OMB No: OMB 0412-0552.

Form No.: N/A.

Title: Financial Status Report.

Type of Review: Renewal of Information Collection.

Purpose: USAID wants to continue to require expanded financial reporting from recipients of grant and cooperative agreements (CA) with places of performance covering multiple countries. Recipients would be required to provide financial reports with expenditure data by country. For assistance programs which cover programs in more than one country, USAID requires recipients to specify in the “remarks” section of SF-269 and SF-269A, or other applicable approved financial report form, by country, the amount of the total Federal Share which was expended for each country. USAID has sought a class deviation to the statute from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the 22 CFR 226.4. The information is being collected so that USAID may report to Congress, OMB, and other requestors per the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act and the Government Management Reporting Act. Also, the reporting requirements are necessary to ensure that USAID funds are expended in accordance with statutory requirements and USAID policies. USAID is seeking this waiver for a period of three years.

Annual Reporting Burden:

Respondents: 118.

Total annual responses: 472.

Total annual hours requested: 800 hours.

The National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board, which represents 30 constituent categories, as specified in section 802 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Pub. L. No. 104-127), has scheduled a National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board meeting March 19-21, 2001.

On Monday, March 19 through Wednesday March 21, 2001, the Advisory Board will hold a general meeting in Washington, DC. A general business session of the Advisory Board will be held on March 19, from 9:00 a.m. until 12:00 noon, and will include a morning session to hear views on agricultural research from Congressional members and staff, a session on the ARS Peer Review Process for Intramural National Programs. The afternoon session will feature representatives from the office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics (REE) and its agencies, representatives and other outside invitees who represent a variety of interests regarding funding and policy strategies for research and education. The meeting will adjourn at 5:00 p.m. for the day.

A National Stakeholder Symposium is scheduled for March 20, 2001, from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., with the theme of “Reinventing Agriculture in the 21st Century through Research and Education.” The objective of the Stakeholder Symposium is to hear diverse views from stakeholders across the country on how we can best shape 21st century American agriculture through research and education and to initiate dialogue that will help shape future Farm Bill legislation as it relates to research and education opportunities. On Wednesday, March 21, 2001, the Advisory Board will focus on future efforts of the Board in addressing the transition in the Administration, and include discussions on increasing funding support for agricultural research and education. They will be articulating their findings from the meeting and the previous day's focus sessions into formal recommendations for the Secretary of Agriculture. They will also start focusing on their agenda for the coming year, which will include establishment of a rapport with the new administration on communicating high priority USDA research and education opportunities. Limited time will be provided for comments from the public as noted in a forthcoming agenda. Also written comments will be accepted for public record up to 2 weeks following the Board meeting. The final agenda will be available to the public prior to the meeting.

Place: DoubleTree Park Terrace Hotel, 1515 Rhode Island Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.; Terrace Ballroom and State Room.

Type of Meeting: Open to the Public.

Comments: The public may file written comments before or after the meeting with the contact person. All statements will become a part of the official records of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board and will be kept on file for public review in the Office of the Advisory Board; Research, Education, and Economics; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Washington, D.C. 20250-2255.

The purpose of the Commission is to advise the President on changes occurring in the tobacco farming economy and recommend such measures as may be necessary to improve economic opportunity and development in communities that are dependent on tobacco production, while protecting consumers, particularly children, from hazards associated with smoking. The Commission collected and reviewed information about changes in the tobacco farming economy and Federal, State, and local initiatives intended to help tobacco growers, tobacco quota holders, and communities dependent on tobacco production pursue new economic opportunities. The Commission issued its Preliminary Report on January 26, 2001, with comments requested through March 8, 2001. Copies of the Preliminary Report are available on the Commission's website at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/tobcom/ or by contacting the Commission's office at the contact information listed above. All comments received through February 20, 2001, with respect to the Preliminary Report were reviewed by the Commission in its public meeting conducted on February 21, 2001.

The Commission, in its February 21, 2001, meeting, also reviewed draft recommendations from three working groups representing the farm, economic development and health areas of the Commission. After this review, the Commission directed that each working group revise their recommendations based on input received from the meeting and other recommendations to the Commission.

The purpose of the March 20, 2001, meeting is to review additional public input received on the Preliminary Report and to review the revised reports from the tobacco, economic development and health working groups in order to prepare the Final Report to the President.

Written comments may be sent to the contact person listed above.

This Action has been reviewed and determined not to be a rule or regulation as defined in Executive Order 12866 and Departmental Regulation 1512-1; therefore, the Executive Order and Departmental Regulation do not apply to this action.

In the December 1, 2000, Federal Register (65 FR 175237), GIPSA asked persons interested in providing official services in the Fremont area to submit an application for designation. There were two applicants for the Fremont area: Fremont and Sioux City Inspection and Weighing Service Company (Sioux City). Fremont applied for designation to provide official services in the entire area currently assigned to them. Sioux City, a designated official grain inspection agency operating in Iowa, Nebraska, and South Dakota, applied for designation to provide official services in all or part of the Fremont geographical area.

GIPSA is publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to present comments concerning the applicants. Commenters are encouraged to submit reasons and pertinent data for support or objection to the designation of the applicants. All comments must be submitted to the Compliance Division at the above address. Comments and other available information will be considered in making a final decision. GIPSA will publish notice of the final decision in the Federal Register, and GIPSA will send the applicants written notification of the decision.

This Action has been reviewed and determined not to be a rule or regulation as defined in Executive Order 12866 and Departmental Regulation 1512-1; therefore, the Executive Order and Departmental Regulation do not apply to this Action.

Section 7(f)(1) of the United States Grain Standards Act, as amended (Act), authorizes GIPSA's Administrator to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services.

Section 7(g)(1) of the Act provides that designations of official agencies shall end not later than triennially and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in Section 7(f) of the Act.

a. Pursuant to Section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, in the States of Oklahoma and Texas, is assigned to Amarillo.

In Texas:

Bounded on the North by the Texas-Oklahoma State line to the eastern Clay County line;

Bounded on the East by the eastern Clay, Archer, Throckmorton, Shackelford, and Callahan County lines;

Bounded on the South by the southern Callahan, Taylor, and Nolan County lines;

Bounded on the West by the western Nolan, Fisher, Stonewall, King, and Cottle County lines; the western Childress County line north to U.S. Route 287; U.S. Route 287 northwest to Donley County; the southern Donley and Armstrong County lines west to Prairie Dog Town Fork of the Red River; Prairie Dog Town Fork of the Red River northwest to State Route 217; State Route 217 west to FM 1062; FM 1062 west to U.S. Route 385; U.S. Route 385 north to Oldham County; the southern Oldham County line; the western Oldham, Hartley, and Dallam County lines.

Beaver, Beckham, Cimarron, Ellis, Harper, Roger Mills, and Texas Counties, Oklahoma.

b. Pursuant to Section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, in the States of Illinois, Kentucky, and Tennessee, is assigned to Cairo.

Randolph County (southwest of State Route 150 from the Mississippi River north to State Route 3); Jackson County (southwest of State Route 3 southeast to State Route 149; State Route 149 east to State Route 13; State Route 13 southeast to U.S. Route 51; U.S. Route 51 south to Union County); and Alexander, Johnson, Hardin, Massac, Pope, Pulaski, and Union Counties, Illinois.

Ballard, Calloway, Carlisle, Fulton, Graves, Hickman, Livingston, Lyon, Marshall, McCracken, and Trigg Counties, Kentucky.

Benton, Dickson, Henry, Houston, Humphreys, Lake, Montgomery, Obion, Stewart, and Weakley Counties, Tennessee.

Cairo's assigned geographic area does not include the following grain elevator inside Cairo's area which has been and will continue to be serviced by the following official agency: Memphis Grain Inspection Service: Cargill, Inc., Tiptonville, Lake County, Tennessee.

c. Pursuant to Section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, in the State of Ohio, is assigned to Fostoria.

Bounded on the North by the northern and eastern Fulton County lines; the eastern Henry County line; the northern and eastern Wood County lines; the northern Sandusky County line east to State Route 590;

Bounded on the East by State Route 590 south to Seneca County; the northern Seneca County line east to State Route 53; State Route 53 south to Wyandot County; the northern Wyandot County line; the northern Crawford County line east to State Route 19; State Route 19 south to U.S. Route 30;

Bounded on the South by U.S. Route 30 west to the western Hancock County line; and

Bounded on the West by the western Hancock County line; the southern Henry County line west to State Route 108; State Route 108 north to U.S. Route 24; U.S. Route 24 southwest to the Henry County line; the western Henry and Fulton County lines.

d. Pursuant to Section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, the entire State of Louisiana, except those export port locations within the State which are serviced by GIPSA, is assigned to Louisiana.

e. Pursuant to Section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, the entire State of North Carolina, except those export port locations within the State which are serviced by GIPSA, is assigned to North Carolina.

f. Pursuant to Section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, in the State of Iowa, is assigned to Schaal.

Bounded on the North by the northern Kossuth County line from U.S. Route 169; the northern Winnebago, Worth, and Mitchell County lines;

Bounded on the East by the eastern Mitchell County line; the eastern Floyd County line south to B60; B60 west to T64; T64 south to State Route 188; State Route 188 south to C33;

Bounded on the South by C33 west to T47; T47 north to C23; C23 west to S56; S56 south to C25; C25 west to U.S. Route 65; U.S. Route 65 south to State Route 3; State Route 3 west to S41; S41 south to C55; C55 west to Interstate 35; Interstate 35 southwest to the southern Wright County line; the southern Wright County line west to U.S. Route 69; U.S. Route 69 to C54; C54 west to State Route 17; and

Bounded on the West by State Route 17 north to the southern Kossuth County line; the Kossuth County line west to U.S. Route 169; U.S. Route 169 north to the northern Kossuth County line.

Schaal's assigned geographic area does not include the following grain elevators inside Schaal's area which have been and will continue to be serviced by the following official agencies:

1. Central Iowa Grain Inspection Service, Inc.: North Central Farm Service, Chapin, Franklin County; and Land O'Lakes Elevator, d.b.a. Rockwell Ag Center, Rockwell, Cerro Gordo County.

2. A. V. Tischer and Son, Inc.: West Bend Elevator Co., Algona, Kossuth County; Stateline Coop, Burt, Kossuth County; Gold-Eagle, Goldfield, Wright County; and North Central Coop, Holmes, Wright County.

g. Pursuant to Section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, the entire State of Wisconsin, except those export port locations within the State, is assigned to Wisconsin.

Interested persons, including Amarillo, Cairo, Fostoria, Louisiana, North Carolina, Schaal, and Wisconsin, are hereby given the opportunity to apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas specified above under the provisions of Section 7(f) of the Act and section 800.196(d) of the regulations issued thereunder. Persons wishing to apply for designation should contact the Compliance Division at the address listed above for forms and information.

GIPSA also is publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to present comments on the Amarillo, Cairo, Fostoria, Louisiana, North Carolina, Schaal, and Wisconsin official agencies. Commenters are encouraged to submit pertinent data concerning these official agencies including information on the timeliness, cost, quality, and scope of services provided. All comments must be submitted to the Compliance Division at the above address.

Applications, comments, and other available information will be considered in determining which applicant will be designated.

This action has been reviewed and determined not to be a rule or regulation as defined in Executive Order 12866 and Departmental Regulation 1512-1; therefore, the Executive Order and Departmental Regulation do not apply to this action.

In the September 1, 2000, Federal Register (65 FR 53263), GIPSA asked persons interested in providing official services in the geographic areas assigned to the official agencies named above to submit an application for designation. Applications were due by October 1, 2000.

Each was the sole applicant for designation to provide official services in the entire area currently assigned to them, so GIPSA did not ask for comments on the applicants.

GIPSA evaluated all available information regarding the designation criteria in Section 7(f)(l)(A) of the Act and, according to Section 7(f)(l)(B), determined that each official agency is able to provide official services in the geographic areas, specified in the September 1, 2000, Federal Register, for which they applied. Additionally, Enid had asked GIPSA to amend their designation to include official weighing services. Section 7A(c)(2) of the Act authorizes GIPSA's Administrator to designate authority to perform official weighing to an agency providing official inspection services within a specified geographic area, if such agency is qualified under Section 7(f)(1)(A) of the Act. GIPSA evaluated all available information regarding the designation criteria in Section 7(f)(1)(A) of the Act, and determined that Enid is qualified to provide official weighing services in their currently assigned geographic area.

Interested persons may obtain official services by calling the telephone numbers listed below.

Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2. Additional information about the Task Force on Agricultural Air Quality, including any revised agenda for the March 27 and 28 meeting that occurs after this Federal Register notice is published, may be found on the World Wide Web at http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/faca/aaqtf.html.

This meeting is open to the public. At the discretion of the Chair, members of the public may present oral presentations during the meeting. Persons wishing to make oral presentations should notify George Bluhm no later than March 16, 2001. If a person submitting material would like a copy distributed to each member of the committee in advance of the meeting, that person should submit 25 copies to George Bluhm no later than March 16, 2001.

For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact George Bluhm.

USDA prohibits discrimination in its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, sexual orientation, or disability. Additionally, discrimination on the basis of political beliefs and marital or family status is also prohibited by statutes enforced by USDA. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternate means for communication of program information (braille, large print, audio tape, etc.) should contact the USDA's Target Center at (202) 720-2000 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination to USDA, write to Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410; or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

The Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on PPD-T aramid from the Netherlands on June 24, 1994 (59 FR 32678). On June 20, 2000, we published in the Federal Register (65 FR 38242) a notice of “Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review” of this order covering the period June 1, 1999, through May 31, 2000.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), Twaron and petitioner requested that we conduct an administrative review for the aforementioned period. On July 31, 2000, the Department published a notice of “Initiation of Antidumping Review” (65 FR 46687). The Department is now conducting this administrative review pursuant to section 751 of the Act.

On February 8, 2001, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) determined in the five-year (sunset) review that revoking the existing antidumping order on imports of PPD-T aramid from the Netherlands would not likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. As a result of the ITC's negative determination, the existing antidumping duty order on imports of this product will be revoked retroactive to January 1, 2000. Therefore, our review covers sales of this merchandise to the United States during the period June 1, 1999, through December 31, 1999.

The products covered by this review are all forms of PPD-T aramid from the Netherlands. These consist of PPD-T aramid in the form of filament yarn (including single and corded), staple fiber, pulp (wet or dry), spun-laced and spun-bonded nonwovens, chopped fiber, and floc. Tire cord is excluded from the class or kind of merchandise under review. This merchandise is currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 5402.10.3020, 5402.10.3040, 5402.10.6000, 5503.10.1000, 5503.10.9000, 5601.30.0000, and 5603.00.9000. The HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description of the scope remains dispositive.

In accordance with section 751 of the Act, the Department is required to determine the normal value (NV) and export price (EP) or constructed export price (CEP) of each entry of subject merchandise, and the dumping margin for each such entry. See Section 751(a)(2)(A). Because there can be a significant lag between entry date and sale date for CEP sales, it has been the Department's practice to examine U.S. CEP sales during the period of review (POR). See Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 48826, 48832 (September 20, 1993) (the Department did not consider ESP (now CEP) entries which were sold after the POR). The Court of International Trade (CIT) has upheld the Department's practice in this regard. See The Ad Hoc Committee of Southern California Producers of Gray Portland Cement v. United States, 914 F. Supp. 535, 544-45 (CIT 1995).

