicable: 2502-0526.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: This proposed rule would adopt a number of Use of Material Bulletins (UM's) and references related to national voluntary consensus standards in accordance with OMB Circular 119A. This includes supplements to the HUD Building product Standards and Certification Program.

Agency form numbers, if applicable: None.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: An estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection is 400, the number of respondents is 20, the frequency of response is on occasion, and hours per response is approximately 20 hours.

Status of the proposed information collection: Extension of a previously 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: Prospectus.

OMB Approval Number: 2503-0018.

Form Numbers: HUD-11712, 11712-11, 11717, 11717-11, 1724, 11728, 11728-11, 1731, 1734, 11747, 11747-11, 11772-11.

Description of the Need for the Information and its Proposed Use: GNMA is authorized to guarantee the timely payment of principal and interest on securities which are based on or backed by a pool composed of mortgages insured by the FHA. Forms are used to provide a standard format for the description of securities for each type of mortgage eligible for inclusion in a mortgage-backed securities pool. Since each type of mortgage has different characteristics, it is necessary to have separate prospectuses for each program.

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

Frequency of Submission: On occasion.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 7,885.

Status: Reinstatement, without change.

Restoring endangered or threatened animals and plants to the point where they are again secure, self-sustaining members of their ecosystems is a primary goal of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service's endangered species program. To help guide the recovery effort, we are working to prepare recovery plans for most of the listed species native to the United States. Recovery plans describe actions considered necessary for the conservation of the species, establish criteria for downlisting or delisting listed species, and estimate time and cost for implementing the recovery measures needed.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires the development of recovery plans for listed species unless such a plan would not promote the conservation of a particular species. Section 4(f) of the Act as amended in 1988 requires that public notice and an opportunity for public review and comment be provided during recovery plan development. Information presented during the public comment period has been considered in the preparation of the final recovery plan, and is summarized in the appendix to the recovery plan. We will forward substantive comments regarding recovery plan implementation to appropriate Federal or other entities so that they can take these comments into account during the course of implementing recovery actions.

All 13 plant taxa covered in this recovery plan are endemic to the northern Channel Islands (Anacapa, Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, and San Miguel), with the exception of a few populations of island rush-rose that occur on the more southerly island of Santa Catalina. These plants occur in a variety of habitats: coastal terrace, coastal bluff scrub, coastal sage scrub, and chaparral. All 13 plant taxa and their habitats have been variously affected or are currently threatened by one or more of the following: soil loss; historic and continuing habitat alteration by mammals alien to the Channel Islands (pigs, goats, sheep, donkeys, cattle, deer, elk, horses, bison); direct predation by these same alien mammals; habitat alteration by native seabirds; competition with alien plant taxa; and increased vulnerability to extinction due to reduced genetic viability, depressed reproductive vigor, and the chance of extinction from random naturally occurring events because of small numbers of individuals and isolated populations.

The objective of this plan is to conserve the plants so that protection by the Act is no longer necessary. Actions necessary to accomplish this objective include active control programs for introduced animals, implementation of an interagency Conservation Strategy, habitat restoration and weed control, surveys, conservation research, seed storage in cooperating facilities, and development of techniques for germination, propagation, and outplanting.

The authority for this action is section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533(f).

Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. I), this notice announces a meeting of the Aquatic Nuisance Specifies Task Force Mitten Crab Control Committee. The ANS Task Force was established by the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990.

Topics to be covered during the Mitten Crab Control Committee meeting include: a review of the life history of the mitten crab, a description of the California invasion, a review of the draft management plan, an update of the current status, and a discussion of Committee actions to further develop a comprehensive management plan.

Minutes of the meeting will be maintained by the Executive Secretary, Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, Suite 810, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203-1622, and will be available for public inspection during regular business hours, Monday through Friday.

This property has been identified as the preferred site for the proposed Rhode Island National Wildlife Complex visitor center. The property is also within the boundary of all the proposed alternatives of the draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan currently proposed for the Rhode Island Complex.

Based on the information contained in the decision document, a categorical exclusion was signed on December 20, 2000, by the Regional Director.

This notice is to meet the USGS requirement stipulated in the Survey Manual.

Summary minutes for the Council meeting will be maintained in the Canon City Center and will be available for public inspection and reproduction during regular business hours within thirty (30) days following the meeting.