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products covered by the Scope of the Review which were sold by the respondent in the home market during the POR to be foreign like products for purposes of product comparisons to U.S. sales.

Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, where there were home market sales that passed the cost of production (COP) test, as discussed below, we compared the CEPs of individual U.S. transactions to the monthly weighted-average NV of the foreign like product. Where there were no sales of identical or similar merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the constructed value (CV) of the product sold in the home market during the comparison period.

The Department based its margin calculation on CEP, as defined in sections 772(b), (c), and (d) of the Act, because all sales to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States took place after importation.

We calculated CEP based on delivered prices and FOB warehouse prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Where appropriate, we reduced these prices to reflect rebates. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted direct selling expenses, i.e., credit expenses, technical service expenses, warranty expenses, third-party payments, packing and repacking, and indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs, which related to economic activity in the United States. We made deductions for movement expenses (international freight, brokerage and handling, U.S. duties, domestic inland freight, U.S. inland freight, and insurance) in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act. We also made deductions for further manufacturing in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act. Finally, we also deducted from CEP an amount for profit in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and (f) 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 NV, we compared the respondent's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B) and (C) of the Act, because Twaron's aggregate volume of the home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market provides a viable basis for calculating NV on home market sales.

We calculated NV based on packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the home market. We made adjustments for discounts. Where applicable, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs. In accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, where applicable, we made deductions from the starting price for inland freight and inland insurance. In addition, we made a circumstance of sale adjustment for imputed credit expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. Prices were reported net of value added taxes (VAT) and, therefore, no deduction for VAT was necessary. We made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable costs of manufacturing for the foreign like product and the subject merchandise.

We derived the CEP offset amount from the amount of the indirect selling expenses on sales in the home market. See Level of Trade section of this notice. We limited the home market indirect selling expense deduction by the amount of the indirect selling expenses deducted from CEP pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act.

In the most recently completed administrative review of Twaron, we disregarded sales found to be below the COP. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales below the COP may have occurred during the POR. Thus, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, we initiated a COP investigation of Twaron in the instant review.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the weighted-average COP, by model, based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like product, plus amounts for home market selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and packing costs in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We used the home market sales data and COP information provided by Twaron in its questionnaire responses.

After calculating a weighted-average COP, we tested whether home market sales of PPD-T aramid were made at prices below COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and whether such prices permitted recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We compared model-specific COP to the reported home market prices less any applicable movement charges, discounts, and indirect selling expenses.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of Twaron's sales of a given model were at prices less than 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.” In accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) and (D) where 20 percent or more of home market sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we found that such sales were made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time. Because the sales prices would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, we disregarded those below-cost sales and used the remaining sales to determine NV in accordance with section 773(b)(1). For those models of PPD-T aramid for which there were no home market sales available for matching purposes, we compared CEP to CV.

In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV based on the sum of Twaron's cost of materials and fabrication employed in producing the subject merchandise, SG&A and profit incurred and realized in connection with production and sale of the foreign like product, and U.S. packing costs. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A), we based SG&A and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by Twaron in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country.

We used the costs of materials, fabrication, and SG&A as reported in the CV portion of Twaron's questionnaire response. We used the U.S. packing costs as reported in the U.S. sales portion of Twaron's questionnaire response. We based selling expenses and profit on the information reported in the home market sales portion of Twaron's questionnaire response. See Certain Pasta from Italy; Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 61 FR 1344, 1349 (January 19, 1996). For selling expenses, we used the average of the home market selling expenses weighted by the respective quantities sold. For actual profit, we first calculated the difference between the home market sales value and home market COP for all home market sales in the ordinary course of trade, and divided the sum of these differences by the total home market COP for these sales. We then multiplied this percentage by the COP for each U.S. model to derive the profit amount. Finally, the CEP offset was derived in the same manner described in the Normal Value section of this notice.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade as the EP or CEP. The NV level of trade is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. For EP, the U.S. level of trade is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from exporter to importer. For CEP, the level of trade is based on the transaction between the exporter and the importer for which we construct the price.

To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade than EP or CEP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a different level of trade, and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we make a level of trade adjustment pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV 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 NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV 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, 61732-33 (November 19, 1997) (South Africa Final).

For purposes of our analysis, we examined information regarding the distribution systems in both the United States and the Dutch markets, including the selling functions, classes of customer, and selling expenses. Upon consideration of the above mentioned factors, the Department determined that there is one level of trade and one channel of distribution in the home market (direct to end users) and a different level of trade in the U.S. market (sales to an affiliated distributor). As such, we were unable to make product comparisons at the same level of trade nor were we able to calculate a level of trade adjustment. We have determined that Twaron's NV sales to end-users/converters in the home market, as well as CV, are at a more advanced stage of distribution than CEP sales. As a result, the Department has preliminarily determined to grant Twaron an adjustment to NV in the form of a CEP offset.

For purposes of the preliminary results, we made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. See Change in Policy Regarding Currency Conversions, 61 FR 9434 (March 8, 1996). Section 773A(a) of the Act directs the Department to use a daily exchange rate in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars, unless the daily rate involves a “fluctuation.” In accordance with the Department's practice, we have determined as a general matter that a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate differs from a benchmark by 2.25 percent. See South Africa Final 62 FR 61734. The benchmark is defined as the rolling average of rates for the past 40 business days. When we determine that a fluctuation exists, we substitute the benchmark for the daily rate, in accordance with established practice. Therefore, for purposes of the current review, we have made currency conversions based on the official exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales based on the methodology discussed above.

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists:

We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the first workday thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit case briefs in this proceeding should provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of publication. Further, we would appreciate it if parties submitting written comments would provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. The Department will publish a notice of the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written comments or at the hearing, within 120 days from the publication of these preliminary results.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department shall determine, and the United States Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales and dividing this amount by the estimated entered value (provided by respondents) of the same merchandise on an importer-specific basis. Upon completion of this review, the Department will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on all entries during the POR by applying the assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise.

Furthermore, as a result of the ITC's negative sunset review determination with regard to PPD-T aramid from the Netherlands, the Department will revoke the antidumping duty order for this case, effective January 1, 2000. We will instruct the Customs Service to terminate suspension of liquidation for all entries of subject merchandise made on or after January 1, 2000. Therefore, we will not issue cash deposit instructions to Customs based on the results of this review.

This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402 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 determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 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 (the Tariff 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 (1999).

On February 14, 2000, the Department published in the Federal Register (65 FR 7348-03) a notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” for the period February 1, 1999, through January 31, 2000. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, on February 21, 2000, Netchem requested a review of itself, and, on February 29, 2000, the petitioner, Rhodia Inc., requested a review of Jiangsu, for the aforementioned period. On March 30, 2000, we published a notice of “Initiation of Antidumping Review.” See 65 FR 16875-01. The Department is now conducting this administrative review pursuant to section 751(a) of the Tariff Act.

On May 2, 2000, and July 28, 2000, we issued questionnaires to Jiangsu and Netchem, respectively. On July 31, 2000, Jiangsu submitted a letter stating that it was withdrawing its request to be reviewed. On August 2, 2000, the Department confirmed with Jiangsu's counsel that Jiangsu had not requested a review, and that the intent of the letter was to notify the Department that Jiangsu would no longer be participating in the review. See Memorandum to File through Maureen Flannery from Mark Hoadley: Coumarin from the People's Republic of China, Jiangsu's Native Import & Export Corp. (Jiangsu), Letter of July 31, 2000, dated August 4, 2000.

Netchem filed its section A response on September 5, 2000, and its sections C and D response on September 12, 2000. Upon the Department's verbal inquiry regarding verification, Netchem informed the Department by telephone on November 14, 2000 that the producer in China had gone bankrupt. On November 20, 2000, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire for sections A through D to clarify deficient information in the response and to obtain information not yet provided. On the same day, the Department sent a separate letter to Netchem, referencing the November 14 conversation, and asking for clarification regarding which company had gone bankrupt, what the role of the company was in the production and sale of subject merchandise, who had provided Netchem with the necessary information for questionnaire responses, and the current owner and location of source documents. This letter also asked Netchem to confirm the dates for verification in China and Canada. Netchem submitted its response to the November 20 letter on December 1, 2000, indicating that the director of the producing company had provided Netchem with information pertaining to factors of production. Netchem further stated that there were no original documents available. On December 8, 2000, the Department received Netchem's supplemental questionnaire response. Again, Netchem stated that it was unable to provide the information pertaining to the producer of its subject merchandise due to the bankruptcy of the Chinese producer.

The product covered by this order is coumarin. Coumarin is an aroma chemical with the chemical formula C sub9 H sub6 O sub2 that is also known by other names, including 2H-1-benzopyran-2-one, 1,2-benzopyrone, cis-o-coumaric acid lactone, coumarinic anhydride, 2-Oxo-1,2-benzopyran, 5,6-benzo-alpha-pyrone, ortho-hydroxyc innamic acid lactone, cis-ortho-coumaric acid anhydride, and tonka bean camphor. All forms and variations of coumarin are included within the scope of the order, such as coumarin in crystal, flake, or powder form, and “crude” or unrefined coumarin (i.e. prior to purification or crystallization). Excluded from the scope of this order are ethylcoumarins (C sub11 H sub10 O sub2) and methylcoumarins (C sub10 H sub8 O sub2). Coumarin is classifiable under subheading 2932.21.0000 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 of this review is dispositive.

The review period is February 1, 1999 through January 31, 2000.

It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of the merchandise subject to review in non-market economy (NME) countries a single rate, unless an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto), with respect to exports. To establish whether a company is sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate, company-specific rate, the Department analyzes each exporting entity in an NME country under the test established in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994). Because Jiangsu failed to cooperate, the Department is not granting a separate rate to Jiangsu.

Pursuant to sections 776(a)(1) of the Tariff Act, (1) if necessary information is not available on the record, or (2) if an interested party or any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested by the administering authority, (B) fails to provide such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form and manner requested, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute, or (D) provides such information, but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the administering authority shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination.

Although Netchem provided the Department with some information, that information was too incomplete and too deficient for the Department to conduct a margin analysis. In addition, upon requests by the Department for further information, in accordance with section 782(d), Netchem repeatedly stated, verbally and in writing, that its supplier in the PRC went bankrupt, and that it would be unable to obtain any missing information pertaining to the supplier. Netchem further insisted that there were no source documents used to answer to the Department's questionnaire, but that the data was supplied by a former company official of the supplier. As a result, information necessary to conduct a margin analysis is not available on the record, and some of the limited information that is on the record cannot be verified in accordance with section 782(e)(2) of the Tariff Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 776(a)(1) and section 776(a)(2)(D), the Department must resort to facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination.

Jiangsu's withdrawal of its participation in the review deprives the Department of the information necessary to conduct its margin analysis and also constitutes a refusal to provide information necessary to conduct the Department's antidumping analysis, pursuant to sections 776(a)(1) and (2)(A) of the Tariff Act. Moreover, Jiangsu's withdrawal significantly impedes the review process. See section 776(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act. Therefore, the Department must resort to facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Absent any response on the record from Jiangsu, sections 782(d) and (e) do not apply.

Section 776(b) of the Tariff Act further provides that, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, the Department may use an inference adverse to the interests of a party that has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information (see also the Statement of Administrative Action (SAA), accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 316, Vol. 1, 103rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1994), at 870). On three different occasions the Department asked Netchem in writing to provide the information necessary to conduct the margin analysis, namely, with the original questionnaire (issued on July 28, 2000), with the supplemental questionnaire (issued on November 20, 2000), and in a separate letter (issued on November 20, 2000).

In response to the Department's inquiry regarding verification, Netchem informed the Department by telephone on November 14, 2000, that its producer in China had gone bankrupt. See Department's letter to Netchem dated November 20, 2000. Based on this information, we issued a letter on November 20, 2000, asking for clarification regarding which company had gone bankrupt, what the role of the company was in the production and sale of subject merchandise, who had provided Netchem with the necessary information for questionnaire responses, and the current location of source documents. This letter also asked Netchem to confirm the dates for verification in China and Canada. In its response, Netchem provided the name of the company that went bankrupt, stated Netchem's intent to contact that company for a copy of the official documents, provided the names of Netchem's producer and supplier, named the individual providing the information for the questionnaire response, and stated that there are no original documents to support the claim that the supplier is bankrupt, or any other information pertaining to the supplier. The supplemental questionnaire response was still so highly deficient that we were unable to conduct an analysis based on the factor information provided. In its supplemental questionnaire, the Department asked three questions pertaining to organizational structure of Netchem's supplier. However, Netchem did not answer these questions, stating that it needed further clarification or that the supplier was bankrupt and therefore the information was unavailable. With respect to section D, factors of production, Netchem again did not provide an answer to six out of nine questions, other than to restate its assertion that the supplier is bankrupt and that the information is not available. Netchem also failed to satisfy the Department's request to provide a narrative response to each question issued in the original questionnaire. Rather, the company merely cross-referenced other sections of its response. Therefore, the Department has determined that Netchem has not complied with its responsibility to provide the information necessary to conduct a margin analysis.

Section 782(d) of the Tariff Act states that if the administering authority determines that a response to a request for information under this title does not comply with the request, the administering authority shall promptly inform the person submitting the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable, provide that person with an opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency in light of the time limits established for the completion of investigations or reviews under this title. If that person submits further information in response to such deficiency and either (1) the administering authority finds that such response is not satisfactory, or (2) such response is not submitted within the applicable time limits, then the administering authority may, subject to subsection (e), disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses. As discussed above, the Department requested Netchem to submit information necessary to conduct its margin analysis on three separate occasions; however, in each instance, Netchem's response was insufficient, failing to provide, for example, conversion factors used to calculate the reported amounts of water and ethyl alcohol, the quantity of by-products, and calculation worksheets demonstrating how Netchem's supplier calculated the reported usage for each source of energy to produce one unit of subject merchandise. Netchem, by not providing the Department with the necessary factor information to conduct a margin analysis, as described above, repeatedly failed to respond satisfactorily to the Department's request for information within the meaning of section 782(d)(1) of the Tariff Act. For Netchem to state that its supplier of subject merchandise went bankrupt is not sufficient, as there is no evidence that the responsive information is unavailable. The limited information available on the record is so deficient that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination, and cannot be used without undue difficulties. Furthermore, this information cannot be verified since there are no source documents, as stated by Netchem. Therefore, the Department declines to consider in its determination the information submitted by Netchem, in accordance with sections 782(e)(2), (e)(3), and (e)(5) of the Tariff Act.

Jiangsu's withdrawal from this review constitutes a refusal to participate in the review, and demonstrates that Jiangsu failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's request for information.

Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, the Department has determined that an adverse inference is warranted with respect to both companies, Netchem and Jiangsu, because they have failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of their ability, as discussed above.