The April 12, 2001 meeting will be held at the San Juan Public Lands Center, Sonoran Rooms A & B, 15 Burnett Court in Durango, Colorado. The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and end no later than 4:30 p.m. The agenda will include a presentation on BLM's oil and gas program responsibilities and RAC business items for 2001. General public comment is scheduled for 9:15 a.m.

Summary minutes for Council meetings are maintained at BLM's Western Slope Center office in Montrose and on the internet at http://www.co.blm.gov/swrac/swrac.htm and are available for public inspection and reproduction within thirty (30) days following each meeting.

The BLM has responsibility to consider applications to lease Federal mineral estate for oil and gas exploration and development. An interdisciplinary team will be used in the preparation of the PA/EAs. Preliminary issues, subject to change as a result of public input, are (1) potential impacts of oil and gas exploration and development on the surface resources and (2) consideration of restrictions on lease rights to protect surface resources. A separate analysis will be prepared for all tracts within each state. Tract locations, along with acreages, are listed below.

Due to the limited scope of this PA/EA process, public meetings are not scheduled.

Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 81-6 permits an employee benefit plan to lend securities to a broker-dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or to a bank, where the borrowing broker-dealer or bank is a party in interest, provided certain conditions are met. In the absence of an exemption, securities lending transactions would be prohibited under circumstances where the borrowing broker-dealer or bank is a party in interest or disqualified person with respect to the plan under the Employee Retirement Income Securities Act (ERISA) or the Internal Revenue Code (Code).

The Department is particularly interested in comments that:

• 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 a practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

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

The class exemption has two basic information collection requirements. The first requires the borrower of the plan securities to report certain information to the lending plan fiduciary, and the second calls for a written agreement between the lending plan and the borrower. This notice requests comments on the extension of the ICR included in the Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 81-6. The Department is not proposing or implementing changes to the existing ICR at this time.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection of information.

Agency: Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration, Department of Labor.

Titles: Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 81-6.

OMB Number: 1210-0065.

Affected Public: Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions.

Respondents: 42,000.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Responses: 126,000.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 10,500.

Total Burden Cost (Operating and Maintenance): $47,880.

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

PTE 82-63 allows certain compensation arrangements to be made for the provision by a fiduciary of securities lending services to an employee benefit plan, if the conditions specified in the exemption are met. In the absence of this exemption, certain aspects of these transactions might be prohibited by section 406 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The class exemption has two basic information collection requirements. The first requirement is that the compensation be paid in accordance with a written instrument authorized by a non-lending fiduciary, and the second is that the lending fiduciary furnish the authorizing fiduciary with information needed for the authorizing fiduciary to determine whether the compensation arrangement should be made or renewed.

The Department is particularly interested in comments that:

• 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;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

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

This notice requests comments on the extension of the ICR included in PTE 82-63. The Department is not proposing or implementing changes to the existing ICR at this time.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection of information.

Agency: Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration, Department of Labor.

Titles: Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 82-63.

OMB Number: 1210-0062.

Affected Public: Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions.

Respondents: 42,000.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Responses: 42,000.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 3,500.

Total Burden Cost (Operating and Maintenance): $0.

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

The Federal Contractor Veterans Employment Report VETS-100 is administered by the U.S. Department of Labor, is used to facilitate Federal contractor and subcontractor reporting of their employment and new hiring activity. Title 38 U.S.C., section 4212 (d) was amended by the Veterans' Employment Opportunities Act on October 31, 1998, and now requires the collection of information from entities holding contracts of $25,000 or more with Federal Departments or agencies to report annually on (a) the number of current employees in each job category and at each hiring location who are special disabled veterans, the number who are veterans of the Vietnam era, and the number who are other eligible veterans who served on active duty during a war or a campaign or expedition for which a campaign badge has been authorized; (b) the total number of employees hiring during the report period and of those, the number of special disabled, the number who are veterans of the Vietnam era, and the number who are other veterans; and the maximum and minimum number of employees employed by the contractor at each hiring location.

Currently the Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS) is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection request for the Federal Contractor Veterans' Employment Report VETS-100. The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which:

• 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;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.

• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

This notice requests the Office of Management and Budget approval for the paperwork requirements for the Federal Contractor Veterans' Employment Report VETS-100.

Type of Review: Regular Submission.

Agency: Veterans' Employment and Training Service.

Title: Federal Contractor Veterans' Report VETS-100.

OMB Number: 1293-0005.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit institutions and not-for-profit institutions.

Total Respondents: 194,580.

Average Time per Response: 30 minutes.

Total Burden Hours: 97,290.

Total Annualized Capital/startup costs: $0.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for the Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request. Comments will become a matter of public record.

NASA proposes to launch the MER-2003 spacecraft (MER-A and MER-B) in 2003 to gather scientific data on the geological characteristics of the Martian surface environment in pursuit of NASA's goal of understanding Mars in terms of whether or not life exists or has ever existed on the planet. The MER-2003 project would help NASA ensure continuity of its overall Mars exploration efforts.

The proposed first launch of the MER-A mission would take place during May or June 2003 from CCAFS. A Delta II launch system would be employed to launch the spacecraft on its trajectory to Mars, with an arrival in January 2004. The Delta II launch system would include nine graphite epoxy strap-on solid rocket motors, a liquid bi-propellant first stage, a liquid bi-propellant restartable second stage, and a solid propellant STAR-48B third stage. The MER-B mission would be launched from CCAFS during June or July 2003 using a Delta II launch system, with an arrival at Mars in February 2004.

Each MER-2003 spacecraft would consist of a cruise stage and an entry, descent, and landing (EDL) system which would include an aeroshell, backshell, parachute, and airbags. A lander containing a large rover would be enclosed within the EDL system. The primary function of the EDL system would be to convey its lander-rover safely to the surface of the planet. Each rover would weigh up to approximately 153 kilograms (about 337 pounds). Each rover would carry all science instruments and communications equipment for transmitting to and receiving data from Earth, either by using an existing Mars orbiting spacecraft or by communicating directly with Earth.

Each rover would be equipped with a number of scientific instruments, including: a stereo panoramic camera, a miniature thermal emission spectrometer, a magnetic target array, a Moëssbauer spectrometer, a microscopic surface imager, an alpha-particle X-ray spectrometer (APXS), and a rock abrasion tool. These instruments would be employed to characterize the chemical and geological nature of the landing site and surrounding area, and to provide images for transmission to Earth. Each rover would be designed to function a minimum of 90 sols (1 sol = 1 Martian day = 24 hours, 37 minutes or 1.026 Earth days). The Moëssbauer spectrometer and the APXS both would employ small amounts of radioactive materials as instrument sources. The Moëssbauer spectrometer would utilize up to 1.30 × 1010 becquerels (Bq) (350 millicuries (mCi)) of cobalt-57. The APXS would use up to 1.85 × 109 Bq (50 mCi) of curium-244. Radioisotope Heater Units (RHUs) would be used on each rover to support survival of science instruments and electronics in the low temperatures on Mars. RHUs may also be required on each lander for thermal control during cruise. Each RHU contains approximately 2.7 grams (about 0.1 ounce) of plutonium dioxide to generate heat. A total of up to eleven RHUs may be required on-board each lander-rover. The inventory of plutonium dioxide on-board each lander-rover could total up to 29.7 grams (1.1 ounces) with a total activity of about 13.5 × 1012 Bq (approximately 365 curies (Ci)).

The proposed MER-2003 missions would employ a technique similar to that demonstrated by the 1996 Mars Pathfinder mission to ensure a safe landing on the surface of Mars. This technique would employ a heat shield, small solid retro-rockets, and a parachute to decelerate the lander as it passes through the Martian atmosphere. A system of airbags would then be used to cushion and protect the lander upon contact with the Martian surface. Once each lander comes to rest the airbags would deflate and the lander petals would unfold. Each rover would then drive off of its lander platform and begin exploring the landing site. NASA has not selected specific landing sites yet but is currently considering potential sites between 15 degrees South to 5 degrees North for the MER-A mission, and between 15 degrees South and 15 degrees North for the MER-B mission.

This EIS will address the purpose and need for the proposed MER-2003 project in detail and the environmental impacts associated with its implementation. The environmental impacts of this project are anticipated to be those associated with the normal launch of both missions. Potential consequences of accident situations will also be addressed.

Written public input and comments on environmental impacts and concerns associated with the Mars Exploration Rover-2003 project are requested.