When making adverse inferences, the SAA authorizes the Department to consider the extent to which a party may benefit from its own lack of cooperation (SAA at 870). Because the PRC-wide rate that was the cash deposit rate applicable during the period of review and that is applicable to current imports is 160.80 percent, a rate derived from the petition, the Department determines that assigning a 160.80 percent rate will prevent non-responding firms from benefitting from their failure to respond to the Department's requests for information. Anything less than the current cash deposit rate would effectively reward non-responding firms for not cooperating by not acting to the best of their ability.

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information in using the facts otherwise available, it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. The SAA defines secondary information as “information derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review” (see SAA at 870). In addition, the SAA clarifies that “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value (see id.). The SAA also states that independent sources used to corroborate may include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, as well as information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation (see id.).

To corroborate the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) rate of 160.80 percent, we examined the basis of the rates contained in the petition of December 30, 1993, as revised in the final LTFV determination (59 FR 66895; December 28, 1994). The U.S. price in the petition, as amended, was based on average unit prices derived from U.S. Census import statistics, and on price lists from U.S. importers of coumarin. We were able to corroborate the average unit values listed in the amended petition by comparing those values to publicly available information compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau and made available by the International Trade Commission (ITC). The ITC reports quantity and value by HTSUS numbers. Using the same HTSUS number as listed in the petition (HTSUS 2932.21.000), we divided the total value by the total quantity for the periods referenced in the concurrence memorandum to the final antidumping duty determination for coumarin from the PRC, and noted the average unit values were very similar to those reported in the petition, as amended. See Memorandum to File through Louis Apple from David J. Goldberger: Coumarin from the PRC; Alleged Margin Calculation Worksheet, of January 18, 1994, on file in the Central Records Unit, located in Room B-099 main Department of Commerce Building.

The petition also states that, due to the NME status of the PRC, the foreign market value was calculated using a factors of production methodology. Based on the production experience of the petitioner, which it states is comparable to the PRC production process, the petition identified actual factors of production for subject merchandise. Such factors include: materials; labor; energy; utilities; overhead; general, selling and administrative expenses; profit; and packing. The petition relied, where possible, on publicly available information for India as surrogate values for the above-mentioned factors in the PRC. Where such information was not available, the petition relied on petitioner's own cost experience. See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Coumarin From the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 3841-01 (January 27, 1994). Further, in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coumarin From the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 66895-01 (December 28, 1994) (Final Determination), the Department revised the PRC-wide margin from the petition to reflect changes in the surrogate values of almost all inputs, including the most significant raw material for producing coumarin, as determined during the investigation. The source for this information was publicly available Indian and Indonesian import statistics. For detailed information, refer to Concurrence Memorandum: Final Antidumping Duty Determination; Coumarin from the People's Republic of China (PRC), December 19, 1994, at 5, 8-9. Because petitioners used published, publicly available data for valuing inputs, and these data were revised by the Department with publicly available information, as stated above, we consider these data to have probative value.

The SAA specifically states that where “corroboration may not be practicable in a given circumstance,” the Department may apply an adverse inference. See SAA at 870. Based on our efforts, described above, to corroborate information contained in the petition, as revised in the Final Determination, and mindful of the legislative history discussing facts available and corroboration, we consider the revised petition margin that we are assigning as adverse facts available in this review to be corroborated to the extent practicable. Furthermore, nothing on the record of this administrative review supports a determination that the highest margin rate from the petition in the underlying investigation, as revised, does not represent reliable and relevant information for purposes of adverse facts available. This rate has been used as the PRC-wide rate since the Department's Final Determination.

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the dumping margins for Netchem and the PRC entity, based on total adverse facts available for the period February 1, 1999 through January 31, 2000, to be as follows:

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five (5) days after the date of publication of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. Case briefs are currently scheduled for submission within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, must be submitted no later than five (5) days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the deadline for submission of rebuttal briefs. The Department plans to issue the final results of this administrative review, including its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief or at a hearing, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion of this review, the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.

Furthermore, upon issuance of the final results of this review, the following deposit rates will be effective with respect to all shipments of coumarin from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for reviewed companies listed above will be the rates for those firms established in the final results of this review; (2) for companies previously found to be entitled to a separate rate and for which no review was requested, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the most recent review of that company; (3) for all other PRC exporters of subject merchandise, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 160.80 percent; and (4) for non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC not covered by this review, or by the LTFV investigation, or a previous review, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under section 351.402(f)(2) of the Department's regulations to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 771 (i)(1) of the Tariff Act. Effective January 20, 2001, Bernard T. Carreau is fulfilling the duties of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) to make a preliminary determination within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested, and a final determination within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary determination is published. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within these time periods, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time limit for the preliminary determination to a maximum of 365 days and for the final determination to 180 days (or 300 days if the Department does not extend the time limit for the preliminary determination) from the date of publication of the preliminary determination.

On July 6, 1999, the Department entered into Antidumping Duty Suspension Agreement regarding certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products (“hot-rolled steel”) from Brazil produced by Companhia Siderurgica Nacional (“CSN”), Usinas Siderurgicas de Minas Gerais (“USIMINAS”), and Companhia Siderurgica Paulista (“COSIPA”). This agreement was entered into under section 734(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, requiring, among other things, that the estimated margin of each entry under the suspension agreement does not exceed 15 percent of the margin found in the investigation. In addition, the Agreement requires that sales of subject merchandise are not made below the reference price (calculated quarterly, to match the market). On July 28, 2000, petitioners requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of the agreement. The Department initiated this review on September 6, 2000. See 65 FR 53980 (September 6, 2000). The preliminary results are due not later than April 2, 2001.

We determine that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of this review within the original time limits mandated by section 751 (a)(3)(A) of the Act. The Department is therefore extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results by 120 days, until July 31, 2001. See Decision Memorandum from Richard Weible to Joseph A. Spetrini, dated February 26, 2001, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Commerce building.

This extension of the time limit is in accordance with section 751 (a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2).

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 current regulations at 19 CFR part 351 (2000).

The Department published an antidumping duty order on OCTG from Canada on June 16, 1986 (51 FR 21782) and an amended order on August 19, 1986 (51 FR 29579). On June 20, 2000, the Department published an Opportunity to Request Administrative Review (65 FR 38242). On July 9, 2000, Atlas Tube, Inc. requested the Department to initiate an administrative review pursuant to section 751(a)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2). We initiated this administrative review on July 31, 2000 (65 FR 46687) for the period June 1, 1999, through May 31, 2000. On August 22, 2000, the Department revoked the antidumping duty order effective January 1, 2000 (65 FR 50954). Due to the revocation of the antidumping duty order, we analyzed sales of the subject merchandise for the period June 1, 1999, through December 31, 1999, rather than the entire POR specified by the Department's opportunity to request administrative review.

The Department issued its questionnaire on August 28, 2000, and received Atlas' responses to Sections A, B, C, and D (corporate structure, home market sales, U.S. sales, and cost of production/constructed value, respectively) on October 30, 2000, and supplemental responses on December 21, 2000.

The Department is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act.

The products covered by this review include shipments of OCTG from Canada. This includes American Petroleum Institute (API) specification OCTG and all other pipe with the following characteristics except entries which the Department determined through its end-use certification procedure were not used in OCTG applications: Length of at least 16 feet; outside diameter of standard sizes published in the API or proprietary specifications for OCTG with tolerances of plus 1/8 inch for diameters less than or equal to 85/8 inches and plus 1/4 inch for diameters greater than 85/8 inches, minimum wall thickness as identified for a given outer diameter as published in the API or proprietary specifications for OCTG; a minimum of 40,000 PSI yield strength and a minimum 60,000 PSI tensile strength; and if with seams, must be electric resistance welded. Furthermore, imports covered by this review include OCTG with non-standard size wall thickness greater than the minimum identified for a given outer diameter as published in the API or proprietary specifications for OCTG, with surface scabs or slivers, irregularly cut ends, ID or OD weld flash, or open seams; OCTG may be bent, flattened or oval, and may lack certification because the pipe has not been mechanically tested or has failed those tests. This merchandise is currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedules (HTS) item numbers 7304.20, 7305.20, and 7306.20. The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.

Atlas reported all United States sales of subject merchandise as export price (EP) transactions sold to unaffiliated U.S. customers prior to importation.

We calculated EP, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the merchandise was sold by the manufacturer/exporter Atlas in the exporting country to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and because evidence on the record did not otherwise warrant constructed export price (CEP) methodology. We based EP on the delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We adjusted the starting price by the amount Atlas reported for billing adjustments and made deductions from the starting price for discounts. We also made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included foreign inland freight, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. brokerage and handling charges.

After testing (1) home market viability and (2) whether home market sales were made at below-cost prices, we calculated normal value (NV) as noted in the “Price-to-Price Comparisons” section of this notice.

In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared Atlas' volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Because Atlas' aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable for Atlas.

Section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act provides that there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product were made at prices that are less than the cost of production (COP) of the product if we disregarded some or all of a specific exporter's sales below COP in the last completed administrative review of that exporter. In the last administrative review of this order which covered the period December 1, 1998, through May 31, 1999, we found sales below COP for Atlas which were disregarded. See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 65 FR 36407, 36409 (June 8, 2000). As a result, the respondent provided COP information in response to Section D of the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire, on which we based our COP analysis as described below.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP based on the sum of Atlas' cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus an amount for home market selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A), including interest expenses, and packing costs.

We compared the weighted-average COP figures to home 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 COP. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices less than the COP, we examined whether (1) within an extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities, and (2) such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home market prices, less any applicable movement charges and rebates.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than 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 respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we determined such sales to be made in “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In the instant case, we compared Atlas' home market prices to weighted-average COPs for the POR, and therefore determined that below-cost sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act. Therefore, we disregarded such below-cost sales.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP transaction. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on constructed value (CV), that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. With respect to U.S. price for EP transactions, the LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from the exporter to the importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than the U.S. sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated 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 NV is based and home market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).

Atlas reported one customer category and one channel of distribution (i.e., sales to unaffiliated distributors) for its home market sales. For its EP sales, Atlas also reported one customer category and one channel of distribution (i.e., direct sales to unaffiliated distributors). Atlas claimed in its response that its EP sales were made at the same LOT as home market sales to unaffiliated distributors. For this reason, Atlas has not asked for a LOT adjustment to NV for comparison to its EP sales.

In determining whether separate LOTs actually existed in the home market and U.S. market, we examined whether Atlas' sales involved different marketing stages (or their equivalent) based on the channel of distribution, customer categories and selling functions. Atlas reported that its selling functions for home market sales are arranging for freight, warehousing, and warranty service; however, we noted that Atlas did not report any warehouse or warranty expenses for home market sales during the POR. After reviewing the record evidence for this current review, we agree with Atlas that its home market sales comprise a single LOT.

In analyzing Atlas' selling activities for its EP sales, we noted that the sales generally involved the same selling functions associated with the home market LOT described above. Atlas reported that these selling activities included arranging for freight, warehousing, and warranty services; however, Atlas reported that it did not incur any warehouse or warranty expenses for U.S. market sales during the POR. Based upon the record evidence for this current review, we have determined that there is one LOT for all EP sales and that it is the same LOT as in the home market. Therefore, because we find that the U.S. sales and home market sales are at the same LOT, we determine that a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) is not warranted.

We calculated NV based on delivered prices to unaffiliated customers. The NV price was reported on a Goods and Services Tax-exclusive basis. We adjusted the starting price by the amount Atlas reported for billing adjustments. We made deductions from the starting price for rebates, inland freight, and inland freight insurance. We made adjustments for differences in merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. We made further adjustments, under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, for differences in circumstances of sale for imputed credit expenses. Finally, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.

Pursuant to section 773A(a) of the Act, we made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that a 6.56 percent dumping margin exists for Atlas for the period June 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999.

The Department will disclose the calculations we performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within thirty days of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the first working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 37 days after the date of publication. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue; and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Further, we would appreciate it if parties submitting written comments also provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of those comments on diskette.

Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. There was only one importer during the POR for merchandise sold by Atlas. We have calculated an importer-specific duty assessment rate based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of examined sales. Atlas reported entered value by subtracting discounts, freight, and brokerage and handling costs from the reported U.S. price. Where the importer-specific rate is above de minimis, we will instruct Customs to assess duties on that importer's entries of subject merchandise. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to Customs.

Pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, on August 22, 2000, the Department revoked the antidumping duty order on OCTG from Canada, effective January 1, 2000 (65 FR 50954). Therefore, we instructed Customs to liquidate all entries of subject merchandise made on or after January 1, 2000, without regard to antidumping duties. Therefore, we will not issue cash deposit instructions to Customs based on the results of this review.

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

This administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1). Effective January 20, 2001, Bernard T. Carreau is fulfilling the duties of Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

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

On December 31, 1998, the Department published in the Federal Register (63 FR 72246) the final affirmative antidumping duty determination on certain preserved mushrooms from India. On February 19, 1999, the Department published an amended final determination and antidumping duty order (64 FR 8311) .

On February 14, 2000, the Department published a notice advising of the opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from India (65 FR 7348). In response to timely requests by three manufacturer/exporters, Agro Dutch Foods Ltd. (Agro Dutch), Himalya International Ltd. (Himalya), and Hindustan Lever Ltd. (formerly Ponds India Ltd.) (HLL), and the petitioners, the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review with respect to twelve companies: Agro Dutch, Alpine Biotech Ltd. (Alpine Biotech), Dinesh Agro Products Ltd. (Dinesh Agro), Flex Foods Ltd. (Flex Foods), Himalya, HLL, Mandeep Mushrooms Ltd. (Mandeep), Premier Mushroom Farms (Premier), Saptarishi Agro Industries Ltd. (Saptarishi), Techtran Agro Industries Limited (Techtran), Transchem Ltd. (Transchem), Weikfield Agro Products Ltd. (Weikfield) (65 FR 16875, March 30, 2000). The period of review (POR) is August 5, 1998, through January 31, 2000.

On March 29, 2000, the Department issued antidumping duty questionnaires to the above-mentioned twelve companies. We received responses to the original questionnaire during the period March 2000 through May 2000. We issued supplemental questionnaires to the five respondents for which the reviews were not rescinded (see below) and received responses for them during the period August 2000 through February 2001.

On June 16, 2000, the Department received allegations from the petitioners that Techtran and Weikfield sold certain preserved mushrooms in India at prices below the cost of production (COP). On July 18, 2000, the Department initiated cost investigations of Techtran's and Weikfield's home-market sales of this merchandise.

On June 22, 2000, we received a timely submission from the petitioners withdrawing their request for administrative review for Alpine Biotech, Dinesh Agro, Flex Foods, Mandeep, Premier, Saptarishi, and Transchem. On July 18, 2000, the Department published a notice of partial recission of the antidumping duty administrative review with respect to the above-mentioned companies (65 FR 44522).

On July 28, 2000, the Department extended the time limit for the preliminary results in this review until February 28, 2001. See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India and Indonesia: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 46426.

We conducted verification of Weikfield's, Techtran's, and Himalya's questionnaire responses during the period November 2000 through January 2001. The verification reports are on file in Room B-099 of the Commerce Department. The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act.

The products covered by this review are certain preserved mushrooms whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The preserved mushrooms covered under this review are the species Agaricus bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis. “Preserved mushrooms” refer to mushrooms that have been prepared or preserved by cleaning, blanching, and sometimes slicing or cutting. These mushrooms are then packed and heated in containers including but not limited to cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid medium, including but not limited to water, brine, butter, or butter sauce. Preserved mushrooms may be imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. Included within the scope of this review are “brined” mushrooms, which are presalted and packed in a heavy salt solution to provisionally preserve them for further processing.

Excluded from the scope of this review are the following: (1) All other species of mushroom, including straw mushrooms; (2) all fresh and chilled mushrooms, including “refrigerated” or “quick blanched mushrooms”; (3) dried mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and (5) “marinated,” “acidified,” or “pickled” mushrooms, which are prepared or preserved by means of vinegar or acetic acid, but may contain oil or other additives.

The merchandise subject to this review is classifiable under subheadings 2003.10.00.27, 2003.10.0031, 2003.10.0037, 2003.10.0043, 2003.10.0047, 2003.10.0053, and 0711.90.4000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS). Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this review is dispositive.

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted verifications of Himalya, Techtran, and Weikfield from November 2000 through January 2001. We conducted the verifications using standard verification procedures including on-site inspection of the manufacturers' facilities, the examination of relevant accounting, sales, and other financial records, and selection of original documentation containing relevant information. Our verification results are outlined in the public versions of the verification reports which are on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU) in room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building.

Based on verification, we made certain changes to data in the sales listings submitted by Himalya, Techtran, and Weikfield used to calculate the preliminary margins (see below and the company-specific calculation memoranda dated February 28, 2001).

To determine whether sales of certain preserved mushrooms by the respondents to the United States were made at less than normal value, we compared constructed export price (CEP) or export price, as appropriate, to the normal value, as described in the “Export Price/Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice.

Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the export prices of individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average normal value of the foreign like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as discussed in the “Cost of Production Analysis” section below.

In this proceeding, neither HLL nor Himalya had a viable home or third country market. Therefore, as the basis for normal value, we used constructed value when making comparisons in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act.

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced by the respondents 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. With respect to Agro Dutch, Techtran, and Weikfield, we compared U.S. sales to sales made in the home or third country 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 in the home or third country market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. For those U.S. sales of mushrooms for which there were no comparable home or third country market sales in the ordinary course of trade (i.e., above cost), we compared U.S. sales to constructed value.

In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by the respondents in the following order: Preservation method, container type, mushroom style, weight, grade, container solution, and label type.

For HLL and Himalya, we compared U.S. sales to constructed value because these respondents had insufficient home market and/or third country sales during the POR. See “Normal Value” section below for further discussion.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine normal value based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the export price 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 U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from the exporter to an unaffiliated U.S. customer. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to an affiliated importer, after the deductions required under section 772(d) of the Act. To determine whether normal value sales are at a LOT different from export price or CEP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated 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. 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 LOTs for CEP transactions after CEP deductions is an impermissible interpretation of section 772(d) of the Act. See Borden, Inc. v. United States, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1221, 1241-42 (CIT 1998) (Borden). 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 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 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 § 351.412.

Both Techtran and Weikfield claimed that they were unable to calculate a LOT adjustment and, instead, reported home market indirect selling expenses as a surrogate LOT adjustment. We have undertaken an evaluation to determine whether such an adjustment is necessary. In so doing, we examined both respondents' distribution systems, including selling functions, classes of customers, and selling expenses. Techtran sold to distributors in both markets. Weikfield provided no basis in its questionnaire responses to establish that it had multiple levels of trade in either market for purposes of this adjustment. With regard to Agro Dutch, all sales in both markets are made through one channel of distribution. Accordingly, all comparisons are at the same level of trade for Agro Dutch, Techtran and Weikfield and an adjustment pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) is not warranted.

With regard to HLL and Himalya, we compared all U.S. sales to constructed value, as noted above. As we could not determine the LOT of the sales from which we derived the profit for constructed value, we could not determine whether there is a difference in LOT between any U.S. sales and constructed value. Therefore, we made no LOT adjustment nor a CEP offset (in the case of Himalya) to normal value.

For Agro Dutch, HLL, Techtran and Weikfield, we used export price methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and CEP methodology was not otherwise indicated. With respect to Himalya, we calculated CEP in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was first sold by Trans Atlantic or Global Reliance after importation into the United States. We based export price and CEP on packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. For all respondents, for those sales for which the payment date was not reported, we calculated credit based on the higher of either the average number of days between shipment and payment using the sales for which payment information was reported, or the most recent questionnaire response date.

We were unable to determine the appropriate date of sale for certain U.S. sales because Agro Dutch failed to provide the requested sales documentation for these sales. Section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act provides that the Department will, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching a determination if a respondent fails to provide necessary information “by the deadlines for submission of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782” (of the Act). In accordance with section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, in these preliminary results we find it necessary to use partial facts available where Agro Dutch did not provide us with information necessary to conduct our date of sale analysis. Section 782(c)(1) does not apply because Agro Dutch did not provide a full explanation of why it was not able to submit this information on time. Moreover, pursuant to section 782(d), Agro Dutch was specifically informed that it was required to submit this information, yet it failed to do so and failed to provide any explanation for this deficiency. Finally, under section 782(e), the Department concludes that Agro Dutch did not act to the best of its ability in responding to requests for this information (see discussion below).

The date of sale affects the contemporaneous pool of home market sales to which the U.S. sale is to be compared, and the exchange rate for converting costs and expenses in foreign currencies. Because we cannot identify the appropriate date of sale for the transactions in question, we are unable to determine the appropriate contemporaneous home market comparison sales. Therefore, as facts available, we have compared these U.S. sales to a normal value based on constructed value. As we cannot identify the date of sale for purposes of currency conversions, we have applied the highest exchange rate during the POR for all currency conversions involving these sales, as facts available.

The Department is authorized, under section 776(b) of the Act, to use an inference that is adverse to the interest of a party if the Department finds that the party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's request for information. In both the March 29, 2000, questionnaire and the July 18, 2000, supplemental questionnaire, we specifically requested copies of any sales contracts or agreements with its U.S. customers. At page 1 of the business proprietary version of the August 15, 2000, supplemental questionnaire response, Agro Dutch indicates that a relevant sales document exists with respect to these sales, but did not include it in its response. Accordingly, we find that Agro Dutch has not cooperated with respect to providing this information and an adverse inference is warranted in applying facts available for the dates of sale for these transactions.

Agro Dutch reported the per-unit expense incurred for the Indian Customs fee “CESS,” which is incurred as a percentage of sales value, on a weight-basis. We recalculated this expense on a value basis using the 0.5% rate reported in the response.

Agro Dutch reported its U.S. sales as sold on an FOB, C&F, or CIF basis, indicating that, at a minimum, it was responsible for all movement expenses necessary to transport the goods to the Indian port and load them onto a vessel. However, Agro Dutch did not report foreign inland freight, foreign inland insurance, and foreign brokerage and handling on its FOB sales. As a result, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, it was necessary to use partial facts available to conduct our analysis. Since this information was missing for only a few sales, and we did not determine that the company did not act to the best of its ability, we applied the average expense incurred on the U.S. sales for which these expenses were reported as non-adverse facts available.

We made deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, insurance and brokerage, export duty (CESS), and international freight in accordance with section 772(c)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(a).

We made deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, brokerage and handling expenses, international freight, U.S. duty, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. warehousing expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(a). We also deducted indirect selling expense, credit expense, and inventory carrying costs pursuant to section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b). We made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 773(d)(3) of the Act.

At the beginning of the sales verification, Himalya provided new information on U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, which were previously unreported in the response. As explained above, section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act provides that the Department will, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching a determination if a respondent fails to provide necessary information “by the deadlines for submission of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782” of the Act. Himalya neglected to submit this information in a timely manner. Section 782(c)(1) does not apply because Himalya did not provide a full explanation of why it was not able to submit this information on time. Moreover, pursuant to section 782(d), Himalya was specifically informed that it was required to submit this information, yet it failed to do so and failed to provide any explanation for this deficiency. Finally, under section 782(e), the Department concludes that Himalya did not act to the best of its ability in responding to requests for this information. Where a party has not acted to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's requests for information, the Department is authorized to use an inference that is adverse to the interest of that party, pursuant to section 776(b). Accordingly, as partial adverse facts available, we applied the highest brokerage and handling expense for any entry of subject merchandise made by Himalya during the POR. We recalculated imputed credit expenses using a single interest rate for all sales, as Himalya had calculated this expense using various interest rates. We also recalculated Himalya's home market and U.S. inventory carrying costs to reflect the Department's standard methodology. Finally, we recalculated the reported indirect selling expenses incurred in the United States by collapsing the revenues and expenses of Himalya's two affiliated U.S. importers, rather than using an average of the two companies' individual rates, as reported by Himalya. (See the Himalya Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum dated February 28, 2001, for further detail).

We made deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, export duty, and international freight in accordance with section 772(c)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(a). We recalculated export duty using the 0.5% rate reported in the response.

We made deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight (includes brokerage and handling), export duty, international freight, and marine insurance in accordance with section 772(c)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(a). We revised international freight expenses incurred on certain sales, based on our verification findings. (See the Techtran Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum dated February 28, 2001, for further detail.)

We made deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, CESS, U.S. duty, and other U.S. transportation expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(a). Weikfield reported the per-unit expense incurred for CESS, which is incurred as a percentage of sales value, on a weight-basis. We recalculated this expense on a value basis using the 0.5% rate reported in the response. We also revised the U.S. duty and transportation expenses incurred on certain sales, based on our verification findings.

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, we compared the respondents' volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.

Techtran's and Weikfield's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of their aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Therefore, we determined that the home market provides a viable basis for calculating normal value for both Techtran and Weikfield.

With regard to Agro Dutch, we determined that the home market was not viable because Agro Dutch's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was less than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. However, we determined that the third country market of the Netherlands was viable, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, we have used third country sales as a basis for normal value for Agro Dutch.

Both Himalya and HLL reported that during the POR they made no home market sales. Himalya did not make third country sales during the POR, while HLL's sales to third countries constituted less than five percent of its U.S. sales. Therefore, we determined that neither the home market nor any third country market was a viable basis for calculating normal value for HLL and Himalya. As a result, we used constructed value as the basis for calculating normal value for these two respondents, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act.

The Department disregarded certain sales made by Agro Dutch and HLL in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation pursuant to a finding in that review that sales failed the cost test (see Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India, 63 FR 41789 (August 5, 1998)). Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that respondents Agro Dutch and HLL made sales in the home market or third country at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise in the current review period. However, in the instant review, HLL's third country market was not viable. See “Normal Value” section, above. Accordingly, we cannot perform a cost test with regard to HLL. In addition, as stated in the “Background” section of this notice, based on a timely allegation filed by the petitioners, the Department initiated an investigation to determine whether Techtran's and Weikfield's home market sales were made at prices less than the cost of production. As a result, the Department initiated investigations to determine whether the respondents made home market or third country sales during the POR at prices below their COP within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act.

We calculated the COP on a product-specific basis, based on the sum of the respondents' cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for SG&A, interest expense, and the cost of all expenses incidental to placing the foreign like product in a condition packed ready for shipment in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act.

We relied on COP information submitted by the respondents, except for the following adjustments:

We revised the general and administrative (G&A) expense rate calculation to include certain expenses that were written off. We adjusted the cost incurred used as the denominator in the calculation to exclude those expenses written off and to account for the change in work-in-process inventory.

We revised the interest expense rate to include interest expenses on working capital. We increased the denominator used in this calculation based on the same adjustments made in calculating the G&A expense rate. (See February 28, 2001, Calculation Memorandum to Neal Halper for a discussion of the above-referenced adjustments).

We disallowed Techtran's capitalization of all its costs incurred from the beginning of the POR through October 13, 1999, and the claimed start-up adjustment that was calculated based on the same period. We revised Techtran's reported costs by allowing Techtran a start-up adjustment only for the period August 1998 through October 1998.

We adjusted Techtran's reported cost of manufacturing (COM) to reflect differences in its allocation methodologies from one period versus the other and to include costs related to the auditor's adjustments.

We revised the G&A expense rate calculation to include the auditor's adjustments and capitalized G&A expenses. We adjusted the cost incurred used as the denominator in the calculation to (1) include depreciation expenses; (2) include capitalized COM; (3) exclude packing costs; and (4) account for work-in-process inventory.

We revised the financial expense rate calculation to include capitalized interest expense. We increased the denominator used in this calculation based on the same adjustments made in calculating the G&A expense rate. (See February 28, 2001, Calculation Memorandum to Neal Halper for a discussion of the above-referenced adjustments).

We disallowed Weikfield's capitalization of production costs incurred during the POR by including the total capitalized amount net of related depreciation in the reported costs.

We adjusted Weikfield's reported COM to account for the change in the work-in-process inventory.

We revised the G&A expense rate calculation to include capitalized G&A expenses and exclude certain selling expenses. We adjusted the cost incurred used as the denominator in the calculation to include depreciation expense and exclude antidumping expenses and the change in work-in-process inventory.

We revised the financial expense rate calculation to include capitalized interest expenses, interest on affiliated party loans and exchange rate differences. We made the same adjustments to the denominator of this calculation that were made in calculating the G&A expense rate. (See February 28, 2001, Calculation Memorandum to Neal Halper for a discussion of the above-referenced adjustments).

For all respondents except Himalya and HLL, we compared the weighted-average, per-unit COP figures for the POR to home market or third country sales of the foreign like product, as required by section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales were made at prices below the COP. In determining whether to disregard home market or third country sales made at prices below the COP, we examined whether: (1) Within an extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities; and (2) such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP, consisting of the COM, G&A and interest expenses, to the net home market or third country prices, less any applicable movement charges, rebates, 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 at prices less than 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 twenty percent or more of the respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales where such sales were found to be made at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time (in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act).

The results of our cost tests for all three of these companies indicated for certain home market products, less than twenty percent of the sales of the model were at prices below COP. We therefore retained all sales of these models in our analysis and used them as the basis for determining normal value.

Our cost tests also indicated that for certain other home market products more than twenty percent of home market sales within an extended period of time were at prices below COP and would not permit the full recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we excluded these below-cost sales of these models from our analysis and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining normal value.

For Agro Dutch, Techtran, and Weikfield, we based normal value on the price at which the foreign like product is first sold for consumption in the home market or third country, in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, and at the same LOT as the export price or CEP, as defined by section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act.

We reduced normal value for inland freight, insurance and brokerage, and early payment and quantity discounts, where appropriate, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.401.

Agro Dutch reported the per-unit expense incurred for CESS on its Dutch sales, which is incurred as a percentage of sales value, on a weight-basis. We recalculated this expense on a value basis using the 0.5% rate reported in the response.

For comparisons to Agro Dutch's, Techtran's, and Weikfield's export price sales, we made a circumstance-of-sale adjustment, where appropriate, for differences in credit and commission expenses pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410.

Techtran and Weikfield reported an imputed credit expense on U.S. sales based on the letter of credit settlement date. At verification, we found that these respondents incur actual bank financing expenses and fees for discounting the letters of credit issued on U.S. sales. Accordingly, we have recalculated the imputed credit expense and added the bank's letter of credit fee based on our verification findings, as detailed in the February 28, 2001, Memorandum entitled Weikfield Preliminary Results Margin Calculation (Weikfield Margin Memo) and the February 28, 2001, Techtran Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum (Techtran Calculation Memo).