Title: Compliance and Enforcement under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

OMB Number: 3141-0001.

Abstract: The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) [IGRA] governs the regulation of gaming on Indian lands. Although the IGRA places primary responsibility with the tribes for regulating gaming, section 2706 (b) of the Act directs the NIGC to monitor gaming conducted on Indian lands on a continuing basis. The IGRA authorizes the NIGC to access and inspect all papers, books and records relating to gaming conducted on Indian lands. In accordance with this statutory responsibility, 25 CFR 571.7 requires Indian gaming operations to keep permanent financial records. 25 CFR 571.12 and 571.13 require, respectively, an annual independent audit of a tribe's gaming operations and submission of this audit to the NIGC. The NIGC uses this information to fulfill its statutory responsibility to monitor Indian gaming. Additionally, section 2713(a) of the IGRA authorizes the Chairman to issue civil fine assessments and closure orders for violations of the Act or the Commission's regulations. This authority is implemented through 25 CFR part 575. The full Commission reviews these matters on appeal under 25 CFR part 577.

Estimated Burden: No additional burden is imposed by the requirements to maintain customary business records and to allow NIGC personnel access to those records. The preparation and submission of an annual audit are accomplished on a fixed fee basis. The response to enforcement actions would vary, but 164 hours would represent an average if a respondent utilized all appeal mechanisms.

Respondents: Indian tribes conducting gaming operations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 220.

Estimated Annual Responses: 951.

Estimated Total Annual Hours Burden: 2,194.

Estimated Total Annual Cost Burden: $1,779,880.

Title: Approval of Class II and Class III Ordinances, Background Investigations and Gaming Licenses under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

OMB Number: 3141-000-3.

Abstract: The IGRA establishes the National Indian Gaming Commission as an independent regulatory agency to oversee Indian gaming. The Act sets standards for the regulation of gaming including requirements for approval or disapproval of tribal gaming ordinances. IGRA section 2705(a)(3) requires the Chairman to review all class II and class III tribal gaming ordinances. In accordance with this provision, 25 CFR 552.2 of the NIGC's regulations requires tribes to submit to the NIGC: (1) A copy of the gaming ordinance to be approved, a copy of the authorizing resolution by which it was enacted by the tribal government, a request for approval of the ordinance or resolution; (2) a description of procedures the tribe will employ in conducting background investigations on key employees or primary management officials; (3) a description of procedures the tribe will use to issue licenses to primary management officials and key employees; (4) copies of all gaming regulations; (5) a copy of any applicable tribal-state compact; (6) a description of dispute resolution procedures for disputes arising between the gaming public and the tribe or management contractor; (7) identification of the law enforcement agent that will take fingerprints and a description of the procedures for conducting criminal history checks; and (8) designation of an agent for service of process. Under 25 CFR 522.3, tribes must submit any amendment to the ordinance or resolution for approval by the Chairman. In this instance, the tribe must provide a copy of the authorizing resolution. The NIGC will use the information collected to approve or disapprove the ordinance or amendment. Section 2710 of the IGRA requires tribes to conduct background investigations on key employees and primary management officials involved in class II and class III gaming. 25 CFR parts 556 and 558 require tribes to perform each investigation using information such as name, address, previous employment records, previous relationships with either Indian tribes or the gaming industry, and licensing relating to those relationships, any convictions and any other information a tribe feels is relevant to the employment of the individuals being investigated. Tribes are then required to submit to the NIGC a copy of the completed employment applications and investigative reports and licensing eligibility determinations on key employees or primary management officials before issuing gaming licenses to those persons. The NIGC will use this information in conducting its review of the suitability determinations and will advise the tribe if it disagrees with any particular determination.

Estimated Burden: The reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to be 80 hours per response for approval of an initial gaming ordinance, 5 hours per response for an amendment, and 400 hours annually, on the average, for each tribe for submission of matters related to background information and licensing.

Respondents: Indian tribes conducting gaming operations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 220.

Estimated Annual Responses: 941.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 89,590 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost Burden: $2,758,400.

Title: National Environmental Policy Act Procedures.

OMB Number: 3141-006.