For these same respondents, the reported imputed credit expenses on home market sales were based on specific periods from shipment to payment. At verification, we were unable to support this reporting as Techtran's and Weikfield's customers generally pay on a line of credit system, which was not previously described to the Department (see January 16, 2001, Weikfield Sales Verification Report at page 5 and February 2, 2001, Techtran Sales Verification Report at page 6). Because we were unable to tie Techtran's and Weikfield's home market payment methodology to any information submitted in the questionnaire responses, we have disallowed a circumstance-of-sale adjustment for home market imputed credit expenses.

Weikfield reported commissions paid to both affiliated and unaffiliated parties in the home market. The Department's practice is to treat payments to affiliated parties providing services that relate to the sale of merchandise as commissions if they are actual expenditures resulting from specific sales and are not intra-company transfers. The Department allows these expenses as direct deductions to price if they are at arm's length and tie directly to sales. See Final Results of Administrative Review: Large Newspaper Printing Presses from Germany, 66 FR 11557 (February 26, 2001), and accompanying Decision Memorandum at Comment 5. To establish whether commissions are made at arm's-length, the Department normally compares the commissions paid to affiliated selling agents to those paid by the respondent to any unaffiliated selling agents in the same market (exporting or U.S.) or in any third-country market (see Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Groundwood Paper from Finland, France, Germany and the United Kingdom, 56 FR 56359, 56363 (November 4, 1991)).

In this case, we have no evidence suggesting that the affiliated party payments at issue are intra-company transfers, as they are actual expenditures tied to specific sales. Therefore, we are accepting them as commissions and must determine their arm's-length nature in accordance with our normal practice. As there are no commissions paid in the U.S. market, and we have no information on any commissions paid in third country markets, the only comparison we can make is between the two sets of commissions paid in the home market. The unaffiliated commissions are paid at a significantly different rate than the affiliated commissions, but the responsibilities of each type of commissionaire are different, which may account for the difference in the commission rates (see sample commission agreements at Exhibit 5 of Weikfield's August 9, 2000, response). Since we have no other basis to determine the arm's-length nature of the affiliated commissions, for purposes of the preliminary results, we have accepted the affiliated commissions to the extent that the amount paid does not exceed the rate paid to unaffiliated commissions.

Weikfield did not report its indirect selling expenses separately from the G&A expenses reported with the COP and constructed value data. Accordingly, we recalculated the G&A expenses and calculated an indirect selling expense for this purpose (see February 28, 2001, Calculation Memorandum to Neal Halper and Weikfield Margin Memo).

We also reduced normal value for packing costs incurred in the home or third country market, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(i), and increased normal value to account for U.S. packing expenses in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A). With regard to Techtran, we revised U.S. and home market packing costs in accordance with verification findings. See Techtran Calculation Memo.

Finally, we 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.

We calculated constructed value in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, which indicates that constructed value shall be based on the sum of each respondent's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for SG&A expenses, profit and U.S. packing costs. We made the same adjustments to constructed value that were made to COP as described above for Agro Dutch, Techtran, and Weikfield.

Because Himalya and HLL had no viable home or third country market, we derived SG&A and profit for Himalya and HLL in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act and the Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, Vol. 1 at 169-171 (SAA). See 19 CFR 351.405(b)(2) (clarifying that under section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act, “foreign country” means the country in which the merchandise is produced). Under this provision, we may use an amount which reflects SG&A and profit based on actual amounts incurred or realized by other investigated companies on home market sales in the ordinary course of trade of the foreign like product. See section 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act. As a result, we calculated Himalya's and HLL's SG&A and profit as a weighted average of the SG&A and profit amounts incurred on home market sales by Techtran and Weikfield during the cost reporting period. For further details see Memorandum to Neal Halper, dated February 28, 2001, for Himalya and HLL.

We relied on the constructed value data submitted by Himalya, except for the following adjustments:

We revised the production quantities for the different can types to correct for reporting errors made by Himalya.

We revised the direct material cost to reflect the cost of materials consumed during the entire POR.

We revised Himalya's allocation of variable and fixed costs to products by revising the fixed asset base used in the allocation formula.

We adjusted Himalya's reported COM to account for the change in work-in-process inventory.

We disallowed the start-up adjustment claimed by Himalya. (See the February 28, 2001, Calculation Memorandum from Laurens Van Houten to Neal Halper for a discussion of the above-referenced adjustments.)

For HLL we have requested, but will not receive in time for the preliminary results, the reconciliation of the submitted costs to the audited financial statements costs. As stated by the Department in Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 76, 78, (January 4, 1999) “{a}lthough the format of the reconciliation of submitted costs to actual financial statement costs depends greatly on the nature of the accounting records maintained by the respondent, the reconciliation represents the starting point of a cost response because it assures the Department that the respondent has accounted for all costs before allocating those costs to individual products.” Therefore, due to the critical nature of this reconciliation, it is imperative that HLL provide the requested information. In order to minimize the burden placed on the respondent, in a supplemental questionnaire we agreed to allow HLL to provide the cost reconciliation for one fiscal year rather than for two fiscal years. In accordance with section 776 and 782 of the Act, failure to provide this information timely may result in the use of facts available for the final results.

For Himalya and HLL, we based normal value on constructed value, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. For comparisons to HLL's export price sales, and in those instances where we compared Agro Dutch's, Techtran's and Weikfield's export prices to constructed value, we made circumstance-of-sale (COS) adjustments by deducting from constructed value the weighted-average home market direct selling expenses and adding the U.S. direct selling expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and section 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to Himalya's CEP sales, we also deducted credit expenses from normal value.

We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A of the Act using the rates posted at www.ita.doc.gov. With respect to Agro Dutch, we have applied the highest exchange rate during the POR for all currency conversions involving certain U.S. sales, as facts available. See “Export Price/Constructed Export Price” section, above.

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the weighted-average dumping margins for the period August 5, 1998, through January 31, 2000, are as follows:

We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If requested, a hearing will be held 44 days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter.

Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case 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. See 19 CFR 351.309(c) and (d). 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 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. Requests 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. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

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. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties. 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., 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1)). 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 examined and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales examined.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise 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)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be those established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(C)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, 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 11.30 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 also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221. 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 Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the U.S. Department of Commerce's (the Department's) regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (2000).

On December 31, 1998, the Department published in the Federal Register (63 FR 72268), the final affirmative antidumping duty determination of sales at less than fair value (LTFV) on certain preserved mushrooms from Indonesia. We published an antidumping duty order on February 19, 1999 (64 FR 8310).

On February 14, 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 August 5, 1998, through January 31, 2000 (65 FR 7348). On February 29, 2000, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), three manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise, PT Dieng Djaya and PT Surya Jaya Abadi (Dieng/Surya), PT Indo Evergreen Agro Business Corp. (Indo Evergreen) and PT Zeta Agro Corporation (Zeta) as well as one importer of the subject merchandise, The Pillsbury Company, requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of exports to the United States by Dieng/Surya, Indo Evergreen and Zeta. We published a notice of initiation of the review on March 30, 2000 (65 FR 16875).

On March 29, 2000, the Department issued an antidumping questionnaire to Dieng/Surya, Indo Evergreen, and Zeta. We issued supplemental questionnaires in July, September, and October 2000, and in January 2001. In May and July through October 2000, we received timely responses to the original and supplemental questionnaires. Dieng responded to an additional supplemental questionnaire in February 2001.

In June 2000, we received below-cost-sales allegations for Indo Evergreen and Zeta from the petitioners, the Coalition for Fair Preserved Mushroom Trade.3 In July 2000, we initiated a sales-below-cost investigation for both Indo Evergreen and Zeta.

On July 28, 2000, due to the reasons set forth in the Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Indonesia, 65 FR 46426 (July 28, 2000), we extended the due date for the preliminary results. In accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we extended the due date for the preliminary results by the maximum 120 days allowable.

The products covered by this review are certain preserved mushrooms, whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The preserved mushrooms covered under this review are the species Agaricus bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis. “Preserved mushrooms” refer to mushrooms that have been prepared or preserved by cleaning, blanching, and sometimes slicing or cutting. These mushrooms are then packed and heated in containers including but not limited to cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid medium, including but not limited to water, brine, butter or butter sauce. Preserved mushrooms may be imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. Included within the scope of this review are “brined” mushrooms, which are presalted and packed in a heavy salt solution to provisionally preserve them for further processing.

Excluded from the scope of this review are the following: (1) All other species of mushroom, including straw mushrooms; (2) all fresh and chilled mushrooms, including “refrigerated” or “quick blanched mushrooms'; (3) dried mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and (5) “marinated,” “acidified” or “pickled” mushrooms, which are prepared or preserved by means of vinegar or acetic acid, but may contain oil or other additives.

The merchandise subject to this review is classifiable under subheadings 2003.10.0027, 2003.10.0031, 2003.10.0037, 2003.10.0043, 2003.10.0047, 2003.10.0053, and 0711.90.4000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”). Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this review is dispositive.

To determine whether sales to the United States of certain preserved mushrooms by Dieng/Surya, Indo Evergreen and Zeta were made at less than normal value, we compared export price to the normal value, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice.

Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the export prices of individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average normal value of the foreign like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade at prices above the cost of production (COP), as discussed in the “Cost of Production Analysis” section below.

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced by Indo Evergreen and Zeta, covered by the description in the “Scope of the Review” section, above, sold by the respondents in the home market during the period of review (“POR”), 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 in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. Where there were no sales of identical or similar merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the constructed value of the product.

In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by the respondents in the following order: preservation method, container type, mushroom style, weight, grade, container solution and label type.

For Dieng/Surya, we compared U.S. sales to the constructed value of the product because Dieng/Surya had insufficient home market and third country sales during the POR. See “Normal Value” section below for further discussion.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine normal value based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the export price or constructed export price (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 U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from the exporter to an unaffiliated U.S. customer. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to an affiliated importer, after the deductions required under section 772(d) of the Act. To determine whether normal value sales are at a LOT different from export price or CEP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated 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. 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).

In this review, all three respondents made only export price sales during the POR. In their questionnaire responses all three respondents reported that comparison-market and export price sales to the unaffiliated customers were made at the same LOT. Furthermore, the respondents maintain that selling activities in both markets are identical. Although the information pertaining to selling functions on the record is limited, it does not appear to warrant granting a LOT adjustment.

For all three respondents we used export price calculation methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold directly by the producer/exporter in Indonesia to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and CEP treatment was not otherwise indicated.

We calculated export price based on the packed FOB seaport prices charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, foreign inland insurance, and brokerage and handling, 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, we compared the respondents' volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.

Evergreen and Zeta's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Therefore, we determined that the home market provides a viable basis for calculating normal value for both Evergreen and Zeta.

Dieng/Surya reported that its aggregate volumes of home market and third country market sales, respectively, were less than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Petitioners allege that Dieng/Surya refused to provide complete information concerning its home market and third country sales in a timely fashion and may have overstated its U.S. sales figures for purposes of the viability test in an effort to avoid reporting third country price information. While we acknowledge the petitioners' allegation, we note that in this case Dieng/Surya has complied with our request for information as stated in our antidumping questionnaire on page A-2. Should its home market sales not be viable for purposes of calculating normal value, our questionnaire directs respondents to provide sales to each of their three largest third country markets, provided each market meets the five-percent threshold. In this case, since none of Dieng/Surya's third country markets reaches that threshold, Dieng was not required to provide a section B questionnaire response for its third country sales. In addition, we note that Dieng/Surya's reporting in this review is consistent with that in the LTFV investigation; in the LTFV investigation, the Department verified that Dieng/Surya did not have a viable home market or third country market during the period of investigation. For these reasons, we determined that neither the home market nor any third country market was a viable basis for calculating normal value for Dieng/Surya. As a result, we used constructed value as the basis for calculating normal value for Dieng/Surya, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act.

Indo Evergreen and Zeta each reported a small percentage of sales of the foreign like product to affiliated customers. To test whether these sales to affiliated customers were made at arm's length, where possible, we compared the prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts, and packing. Where the price to the affiliated party was on average 99.5 percent or more of the price to the unaffiliated parties, we determined that the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. See Preamble—Department's Final Antidumping Regulations, 62 FR 27,355 (May 19, 1997). Consistent with 19 CFR 351.403, we excluded from our analysis those sales where the price to the affiliated parties was less than 99.5 percent of the price to the unaffiliated parties.

In response to the petitioners sales-below-cost allegations for Indo Evergreen and Zeta, we reviewed their allegations and determined that Indo Evergreen's and Zeta's submitted data provided reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product under consideration for determining normal value in this review may have been at prices below the COP, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. See July 7, 2000, Memorandum from the Team to Louis Apple, Office Director, AD/CVD Enforcement Group 1, Office 2, Re: Request to Initiate Cost Investigation for Respondents P.T. Zeta Agro Corporation and PT Indo Evergreen Agrobusiness Corporation. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a sales-below-cost investigation of sales made by Evergreen and Zeta.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP based on the sum of Indo Evergreen's and Zeta's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for home-market SG&A, interest expenses, and the cost of all expenses incidental to placing the foreign like product in condition packed ready for shipment. We relied on the home market sales and cost of production information Indo Evergreen and Zeta provided in their questionnaire responses, except for the following adjustments:

For Indo Evergreen, we adjusted the cost of manufacture for beginning and ending work-in-process. We revised Indo Evergreen's interest expense rate calculation by excluding foreign exchange gains and losses related to the non-current portion of long-term debt and reclassifying foreign exchange gains on accounts payable to general and administrative (G&A) expense. In addition, we included certain other foreign exchange gains and losses and other miscellaneous items in their G&A rate calculation. For Zeta, we adjusted the reported production quantities by deducting waste production quantities. This reduction in production quantities resulted in higher per unit cost of manufacture (COM) for Zeta. In addition, because Zeta did not include interest expense on affiliated party loans, we included an amount for interest expense in accordance with section 773(f)(2). We also reclassified foreign exchange gains on accounts payable to G&A expense. Lastly, we revised Zeta's G&A expense rate calculation by including certain other foreign exchange gains and losses and other miscellaneous items. For further detail see Memoranda from Sheikh Hannan to Neal Halper, dated February 28, 2001, for Indo Evergreen and Zeta.

We compared the weighted-average, per-unit COP figures for the POR to home market sales of the foreign like product, as required by section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales were made at prices below the COP. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined whether: (1) Within an extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities; and (2) such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home market prices, less any applicable movement charges, rebates, discounts and direct and indirect selling expenses. Because Indo Evergreen and Zeta did not report home market indirect selling expenses, we have derived those expenses from their financial statements for purposes of deducting them from home market price. For further details see Memorandum from Sophie Castro, Financial Analyst, to Irene Darzenta Tzafolias, Program Manager, Office 2, AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, Import Administration, dated February 28, 2001.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of the respondents' sales of a given product were at prices less than 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 twenty percent or more of the respondents” sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we disregard the below-cost sales where such sales were found to be made at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time (in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act).

The results of our cost tests for Indo Evergreen and Zeta indicated for certain home market products that less than twenty percent of the sales of the model were at prices below COP. We therefore retained all sales of these models in our analysis and used them as the basis for determining normal value.

Our cost tests also indicated, for both Indo Evergreen and Zeta, that for certain other home market products more than twenty percent of home market sales within an extended period of time were at prices below COP and would not permit the full recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we excluded these below-cost sales of these models from our analysis and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining normal value.

For Indo Evergreen and Zeta, we based normal value on the price at which the foreign like product is first sold for consumption in the exporting country, in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, and at the same LOT as the export price, as defined by section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act.

Home market prices were based on either ex-factory or delivered prices. We reduced normal value for home market movement expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii). We also reduced normal value for packing costs incurred in the home market, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(i), and increased normal value to account for U.S. packing expenses in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A). We also made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (“COS”) in accordance with 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410, by deducting home market direct selling expenses (i.e., credit) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (i.e., credit, U.S. warranty and bank charges), where applicable.

Finally, we 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.

We calculated constructed value for Indo Evergreen, Zeta and Dieng/Surya in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, which indicates that constructed value shall be based on the sum of the respondent's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for SG&A, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We relied on the submitted constructed value information for Indo Evergreen and Zeta with the exception of the adjustments to COP noted above. For Dieng/Surya, we relied on the submitted constructed value information except for the following adjustments:

For Surya we revised the production quantities to be net of waste. This reduction in production quantities resulted in higher per unit COMs and packing for Surya. In addition, we disallowed Surya's cost offset for the sale of fresh mushrooms. See Memorandum from Sheikh Hannan to Neal Halper, dated February 28, 2001, for Dieng/Surya. For Dieng, we treated all reported grades as co-products with the same mushroom cost. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved Mushroom from Indonesia, 63 FR 72268, 72281 (December 31, 1998).

We derived SG&A and profit in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act and the Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong, 2d Sess (1994), (SAA) at 169-171. See 19 CFR 351.405(b)(2) (clarifying that under section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act, “foreign country” means the country in which the merchandise is produced), 62 FR 27296, 27412-13 (May 19, 1997). The statute directs us to use an amount which reflects SG&A and profit incurred in connection with the production and sale of a foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, by exporters or producers that are subject to the review. See section 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act.

Because Indo Evergreen and Zeta both have a viable home market, and hence actual company-specific SG&A and profit data are available, we calculated Dieng/Surya's SG&A and profit as a weighted average of the SG&A and profit amounts experienced by Indo Evergreen and Zeta. For further details see Memorandum from Sheikh Hannan to Neal Halper, dated February 28, 2001, for Dieng/Surya.

For Dieng/Surya, we based normal value on constructed value, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. For price-to-constructed value comparisons, we made adjustments to constructed value for COS differences, in accordance with 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS adjustments by deducting home market direct selling expenses (comprised of imputed credit) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (comprised of imputed credit, warranties and bank charges).

We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A of the Act based on the official exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the weighted-average dumping margins for the respective PORs are as follows:

We will disclose calculations used in our analysis to parties to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If requested, a hearing will be held 44 days after the date of publication of this notice, or the first work day thereafter.

Issues raised in the hearing 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. See 19 CFR 351.309(c) and (d). 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 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. Requests 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. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

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. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties. 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 (See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1)). 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 examined and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales examined. In order to estimate the entered value, we will subtract applicable movement expenses from the gross sales value.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise 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)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be those established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(C)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, 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 11.26 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 also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221. Effective January 20, 2001, Bernard T. Carreau, is fulfilling the duties of the Assistant Secretary of Import Administration.

Section 702(a) of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (as amended) (the Act) requires the Department of Commerce (the Department) to determine, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, whether any foreign government is providing a subsidy with respect to any article of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty, as defined in section 702(g)(b)(4) of the Act, and to publish an annual list and quarterly updates of the type and amount of those subsidies. We hereby provide the Department's quarterly update of subsidies on cheeses that were imported during the period October 1, 2000 through December 30, 2000.

The Department has developed, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, information on subsidies (as defined in section 702(g)(b)(2) of the Act) being provided either directly or indirectly by foreign governments on articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty. The appendix to this notice lists the country, the subsidy program or programs, and the gross and net amounts of each subsidy for which information is currently available.

The Department will incorporate additional programs which are found to constitute subsidies, and additional information on the subsidy programs listed, as the information is developed.

The Department encourages any person having information on foreign government subsidy programs which benefit articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty to submit such information in writing to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

This determination and notice are in accordance with section 702(a) of the Act. Effective January 20, 2001, Bernard T. Carreau is fulfilling the duties of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

This review is being conducted pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of the Act. The Department's procedures for the conduct of sunset reviews are set forth in Procedures for Conducting Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) (“Sunset Regulations”) and in 19 CFR part 351 (2000) in general. Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of sunset reviews is set forth in the Department's Policy Bulletin 98.3—Policies Regarding the Conduct of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998) (“Sunset Policy Bulletin”).

In our preliminary results, published on October 30, 2000 (65 FR 64668), we found that revocation of the order would likely result in continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the rate of 1.47 percent for all producers/exports from Italy.

On December 11, 2000, within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i), we received a case brief on behalf of Dalmine. On December 18, 2000, we received a rebuttal brief on behalf of U.S. Steel. Although a hearing was requested by U.S. Steel, that request was subsequently withdrawn and no hearing was held in this sunset review.

Imports covered by this order are oil country tubular goods, hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing, tubing, and drill pipe, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, whether or not conforming to American Petroleum Institute (API) or non-API specifications, whether finished or unfinished (including green tubes and limited service OCTG products). This scope does not cover casing, tubing, or drill pipe containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium. The OCTG subject to this order are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7304.21.30.00, 7403.21.60.00, 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.30.10, 7304.29.30.20, 7304.29.30.30, 7304.29.30.40, 7304.29.30.50, 7304.29.30.60, 7304.29.30.80, 7304.29.40.10, 7304.29.40.20, 7304.29.40.30, 7304.29.40.40, 7304.29.40.50, 7304.29.40.60, 7304.29.40.80, 7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.60.15, 7304.29.60.30, 7304.29.60.45, 7304.29.60.60, 7304.29.60.75, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.20.10.30, 7306.20.10.90, 7306.20.20.00, 7306.20.30.00, 7306.20.40.00, 7306.20.60.10, 7306.20.60.50, 7306.20.80.10, and 7306.20.80.50. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this sunset review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“Decision Memo”) from Jeffrey A. May, Director, Office of Policy, Import Administration, to Bernard T. Carreau, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, dated February 28, 2001, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memo include the automatic initiation of this sunset review and the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099, of the main Commerce building.

In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content.

We determine that revocation of the countervailing duty order on OCTG from Italy would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the rate listed below:

This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. This five-year (“sunset”) review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. This notice is published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act.

The committee’s agenda includes the following issues:

1. Review the specifics of a proposed no-cost contract module(s) which would establish a contractual relationship between NMFS and observer contractors for some portion of observer placements.

2. Review of overall program goals and objectives.

3. Discussion of potential long-term funding models for the observer program.

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

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Helen Allen, 907-271-2809, at least 5 working days prior to the meeting date.

The AGOA provides for quota- and duty-free treatment for qualifying textile and apparel products. Such treatment is generally limited to products manufactured from yarns or fabrics formed in the United States or a beneficiary country. The AGOA also provides for quota- and duty-free treatment for apparel articles that are both cut (or knit-to-shape) and sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries from fabric or yarn that is not formed in the United States or a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country, if it has been determined that such fabric or yarns cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner and the President has proclaimed such treatment. In Executive Order No. 13191, the President has delegated to CITA the authority to determine whether yarns or fabrics cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner under the AGOA and directed CITA to establish procedures to ensure appropriate public participation in any such determination. On March 6, 2001, CITA published procedures that it will follow in considering requests (66 FR 13502).

On March 1, 2001, the Chairman of CITA received a petition from Esquel Enterprises Limited of Hong Kong and Textile Industries Limited in Mauritius alleging that certain fabrics, listed above, for use in blouses and nightwear, cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner and requesting that the President proclaim quota- and duty-free treatment under the AGOA for such apparel articles that are cut and sewn in one or more beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries from such fabrics.

CITA is soliciting public comments regarding this request, particularly with respect to whether such fabrics can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. Also relevant is whether other fabrics that are supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner are substitutable for the fabrics for the purposes of the intended use. Comments must be received no later than March 23, 2001. Interested persons are invited to submit six copies of such comments or information to the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, Room 3100, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230.

If a comment alleges that such fabrics can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner, CITA will closely review any supporting documentation, such as a signed statement by a manufacturer of the yarn or fabric stating that it produces the fabric that is the subject of the request, including the quantities that can be supplied and the time necessary to fill an order, as well as any relevant information regarding past production.

CITA will protect any business confidential information that is marked business confidential from disclosure for the full extent permitted by law. CITA will make available to the public non-confidential versions of the request and non-confidential versions of any public comments received with respect to a request in room 3100 in the Herbert Hoover Building, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230. Persons submitting comments on a request are encouraged to include a non-confidential version and a non-confidential summary.

The CBTPA provides for quota-and duty-free treatment for qualifying textile and apparel products. Such treatment is generally limited to products manufactured from yarns or fabrics formed in the United States or a beneficiary country. The CBTPA also provides for quota- and duty-free treatment for apparel articles that are both cut (or knit-to-shape) and sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more CBTPA beneficiary countries from fabric or yarn that is not formed in the United States or a CBTPA beneficiary country, if it has been determined that such fabric or yarns cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner and the President has proclaimed such treatment. In Executive Order No. 13191, the President delegated to CITA the authority to determine whether yarns or fabrics cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner under the CBTPA and directed CITA to establish procedures to ensure appropriate public participation in any such determination. On March 6, 2001, CITA published procedures that it will follow in considering requests. (66 FR 13502).

On February 28, 2001 the Chairman of CITA received a petition from Amicale Industries, Inc. alleging that yarn of cashmere and yarn of camel hair, classified in HTSUS heading 5108.10.60, cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner and requesting that the President proclaim quota- and duty-free treatment under the CBTPA for apparel articles that are cut and sewn in one or more CBTPA beneficiary countries from U.S.-formed fabric of such yarns.

CITA is soliciting public comments regarding this request, particularly with respect to whether yarn of cashmere and yarn of camel hair, classified in HTSUS heading 5108.10.60, can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. Also relevant is whether other yarn that is supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner are substitutable for the yarn for purposes of the intended use. Comments must be received no later than March 23, 2001. Interested persons are invited to submit six copies of such comments or information to the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, room 3100, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230.

If a comment alleges that the cashmere or camel hair yarn can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner, CITA will closely review any supporting documentation, such as a signed statement by a manufacturer of the yarn stating that it produces the yarn that is in the subject of the request, including the quantities that can be supplied and the time necessary to fill an order, as well as any relevant information regarding past production.

CITA will protect any business confidential information that is marked business confidential from disclosure for the full extent permitted by law. CITA will make available to the public non-confidential versions of the request and non-confidential versions of any public comments received with respect to a request in room 3100 in the Herbert Hoover Building, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230. Persons submitting comments on a request are encouraged to include a non-confidential version and a non-confidential summary.

The Commission has received correspondence from Centuri Corporation requesting that the Commission issue a rule exempting certain model rocket propellant devices (motors) to be used for model rocket ground vehicles. The petitioner wants an exemption for race cars that travel on the ground along a tethered line and are propelled as rockets. The Commission is docketing the correspondence as a petition under provisions of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (“FHSA”), 15 U.S.C. 1261-1278.

Model rocket propellant devices use materials that would be considered hazardous substances under the FHSA. 15 U.S.C. 1261(f). The FHSA bans toys that contain a hazardous substance accessible by a child. Id. 1261(q)(1)(A). However, the FHSA gives the Commission authority to exempt from the definition of banned hazardous substance an article that requires inclusion of a hazardous substance in order to function, has labeling giving adequate directions and warnings for safe use, and is intended for children who are mature enough that they may reasonably be expected to read and heed the directions and warnings. Id. Under this authority, the Commission's existing regulations exempt model rocket propellant devices designed for use in light-weight, recoverable, and reflyable model rockets, if they meet certain requirements. 16 CFR 1500.85(a)(8). The petitioner asks that similar requirements apply to certain propellant devices used for model rocket vehicles that would travel on the ground along a tethered line so that they too would be exempt from the definition of banned hazardous substance.

Interested parties may obtain a copy of the petition by writing or calling the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC 20207; telephone (301) 504-0800. A copy of the petition is also available for inspection from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, in the Commission's Public Reading Room, Room 419, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.

The Global Positioning System employs a constellation of 24 satellites to provide continuously transmitted positioning/navigation signals for use with appropriately configured GPS user equipment. The proposed change applies to the interface control document that describes these signals. The civilian and military communities employ the Global Positioning System. All comments and their resolutions will be posted to the web site.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: New.

Title: Consolidated Data Collection on Students with Disabilities.

Frequency: Annually.

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

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden: Responses: 58. Burden Hours: 18,312.

Abstract: This package provides a file layout for States to use in reporting district and school level data on students receiving services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended. If used by States, it will meet the reporting requirements of the Office of Special Education Programs, the Office for Civil Rights (for students with disabilities only) and the National Center on Education Statistics (for students with disabilities only).

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, or should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-3651. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO_IMG_Issues@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Sheila Carey at (202) 708-6287 or via her internet address Sheila_Carey@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Section 323 of the EPCA (Act) 1 requires that DOE prescribe test procedures for the determination of the estimated annual operating costs or other measures of energy consumption for certain consumer products specified in the Act. These test procedures are found in 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart B.

Section 323(b) of the Act requires that the estimated annual operating costs of a covered product be computed from measurements of energy use in a representative average-use cycle and from representative average unit costs of energy needed to operate such product during such cycle. The section further requires DOE to provide information regarding the representative average unit costs of energy for use wherever such costs are needed to perform calculations in accordance with the test procedures. Most notably, these costs are used under the Federal Trade Commission's appliance labeling program, established by section 324 of the Act, and in connection with advertisements of appliance energy use and energy costs, which are covered by section 323(c) of the Act.

The Department last published representative average unit costs of residential energy for use in the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles on February 7, 2000. (64 FR 5860). Effective April 9, 2001, the cost figures published on February 7, 2000 will be superseded by the cost figures set forth in this notice.

The Department's Energy Information Administration (EIA) has developed the 2001 representative average unit after-tax costs of electricity, natural gas, No. 2 heating oil, propane, and kerosene prices found in this notice. The cost projections for heating oil, electricity, and natural gas are found in the fourth quarter, 2000, EIA Short-Term Energy Outlook, DOE/EIA-0226 (00/4Q), and reflect the mid-price scenario. Projections for residential propane and kerosene prices are derived from their relative prices to that of heating oil, based on 1999 averages for these three fuels. The source for these price data is the September 2000, Monthly Energy Review (DOE/EIA-0035(00/09). The Short-Term Energy Outlook and the Monthly Energy Review are available at the National Energy Information Center, Forrestal Building, Room 1F-048, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-8800.