Abstract: The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) was enacted to encourage a national policy of protecting, enhancing, and restoring the quality of the human environment. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), established pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), promulgated implementing regulations at 40 CFR 1501 et seq. NEPA and CEQ's regulations require every Federal agency to establish procedures and strategies that consider the environmental consequences of Federal agency actions. Under NEPA, Federal agencies are required to prepare or cause to be prepared environmental documents relating to actions by the agency that may have significant impact on the environment. The NEPA process will be triggered when a tribe and management contractor seek approval of a management contract under 25 CFR 533 which involves the construction of or significant modification to a gaming facility. NIGC procedures discuss the submission of an environmental assessment for consideration incident to that approval process. NIGC will use the environmental assessment in determining whether there is significant impact on the environment as a result of the construction or significant facility modification and may require mitigations described in the assessment to minimize any impact.

Respondents: Indian tribes seeking approval of a management contract for tribal gaming operations and/or a management contactor.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 50.

Estimated Annual Responses: 15.

Estimated Burden Hours Per Response: 1,300.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 19,500.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost: $1,755,000.

Title: Approval of Management Contracts.

OMB Number: 3141-0004 (expired).

Abstract: Under sections 2710(e) and 2711 of the IGRA, subject to the approval of the NIGC Chairman, an Indian tribe may enter into a management contract for the operation and management of a tribal gaming activity. In approving a management contract, by the terms of the statute, the Chairman shall require and obtain the name, address, and other pertinent background information on each person or entity having a direct financial interest in, or management responsibility for such contract, and in the case of a corporation those individuals who serve on the board of directors of such corporation and each of its stockholders who hold 10 percent or more of its shares; a description of previous experience that each person has had with other Indian gaming contracts or with the gaming industry including any gaming licenses which the person holds; and a complete financial statement of each person listed. Under 25 CFR part 533, the Chairman requires the submission of the contract with original signatures, any collateral agreements to the contract, a tribal ordinance or resolution authorizing the submission and supporting documentation, a three-year business plan which sets forth the parties' goals, objectives, budgets, financial plans, and related matters and income statements and sources and use of funds statements for the previous three years, and, for any contract exceeding five years or which includes a management fee of more than 30 percent, justification that the capital investment required and income projections for the gaming operation require the longer duration or the additional fee. Under 25 CFR part 535, the Chairman may approve a modification to a management contract or an assignment of that management contract based on information similar to that required under part 533. The part also specifies that the Chairman may void a previous management contract approval and allows the parties the opportunity to submit information relevant to that determination. 25 CFR part 537 specifies the requirements for submission of background information in amplification of the statutory requirement for obtaining information on persons and entities having a direct financial interest in or management responsibility for a management contract. Finally, 25 CFR part 539 permits appeals to the Commission from a decision of the Chairman to disapprove a management contract and allows the Indian tribe and the management company an opportunity to provide information relevant to that appeal. The NIGC will use the information collected to either approve or disapprove the contract or, in the case of an appeal, to grant or deny the appeal.

Estimated Burden: The reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to be 80 hours per response for approval of a new management contract, 40 hours for approval of a management contract amendment, and 40 hours per response for an individual financial background investigation.

Respondents: Indian tribes conducting gaming and management contractors for tribal gaming operations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 50.

Estimated Annual Responses: 228.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 9,720.

Estimated Total Annual Cost Burden: $817,000.

This notice serves as notification of a public workshop to provide for the exchange of information with all stakeholders regarding the staff's efforts to provide comprehensive guidance for development, assessment and review of analytical methods used to calculate acceptable behavior of design basis events described in Chapter 15 of the Standard Review Plan (SRP) (NUREG-0800). The NRC encourages stakeholders to make presentations at this workshop on the subject documents. In particular should the documents provide additional information on simplified conservative analyses methods or incremental changes to existing evaluation models?

This notice provides only the date, the location and a brief summary of the workshop. The workshop agenda will be provided at the workshop after integrating all requests for presentations.

The staff intends to conduct a workshop to provide for an exchange of information related to Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1096 and SRP Section 15.0.2. Persons other than NRC staff and NRC contractors interested in making a presentation at the workshop should notify Norman Lauben, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, MS: T10-K08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001, (301) 415-6762, email: gnl1@nrc.gov.

There is no registration fee for the workshop; however, so that adequate space, materials, etc., for the workshop can be arranged, please provide notification of attendance to Norman Lauben, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, MS: T10-K08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, (301) 415-6762, email: gnl1@nrc.gov.

The Office of Personnel Management published its last monthly notice updating appointing authorities established or revoked under the Excepted Service provisions of 5 CFR 213 on January 22, 2001 (62 FR 6705). Individual authorities established under Schedule C between December 1, 2000, and December 31, 2000, appear in the listing below. Future notices will be published on the fourth Tuesday of each month, or as soon as possible thereafter. A consolidated listing of all authorities as of June 30 will also be published.

The following Schedule C authorities were established during December 2000:

Staff Assistant to the Director, Legislative Liaison, Executive Secretariat and Public Affairs Staff. Effective December 19, 2000.

Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary, Office of Legislation and Congressional Affairs. Effective December 1, 2000.

Confidential Assistant to the Special Assistant (White House Liaison and Trip Director). Effective December 1, 2000.

Special Assistant to the Director, Office of Educational Technology. Effective December 4, 2000.

Special Assistant, Region VII to the Secretary's Regional Representative. Effective December 5, 2000.

Confidential Assistant to the Counselor to the Secretary. Effective December 13, 2000.

Confidential Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Intergovernmental and Interagency Affairs. Effective December 14, 2000.

Staff Assistant to the Director, Office of Executive Scheduling. Effective December 8, 2000.

Director, Office of Press Relations to the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. Effective December 13, 2000.

Advance Coordinator to the Director of Executive Scheduling. Effective December 18, 2000.

Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget. Effective December 21, 2000.

Special Assistant to the Director, Office of Intergovernmental Affairs. Effective December 21, 2000.

Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs. Effective December 11, 2000.

Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training. Effective December 11, 2000.

Director, Intergovernmental Affairs to the Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs. Effective December 11, 2000.

Special Assistant to the Director of the Women's Bureau. Effective December 15, 2000.

Special Assistant to the Solicitor of Labor. Effective December 15, 2000.

Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management. Effective December 15, 2000.

Special Assistant to the Director, Women's Bureau. Effective December 21, 2000.

Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary, Employment Standards Administration. Effective December 28, 2000.

Associate Director for Media Relations and Special Projects to the Assistant to the Secretary and Director of Public Affairs. Effective December 19, 2000.

Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions. Effective December 1, 2000.

Executive Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Affairs. Effective December 13, 2000.

Senior Policy Advisor to the Deputy Associate Administrator for Policy and Planning. Effective December 21, 2000.

Confidential Assistant to the Director, Office of Government Ethics. Effective December 4, 2000.

Special Assistant to the Director of Communications. Effective December 7, 2000.

Special Assistant to the Director, United States Office of Personnel Management. Effective December 8, 2000.

Senior Advisor to the Associate Deputy Administrator of Entrepreneurial Development. Effective December 8, 2000.

During the opened portion of the meeting the following topics will be discussed:

You may comment on this policy statement by sending any written data, views, or arguments as you may desire. You should identify the Policy Statement Number ANM-01-01 on your comments, and submit your comments, in duplicate, to the address indicated above. The Transport Airplane Directorate (Transport Standards Staff) will consider all communications received on or before the closing date for comments.

In September 1990, the FAA published Report DOT/FAA/CT-99/15, “Aircraft Materials Fire Test Handbook” (referred to throughout this notice as “the Handbook”). The Boeing Company, with the assistance of the former McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Company, developed the Handbook under contract to the FAA.

The 1990 version of the Handbook consisted of chapters outlining in detail the various material flammability tests that Boeing and McDonnell Douglas had used to show compliance with the FAA material flammability regulations. Those specific regulations in Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 25, are:

§ 25.853 (“Compartment interiors”),

§ 25.855 (“Cargo and baggage compartments”),

§ 25.857 (“Cargo compartment classification”),

§ 25.858 (“Cargo compartment fire detection systems”), and

§ 25.869 (“Fire protection: systems”).

At the time of its original publication, the Handbook contained test methods that represented acceptable, but not necessarily the only, methods to show compliance with those regulations. In addition, the Handbook contained other chapters with general information on flammability testing of aircraft material, such as where in the regulations to find requirements, the location of international contacts, and a list of various fire test laboratories.