We provide the 2001 representative average unit costs in Table 1 pursuant to section 323(b)(4) of the Act, and they will become effective April 9, 2001. They will remain in effect until further notice.

This section contains the following information about the energy information collection submitted to OMB for review: (1) The collection numbers and title; (2) the sponsor (i.e., the Department of Energy component); (3) the current OMB docket number (if applicable); (4) the type of request (i.e, new, revision, extension, or reinstatement); (5) response obligation (i.e., mandatory, voluntary, or required to obtain or retain benefits); (6) a description of the need for and proposed use of the information; (7) a categorical description of the likely respondents; and (8) an estimate of the total annual reporting burden (i.e., the estimated number of likely respondents times the proposed frequency of response per year times the average hours per response).

1. Forms EIA-1605 and 1605EZ, “Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases”.

2. Energy Information Administration.

3. OMB Number 1905-0194.

4. Three-year extension to an existing approved request.

5. Voluntary.

6. EIA-1605 and EIA-1605EZ forms are designed to collect voluntarily reported data on greenhouse gas emissions, achieved reductions of these emissions, and carbon fixation. Data are used to establish a publicly available database. Respondents are participants in a domestic or foreign activity that either reduces greenhouse gas emissions or increases sequestration.

7. Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions; Farms; Federal Government; State, Local or Tribal Government.

8. 7,000 hours ( 220 respondents × 1 response per year × 31.8 hours per response).

This section contains the following information about the energy information collection submitted to OMB for review: (1) The collection numbers and title; (2) the sponsor (i.e., the Department of Energy component); (3) the current OMB docket number (if applicable); (4) the type of request (i.e, new, revision, extension, or reinstatement); (5) response obligation (i.e., mandatory, voluntary, or required to obtain or retain benefits); (6) a description of the need for and proposed use of the information; (7) a categorical description of the likely respondents; and (8) an estimate of the total annual reporting burden (i.e., the estimated number of likely respondents times the proposed frequency of response per year times the average hours per response).

1. Forms EIA-910, “Monthly Natural Gas Marketer Survey”.

2. Energy Information Administration.

3. OMB number 1905-NEW.

4. New collection and three-year approval requested.

5. Mandatory.

6. EIA-910 will collect information necessary for developing accurate estimates of state-level prices paid by commercial and residential consumers of natural gas. The data will also be used for modeling and analytical efforts. Initially, respondents will be all natural gas marketers selling to residential and/or commercial customers in Georgia, Maryland, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

7. Business or other for-profit.

8. 6,572 hours (176 respondents × 12 responses per year × an average burden of 3.11 hours per response over the three-year approval period).

Grant awards for FY 2001 funds will be made by September 30, 2001, for the Basic Center and Street Outreach Programs.

The estimated funds available for new starts and the approximate number of new grants that may be awarded under this program announcement are as follows:

In addition to the new start grants, the Administration for Children and Families has provided for non-competitive continuation funds to current grantees in the following programs:

Applicants must refer to the specific evaluation criteria for each competitive area contained in the official Program Announcement in order to adequately prepare their applications.

The purpose of this program is to establish or strengthen locally controlled, community-based programs that address the immediate needs of runaway and homeless youth and their families. Services must be delivered outside of the law enforcement, child welfare, mental health and juvenile justice systems. The program goals and objectives of the Basic Center Program are to:

• Alleviate problems of runaway and homeless youth;

• Reunite youth with their families and encourage the resolution of intra-family problems through counseling and other services.

• Strengthen family relationships and encourage stable living conditions for youth; and

• Help youth decide upon constructive courses of action.

Any State, unit of local government, combination of units of local government, public or private nonprofit agency, organization or institution is eligible to apply for these funds. Federally recognized Indian Tribes are eligible to apply for Basic Center grants. Indian Tribes that are not federally recognized and urban Indian organizations are also eligible to apply for grants as private, nonprofit agencies.

Current Basic Center grantees with project periods ending on or before September 30, 2001, and all other eligible applicants not currently receiving Basic Center funds, may apply for a new competitive Basic Center grant under this announcement.

Current Basic Center Program grantees (including subgrantees) with one or two years remaining on their current grant and the expectation of continuation funding in FY 2001 may not apply for a new Basic Center grant for the community they currently serve. These grantees will receive instructions from their respective ACF Regional Offices on the procedures for applying for noncompetitive continuation grants.

Priority will be given to applicants that apply for less than $200,000 per year. The maximum Federal share for a 3-year project period is $600,000.

Grantees must provide a non-Federal share or match of at least ten percent of the Federal funds awarded. The non-Federal share may be met by cash or in-kind contributions, although applicants are encouraged to meet their match requirements through cash contributions. Therefore, a three-year project costing $300,000 in Federal funds (based on an award of $100,000 per 12-month budget period) must provide a match of at least $30,000 ($10,000 per budget period). Grantees will be held accountable for commitments of non-Federal resources even if over the amount of the required match. Failure to provide the amount will result in disallowance of Federal match.

This announcement solicits applications for Basic Center programs of up to three years duration (36-month project periods). Initial grant awards, made on a competitive basis, will be for one-year (12-month) budget periods. Applications for non-competitive continuation grants beyond the one-year budget periods, but within the 36-month project periods, will be entertained in subsequent years, subject to the availability of funds, satisfactory progress of the grantee and determination that continued funding would be in the best interest of the government.

The overall purpose of SOP is to provide education and prevention services to runaway, homeless and street youth who have been subjected to or are at risk of sexual exploitation or abuse. The goal of the program is to establish and build relationships between street youth and program outreach staff in order to help youth leave the streets. The objective of the program is to provide support services that will assist the youth in moving and adjusting to a safe and appropriate alternative living arrangement. These services include, at a minimum, treatment, counseling, provision of information and referral services. Street outreach programs must have access to local emergency shelter space that is an appropriate placement for young people and that can be made available for youth willing to come in off the streets. In addition, street outreach staff must have access to the shelter in order to maintain interaction with the youth during the time they are in the shelter.

Any private, nonprofit agency is eligible to apply for these funds. Non-Federally recognized Indian Tribes and urban Indian organizations are eligible to apply for grants as private, non-profit agencies. Please note that public agencies are NOT eligible to apply for these funds.

Current Street Outreach Program grantees with project periods ending on or before September 30, 2001, and all other eligible applicants not currently receiving SOP funds, may apply for a new competitive SOP grant under this announcement.

Current Street Outreach Program grantees (including subgrantees) with one or two years remaining on their current grant and the expectation of continuation funding in FY 2001 may not apply for a new Street Outreach grant for the community they currently serve. These grantees will receive instructions from their respective ACF Regional Offices on the procedures for applying for continuation grants.

Applicants may apply for up to $100,000 in Federal support each year, a maximum of $300,000 for a 3-year project period. The maximum Federal share of project costs is $100,000 for 12 months.

SOP grantees must provide a non-Federal share or match of at least ten percent of the Federal funds awarded. (There are certain exceptions for Tribes with “638” funding pursuant to Pub. L. 93-638, under which certain Federal grants may qualify as matching funds for other Federal grant programs, e.g., those which contribute to the purposes for which grants under section 638 were made.) The non-Federal share may be met by cash or in-kind contributions, although applicants are encouraged to meet their match requirements through cash contributions. For example, a project requesting $100,000 in Federal funds must include a match of at least $10,000.

This announcement solicits applications for Street Outreach Program projects of up to three years (36-month project periods). Initial grant awards, made on a competitive basis, will be for one-year (12-month) budget periods. Applications for non-competing continuation grants beyond the one-year budget periods, but within the 36-month project periods, will be considered subject to the availability of funds, satisfactory progress of the grantee and determination that continued funding would be in the best interest of the government.

Applications will be judged on how clearly they identify the physical, economic, social, financial, institutional, and/or other problem(s) requiring a solution. The need for assistance must be demonstrated and the principal and subordinate objectives of the project must be clearly stated. Applications will need to specify the goals and objectives of the project and how implementation will fulfill the purposes of the program. Applications should describe the conditions of youth and families in the area to be served; the incidence and characteristics of runaway, homeless or street youth and their families; the existing support systems for at-risk youth and families in the area, including other agencies providing services to runaway and homeless youth in the area.

Applicants must refer to the specific evaluation criteria for each competitive area contained in the full Program Announcement in order to adequately prepare their applications.

Applications will be judged on how clearly they identify the results and benefits to be derived, specify services to be provided, who will receive services, where and how these services will be provided, and how the services will benefit the youth families and the community to be served.

Applicants must refer to the specific evaluation criteria for each competitive area contained in the full Program Announcement in order to adequately prepare their applications.

Applications will be judged on how clearly they outline a plan of action which: Describes the scope and detail of how the proposed work will be accomplished; accounts for all functions or activities identified in the application; cites factors which might accelerate or decelerate the work and reasons for taking the proposed approach rather than others. Applications are encouraged to describe any unusual features of the project such as design or technological innovations, reductions in cost or time, or extraordinary social and community involvement.

Applicants must agree to cooperate with any research or evaluation efforts sponsored by the Administration for Children and Families and to submit the required Annual Report to the Secretary of HHS on program activities and accomplishments with statistical summaries and other required program and financial reports, as instructed by FYSB.

Applications will be judged on the extent to which they describe the program's youth development approach or philosophy and indicate how it underlies and integrates all proposed activities. Applicants will be expected to list organizations, cooperating entities, consultants, or other key individuals who will work on the project along with a short description of the nature of their effort or contribution; describe formal service linkages and plans for coordination with other agencies; describe plans for conducting outreach and encouraging awareness of and sensitivity to the diverse needs of runaway and homeless youth who represent particular ethnic and racial backgrounds and sexual orientations. Applicants are encouraged to describe the type, capacity and staff supervision of the shelter that will be available for youth.

Applicants must refer to the specific evaluation criteria for each competitive area contained in the full Program Announcement in order to adequately prepare their applications.

Applicants will be judged on whether they provide a resume and biographical sketch for each key person appointed and a job description for each vacant key position. A biographical sketch will also be required for new key staff as appointed. Applicants will be expected to list organizations and consultants who will work on the program along with a short description of the nature of their effort or contribution.

Applicants will be expected to provide information on plans for training project staff as well as staff of cooperating organizations and individuals and state the expected or estimated ratio of staff to youth.

Applicants must refer to the specific evaluation criteria for each competitive area contained in the full Program Announcement in order to adequately prepare their applications.

Applicants will be expected to provide information on the applicant organization(s) and cooperating partners such as organizational charts, financial statements, audit reports or statements from CPAs/Licensed Public Accountants. Any non-profit organization submitting an application must submit proof of its non-profit status in its application at the time of submission. Bonus points shall be awarded to applicant organizations who have demonstrated experience in providing services to runaway, homeless and street youth.

Applicants will be expected to provide a plan for project continuance beyond grant support, including a plan for securing resources and continuing project activities after Federal assistance has ceased and an annotated listing of applicant's funding sources. Such plans should include written agreements, if applicable, between grantees and subgrantees or subcontractors or other cooperating and letters of support and statements from community, public and commercial leaders that support the project proposed for funding.

Applicants must refer to the specific evaluation criteria for each competitive area contained in the full Program Announcement in order to adequately prepare their applications.

Applicants will be expected to provide a detailed line item budget and a narrative budget justification that describes how the categorical costs are derived. Applicants will be judged on how clearly they discuss the necessity, reasonableness, and allocability of the proposed costs and how clearly they describe the fiscal control and accounting procedures that will be used to ensure prudent use, proper disbursement and accurate accounting of funds received.

Applicants must refer to the specific evaluation criteria for each competitive area contained in the full Program Announcement in order to adequately prepare their applications.

Most portions of this program are covered under Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, and 45 CFR part 100, Intergovernmental Review of Department of Health and Human Services Program and Activities. Under the Order, States may design their own processes for reviewing and commenting on proposed Federal assistance under covered programs.

All States and Territories except Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Palau, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and American Samoa have elected to participate in the Executive Order process and have established Single Points of Contact (SPOCs). Applicants from these twenty-three jurisdictions need take no action regarding E.O. 12372. Applicants for projects to be administered by Federally-recognized Indian Tribes are also exempt from the requirements of E.O. 12372. Otherwise, applicants should contact their SPOCs as soon as possible to alert them of the prospective applications and receive any necessary instructions. Applicants must submit any required material to the SPOCs as soon as possible so that the program office can obtain and review SPOC comments as part of the award process. It is imperative that the applicant submit all required materials, if any, to the SPOC and indicate the date of this submittal (or the date of contact if no submittal is required) on the Application for Federal Assistance, Standard Form 424, item 16.

Under 45 CFR 100.8(a)(2), a SPOC has 60 days from the application deadline to comment on proposed new or competing continuation awards. A list of the Single Points of Contact for each State and Territory can be found on the web site http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/spoc.html. or by calling the ACYF Operations Center at 1-800-351-2293.

FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Levothyroxine Sodium: Questions and Answers.” In the Federal Register of August 18, 1999 (64 FR 44935), FDA announced the availability of a draft version of this guidance. The August 18, 1999, document gave interested persons 60 days to submit comments. FDA has revised the guidance in response to comments. Among the revisions being made is that FDA has extended the deadline for levothyroxine sodium drug products to have approved applications from August 14, 2000, to August 14, 2001. This extension was announced in the Federal Register on April 26, 2000 (65 FR 24488).

This 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 on issues concerning applications, including applications under section 505(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(b)(2)), for levothyroxine sodium. 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.

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.

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm.

FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Levothyroxine Sodium Tablets—In Vivo Pharmacokinetic and Bioavailability Studies and In Vitro Dissolution Testing.” This guidance contains agency recommendations on how to design in vivo pharmacokinetics and bioavailability studies and perform in vitro dissolution testing for levothyroxine sodium tablets, which were identified as new drugs in a notice published in the Federal Register of August 14, 1997 (62 FR 43535).

FDA announced the availability of a draft version of this guidance in the Federal Register of June 10, 1999 (64 FR 31280). The June 1999 draft document gave interested persons 60 days to submit comments. FDA carefully considered the comments it received and has made appropriate revisions. A separate section on biowaiver has been added to clarify information that appeared elsewhere in the draft guidance. The guidance also specifies that plasma/serum profiles and pharmacokinetic measures should be presented without adjustment of baseline levels.

This 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 on in vivo pharmacokinetic and bioavailability studies and in vitro dissolution testing for levothyroxine sodium tablets. 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.

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.

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain this guidance at http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm.

On August 1, 1996, FDA began a voluntary Third Party Review Pilot Program for selected medical device premarket notifications (“510(k)'s”). The purpose of the pilot program was to: (1) Provide manufacturers of eligible devices an alternative 510(k) review process that could yield more rapid marketing clearance decisions; and (2) enable FDA to target its scientific review resources at higher risk devices, while maintaining confidence in the review by third parties of low-to-moderate risk devices. Under the program, all class I devices that were not exempt from 510(k) at that time and 30 class II devices were eligible for third party review.