Since the original publication of the Handbook, the FAA has relied on the International Aircraft Materials Fire Test Working Group (IAMFTWG) to review the test methods and advise on areas needing possible revision. The IAMFTWG consists of experts in the materials and fire testing specialties who help refine and support the development of test methods used in aviation. The members of the IAMFTWG include representatives from the airlines, airframe manufacturers, material suppliers, and regulatory authorities, among others. A representative from the FAA's Technical Center chairs this group. The IAMFTWG is a participative technical peer group that contributes to FAA research, but its activities are not regulatory in nature.

Before any modifications to the test methods described in the Handbook have been incorporated, the IAMFTWG has provided data supporting such modifications, and the FAA has reviewed and accepted the data. In addition, the FAA's Transport Airplane Directorate (Transport Standards Staff) has determined whether the modified test methods complied with the applicable regulations.

The following is an example of why and how this procedure has been used in the past to modify and improve test methods.

Several IAMFTWG representatives from test laboratories reported problems with testing some new, very fire-resistant panels in the rate-of-heat-release testing apparatus. The test apparatus used three pilot flames, located above the sample material, to ignite any combustible gas by-products emitted by the sample during testing. The problem with this test arose when gases emanating from the samples were extinguishing the upper pilot flames in the test chamber, thus voiding the tests. Consequently, materials that might improve fire safety could not be approved for use because the fire retardant mechanism that improved their flammability also extinguished the pilot flames in the required test method.

After an extensive test program, certain modifications were made to the upper pilot burner in the test apparatus to improve the test:

• The number of pilot flames was increased from 3 to 13, with one outside the flame plume.

• The size of the pilot flames was decreased to minimize the possible heating effect of the increased number of pilots.

Testing showed that this new pilot configuration solved the problem. That is, when a pilot flame would extinguish, it was immediately re-ignited by an adjacent flame without compromising the results of the test. Subsequent testing showed that there was no difference in test results between the 3-and 13-hole pilot configurations for materials that do not extinguish the pilot flames. Thus, the Transport Airplane Directorate (Transport Standards Staff) determined that the use of the 13-hole pilot burner would produce results equivalent to the 3-hole burner and, therefore, was an acceptable method to show compliance with the applicable regulations.

The FAA has made public the various accepted modifications to the original test methods (outlined in the 1990 version of the Handbook) through drafts of a revised Handbook that have been continually updated. The recently published revised Handbook, dated April 2000, documents these changes to the test methods.

There are four types of chapters in this latest revised version of the Handbook:

1. Required test methods, non-propulsion related (Chapters 1-10, and 15);

2. Required test methods, propulsion related (Chapters 11-14);

3. Non-required test methods (Chapters 18-22); and

4. General information (Appendix A through G).

The required test methods (non-propulsion), as described in Chapters 1 through 10 and Chapter 15, are acceptable methods for showing compliance with, or provide an equivalent level of safety to, the required regulations as outlined in the chapter.

The required test methods (propulsion), as described in Chapters 11 through 14, are not addressed in this policy statement.

The non-required test methods described in Chapters 18 through 22 are included in the Handbook for use as test standards in applications where there currently are no requirements. Since these test methods are not required, no process is required for their modification. Therefore, the FAA will update these chapters as needed in the electronic version of the Handbook located at http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/index.html?handbook.stm&1.

The general information chapters (Appendices A through G) provide assistance to applicants and test laboratories as a general guide to the certification process. These chapters are not all-inclusive and can be viewed simply as a starting point. The FAA will update the information in these chapters as needed in the electronic version of the handbook.

As of the date of this policy statement, the FAA considers the following test methods described in Chapters 1 through 10 and Chapter 15 of the “Aircraft Materials Fire Test Handbook,” dated April 2000, the preferred test methods to show compliance with, or demonstrate an equivalent level of safety to, the applicable material flammability regulations:

Chapter 1—the 60-second and 12-second Vertical Bunsen Burner Test specified in § 25.853, § 25.858, and Appendix F of part 25.

Chapter 2—the 30-second 45-degree Bunsen Burner Test specified in § 25.857 and Appendix F of part 25.

Chapter 3—the 15-second horizontal Bunsen Burner Test specified in § 25.853 and Appendix F of part 25.

Chapter 4—the 30-second 60-degree Bunsen Burner Wire Test specified in § 25.869 and Appendix F of part 25.

Chapter 5—the Rate of Heat Release Test specified in § 25.853 and Appendix F of part 25.

Chapter 6—the Smoke Test for Cabin Materials specified in § 25.853 and Appendix F of part 25.

Chapter 7—the Oil Burner Test for Seat Cushions specified in § 25.853.

Chapter 8—the Oil Burner Test for Cargo Liners specified in § 25.855 and Appendix F of part 25.

Chapter 9—the Radiant Heat Test for Evacuation Slides, Ramps, and Rafts specified in Technical Standard Order (TSO)-C69C (“Emergency Evacuation Slides, Ramps, Ramp/Slides, and Slide/Rafts”).

Chapter 10—the Fire Containment Test of Waste Stowage Compartments to demonstrate compliance with § 25.853.

Chapter 15—the Oil Burner Test for Repaired Cargo Compartment Liners to demonstrate continued compliance with § 25.855.

Although these test methods cannot—and do not—supersede any method specified by and described in the regulations, they represent an acceptable means of compliance with the relevant regulation and, in some cases, a preferred option over the specified method.

Section 25.853 includes a provision for use of “other approved equivalent methods,” when referring to the test procedures described in Appendix F of part 25. The FAA has accepted the test methods described in Chapters 1 through 10 and Chapter 15 of the Handbook as providing an equivalent level of safety to the test methods specified in Appendix F of part 25. In addition, these test methods are more repeatable, more reproducible, and easier to conduct.

The FAA encourages applicants to use the test methods outlined in Chapters 1 through 10 and Chapter 15 of the Handbook. However, the FAA will consider other alternative methods that demonstrate an equivalent level of safety on a case-by-case basis along with the necessary supportive data.

New materials and technology may make it necessary to modify the various test methods from time to time in order to address newly identified testing anomalies. In these cases, the FAA requires assurance that such changes do not affect the intended pass/fail criteria of the test (that is, the level of safety provided), but do provide an increase in repeatability, reproducibility, or ease of test conduct.

Changes or modifications to any test method outlined in Chapters 1 through 10 and Chapter 15 will be addressed first through the IAMFTWG. The IAMFTWG will evaluate all suggested changes, modifications, and supportive data. Only changes that do not adversely affect the intended safety level of the test method (pass/fail level) will be considered.

Fire safety experts within the FAA will first approve the modified test methods before forwarding them to the Transport Airplane Directorate (Transport Standards Staff) for a determination of equivalent level of safety. Only if such a determination is made will the changes or modifications be incorporated into the electronic version of the Handbook (accessible at http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/index.html?handbook.stm&1).

The FAA will consider the test methods in Chapters 1 through 10 and Chapter 15 of the electronic version of the Handbook to be the most current methods. However, the test methods described in the version of the Handbook dated April 2000, will remain acceptable for showing compliance. The test methods described in the regulations, of course, will also remain acceptable methods of compliance.

The test methods described in the Handbook are intended to be adopted in total, if they are used. That is, use of one section of a test method from the Handbook and another section of the test method from Appendix F of part 25 for example, is not covered by this policy statement. If an applicant proposes to use sections from more than one version of a test method to show compliance, the applicant first must obtain approval from the cognizant FAA Aircraft Certification Office. The applicant's requests should be coordinated with the Transport Airplane Directorate (Transport Standards Staff).

The general policy stated in this document is not intended to establish a binding norm; it does not constitute a new regulation and the FAA would not apply or rely upon it as a regulation. The FAA Aircraft Certification Offices (ACO) that certify transport category airplanes should generally attempt to follow this policy, when appropriate. However, in determining compliance with certification standards, each ACO has the discretion not to apply these guidelines where it determines that they are inappropriate. Applicants should expect that the certificating officials will consider this information when making findings of compliance relevant to new certificate actions. Applicants also may consider the material contained in this policy statement as supplemental to that currently contained in Report DOT/FAA/AR-00/12, “Aircraft Materials Fire Test Handbook,” dated April 2000, when developing a means of compliance with the relevant certification standards.

In addition, as with all typical advisory material, this statement of policy identifies one means, but not the only means, of compliance.

The FAA considers this policy statement an issue for which public comment is appropriate and, therefore, requests comment on it. However, it is the FAA's intention to immediately apply this policy. Resolution of any public comments received will determine how the policy is applied in the long term for future projects.