The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) was signed into law by former President Clinton on November 21, 1997. Section 210 of FDAMA essentially codified and expanded the Third Party Review Pilot Program by establishing section 523 of the act (21 U.S.C. 360m). Section 523 of the act directs FDA to accredit third parties (accredited persons) in the private sector to conduct the initial review of 510(k)'s for low-to-moderate risk devices and make recommendations to FDA regarding the initial classification of these devices under section 513(f)(1) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)). FDA published criteria in the Federal Register of May 22, 1998 (63 FR 28388), to grant or deny accreditation to persons who request to review 510(k)'s. In addition, FDA issued a list of devices that were eligible for review by accredited persons (May 20, 1998), which was updated in June 2000 to include additional class II devices for which device-specific guidance exists. This list is available on the Internet at http//www.fda.gov/cdrh/thirdparty. FDA also issued a guidance document entitled “Guidance for Staff, Industry and Third Parties: Implementation of Third Party Programs Under the FDA Modernization Act of 1997” (October 30, 1998). On November 21, 1998, FDA began accepting reviews and recommendations from accredited persons. Concurrently, FDA terminated the Third Party Review Pilot Program that began on August 1, 1996.

Industry use of third parties has been low. In an effort to encourage greater use of the Accredited Persons Program, the agency announced in the Federal Register of July 18, 2000 (65 FR 44540), a proposal to initiate a pilot that would allow third parties to review a significantly greater number of devices (hereinafter referred to as the July 2000 notice). Accordingly, FDA issued a draft revision of the October 30, 1998, guidance document and made available a proposed list of additional devices that would be eligible under the pilot.

The pilot would expand the device list by allowing, subject to certain specified conditions, third party review of class II devices for which device-specific guidance does not exist. Until now, device-specific guidance has existed for each class II device that is eligible for third party review. The pilot program would also include devices for which there is an exemption from 510(k). That is, if a new version of an exempted device requires a 510(k) because it exceeds the limitations of the 510(k) exemption for that device (as described in FDA's device classification regulations), the device would be eligible for third party review. The pilot, together with the existing device list, would allow third party review of all class I and class II devices regulated by CDRH that the agency believes are not prohibited from such review under the statute. Section 523(a)(3)(A) of the act specifies that an accredited person may not review: (1) A class III device, (2) a class II device which is intended to be permanently implanted or life-supporting or life-sustaining, or (3) a class II device which requires clinical data in the report submitted under section 510(k). (Section 523 of the act sets limits on the number of class II devices that may be ineligible for accredited person review because clinical data are required.)

As with the current Accredited Persons Program, the pilot would not include 510(k)'s that require multi-Center review (e.g., 510(k)'s for drug/device combination products) or devices for which the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research has primary responsibility for review. FDA believes that the expanded number of devices resulting from the pilot and the existing program will be sufficient to satisfy the criteria in section 523(c) of the act that trigger a 4- or 5-year timeframe for the duration of the Accredited Persons Program.

Both the draft revised guidance document and the July 2000 notice provided an opportunity for public comment, which closed September 1, 2000. Based on the comments received, the following substantive changes have been incorporated into the final version of the revised guidance.

1. Section II.B (Outline of the Accredited Persons Review Program—Purpose and Nature of the Program) has been revised as follows:

• FDA has clarified that accredited persons should receive expanded accreditation in order to review devices in the pilot.

• The recommended conditions for participation in the pilot have been revised. The condition that an accredited person complete three successful 510(k) reviews under the third party program in order to participate in the pilot has been retained. However, the condition that at least one of the reviews be in the same or a similar medical specialty area as the pilot devices that the accredited person intends to review has been removed. Also, the condition that an accredited person contact the appropriate CDRH Office of Device Evaluation (ODE) Branch Chief (or designee) before initiating a review of a device under the pilot has been revised. The revised condition for prereview contact applies only if the accredited person has not previously reviewed this type of device, i.e., a prereview contact is expected for the accredited person's first review of a particular device type but not for subsequent reviews of the same device type.

• The stated purpose of the prereview contacts has been revised for consistency with the above changes. Also, FDA has clarified that an accredited person's summary of prereview contacts: (1) Should be submitted to ODE with the accredited person's 510(k) review, (2) does not require prior ODE review or concurrence, and (3) is intended to be a simple record of the contacts rather than an “agreement” or de facto guidance.

2. Section II.B (Outline of the Accredited Persons Review Program—Devices Eligible for Accredited Person Review) has been revised to state that FDA will monitor the pilot continuously and will conduct a review 24 months, rather than 12 months, after it begins.

3. Section II.B (Outline of the Accredited Persons Review Program—Identification of an Accredited Person) has been revised to remove language encouraging manufacturers to use multiple accredited persons. In this context, the language was interpreted as suggesting that manufacturers should not interact repeatedly with the same accredited person, which was not FDA's intent.

FDA believes that the revised guidance will contribute to timely and consistent third party reviews of 510(k)'s for the expanded list of devices. Accredited persons who wish to expand their accreditation to include devices in the pilot should submit a request to FDA, as described in Section III of the revised guidance document.

This guidance represents the agency's current thinking on expanding the scope of the Accredited Persons Program to include all devices not excluded by statute. 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 applicable statute, regulations, or both.

The agency has adopted good guidance practices (GGP's), which set forth the agency's policies and procedures for the development, issuance, and use of guidance documents (65 FR 56468, September 19, 2000). This guidance document is issued as a Level 1 guidance consistent with FDA's GGP's regulation.

In order to receive “Implementation of Third Party Programs Under the FDA Modernization Act of 1997; Final Guidance for Staff, Industry, and Third Parties” via your fax machine, call CDRH Facts-on-Demand (FOD) system at 800-899-0381 or 301-827-0111 from a touch-tone telephone. At the first voice prompt press 1 to access DSMA Facts, at second voice prompt press 2, and then enter the document number (1160) followed by the pound sign (#). Then follow the remaining voice prompts to complete your request.

Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may also do so using the Internet. CDRH maintains an entry on the Internet for easy access to information including text, graphics, and files that may be downloaded to a personal computer with access to the Internet. Updated on a regular basis, the CDRH home page includes the civil money penalty guidance documents package, device safety alerts, Federal Register reprints, information on premarket submissions (including lists of approved applications and manufacturers' addresses), small manufacturers' assistance, information on video conferencing and electronic submissions, Mammography Matters, and other device oriented information. The CDRH home page may be accessed at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh “Implementation of Third Party Programs Under the FDA Modernization Act of 1997; Final Guidance for Staff, Industry and Third Parties” is available at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/thirdparty.

Interested persons may submit to the Dockets Management Branch (address above) written comments regarding the guidance at any time. Such comments will be considered when determining whether to amend the current guidance. 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 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.

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

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

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Disaster Recovery Grant Reporting (DRGR) System.

OMB Control Number, if applicable: 2506-0165.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: HUD requires that grantees submit quarterly reports to the Department on the use of HUD Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) disaster recovery funds (a.k.a. HUD Disaster Recovery Initiative). This information must be submitted to HUD no later than 30 days following each calendar quarter. HUD uses the information to submit quarterly reports to the Congress that are required by Public Laws 105-18, 105-174, and 105-277. The reports to Congress must cover the use of grant funds, especially those for or associated with buyouts.

This reporting also meets the requirement that cities, counties, and states must submit a performance report on the use of CDBG disaster recovery funds in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 5304(e) and 24 CFR 91.520 no later than 90 days following the end of each 12 month period.

Agency form numbers, if applicable: Not applicable. This is a computerized data system operating on the worldwide web.

Members of affected public: State and local governments.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of responses, frequency of response, and hours of response:

Status of the proposed information collection: Reinstatement.

Section 106 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (Pub. L. 101-235) added a new section 7(q) to the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act, 42 U.S.C. 3535(q). The provision provides that the Secretary may delegate authority to approve a waiver of HUD regulations “only to an individual of Assistant Secretary rank or equivalent rank” who is authorized to issue the regulation to be waived. On April 22, 1991, the Department published in the Federal Register (at 56 FR 16337) HUD's statement of policy on this provision. Among other things, the April 22, 1991 statement of policy provided that: “Individual of equivalent rank means an individual with rank equivalent to an Assistant Secretary.” The 1991 policy statement also noted that the term includes the following HUD officers: the General Counsel, the Inspector General, and the President of the Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA).

Under this provision, the Department limited the authority to waive regulations to individuals occupying positions nominated by the President, by and with the consent of the Senate. This policy also prohibited individuals occupying positions requiring Senate confirmation from further re-delegating the authority to waive regulations, even to individuals who have been delegated authority concurrent with the individual occupying a position that required Senate confirmation.

This statement of policy, published in today's Federal Register, clarifies the scope of “individuals of equivalent rank” to include persons who are designated authority to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office under a published Order of Succession. The Department's Orders of Succession, consistent with 42 U.S.C. 3535(d), ensure that waivers of regulations will be exercised only by individuals who have authority to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office. The waiver authority and procedures covered in today's policy statement are interim and continue only until individuals nominated by the President to offices requiring Senate confirmation are confirmed by the Senate and sworn into office. Nothing in today's statement of policy otherwise changes the scope of the April 22, 1991 statement of policy.

Clarifying the scope of individuals of equivalent rank under the April 22, 1991 policy statement is essential to ensure that, during this period of critical vacancies in positions requiring Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation, the business of the Department is not seriously impaired by the absence of individuals occupying positions requiring Senate confirmation. The Department continues to receive a significant number of requests for waivers. Failing to respond to these requests in a timely, considered manner may have significant adverse effects on HUD grantees and undercut the Department's credibility with the public. This clarification is also consistent with the Department's April 22, 1991 statement of policy. In that statement, the Department noted that:

As contemplated by the April 22, 1991 statement of policy, the Department has put into place written Orders of Succession to ensure an orderly flow of the authority of those vacant positions which require Senate confirmation. The published orders are consistent with the Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 and may be found at 65 FR 51014, August 22, 2000 (for the Office of Community Planning and Development; 65 FR 6655, November 6, 2000 (for the Office of Public and Indian Housing); 65 FR 51015, August 22, 2000 (for the Office of Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner); 65 FR 66550, November 6, 2000 (for the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity); and 63 FR 66193, December 12, 1998 (for the Office of Policy, Development and Research).

All proposed waivers of regulations under today's statement of policy must be concurred in by the Associate General Counsel who serves as program counsel to the program office and by the General Counsel or the Deputy General Counsel for Housing Finance and Operations or his or her designee. It should be noted that this procedure is broader than that outlined in the statement of policy dated April 22, 1991, because this procedure now requires concurrence on all waivers.

The Department will continue to notify the public of all waivers of regulations subject to Section 106 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 and this Statement of Policy. Specifically, the provisions of the April 22, 1991 statement of policy addressing timing of notice, content of notice and public inspection continue unchanged.

In this notice, the Department of the Interior is proposing to amend Interior BIA-03, “Individual Indian Monies,” (now renamed and renumbered Interior OS-02) to reflect the organizational changes made by the transfer of the system from the Bureau of Indian Affairs to the Office of the Secretary, Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians (OST). These changes help the Secretary carry out fiduciary responsibilities required under the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103-412, 108 Stat. 4239.

Thus, the Office of the Secretary proposes to amend “Individual Indian Monies,” BIA-03 to read as shown below.

OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L., 104-13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). We published a 60-day notice inviting public comment on this information collection in the Federal Register on September 6, 1999 (65 FR 54060). We received no comments.

We have submitted a request to OMB for renewal of their approval for the information collections assigned OMB control numbers 1018-0022 and 1018-0099, and to approve several new forms. We are not allowed to conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and a person is not required to respond to a request for information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

We requested renewed approval of the collection of information for Service license/permit application forms 3-200-6 through 3-200-18. We also requested approval for a new application form 3-200-67 for special Canada goose permits, for which the collection of information was assigned OMB approval number 1018-0099 during the rulemaking process (64 FR 32774, June 17, 1999). We have requested that the special Canada goose information collection be incorporated under OMB No. 1018-0022. We also requested approval for permit reporting forms 3-202-1 through 3-202-5, which supersede forms 3-202a, 3-202c, 3-430b, and 3-430d. Also, we are requesting approval for three new report forms, 3-202-7, 3-202-8, and 3-202-9. These new report forms do not represent new information collections. Rather, we have taken existing report forms that covered several permit types and created new forms tailored to the specific permit activity. This will make each report form easier for permittees to understand and complete. We also requested approval for a streamlined application form that is specific to renewing expired or expiring permits (3-200-68). This does not represent a new information collection-merely a specific form to facilitate renewal requests. Finally, we requested approval for two new application forms, 3-200-69 and 3-200-70, which will assist individuals and entities in obtaining permits under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act to temporarily transport eagle parts into and out of the United States, as authorized by a recent amendment of 50 CFR 22.21 and 22.22 (64 FR 50467; September 17, 1999). We requested a 3-year term of approval for this information collection activity, which is the maximum term allowed.

We have reformatted and revised all of our application and report forms to improve clarity and presentation. This should improve the completeness of applications and reports we receive and reduce delays associated with having to contact applicants and permittees for additional information or clarification. Revisions were made to the annual report forms to (1) clarify the information being collected, (2) convert report form numbers to consecutive numbers, (3) eliminate collection of certain information that we no longer track, and (4) reorganize the forms to accommodate future electronic submission of data. For instance, on rehabilitation annual reports, instead of collecting certain information on each individual birds received by the permittee, we will collect a summary of the information by species. All of our forms will be available on the Internet following OMB approval.

We invite comments concerning this information collection, including on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper perWormance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. The information collections in this program are part of a system of records covered by the Privacy Act 95 U.S.C. 552(a)).

The information on the application forms will be used to determine whether an applicant meets criteria established in the various migratory bird treaties, laws, and regulations for issuance of a permit or whether a permit must be suspended, revoked, or denied. Information on the report forms will be used to monitor permit compliance and track species taken from the wild.

The information collection requirements in this submission implement the regulatory requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 704) (50 CFR part 21), the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42-44)(50 CFR part 14), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668)(50 CFR part 22), and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (27 UST 108)(50 CFR part 23), and are contained in Service regulations in Chapter I, Subchapter B of Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Common permit application and recordkeeping requirements have been consolidated in 50 CFR part 13.

The individual permit types with information collection requirements, the estimated number of responses per year, the burden hours, and the applicable regulatory authority are included in the table below. Since the previous Federal Register notice, we changed the annual report form numbers to make them consecutive. In addition, some data in the table have been updated since the previous notice. With the exception of special Canada goose permits (5 years), depredation permits (1 year), golden eagle nest permits (2 years), and Indian religious permits (indefinite), most migratory bird permits are valid for 3 years. Most of these permits are renewable. To renew a permit, an applicant may complete a renewal application instead of the regular application for the type of permit he or she holds. Therefore, the figures in the Total No. of Responses column do not reflect the total number of requests received annually for a given type of permit.

OMB Control Number: 1018-0022.

Service Form Numbers: 3-200-6 through 3-200-18, 3-200-67 through 3-200-70, 3-202-1 through 3-202-9, 3-186, 3-186A.

Description of Respondents: Individuals, zoological parks, museums, universities, scientists, taxidermists, businesses; State, local, Tribal and Federal governments.

Number of Respondents: 29,944.

Frequency of Collection: On Occasion.

Total Annual Burden hours: 22,234.

Total Annual Responses: 47,326.

Total Annual Non-hour Cost Burden: $245,775.