The inventions available for licensing are:

The project area is approximately 61,700 acres and encompasses the Lang, Vinal, Bunker Hill, Yodkin, Beaver, Browning, Fowler, Hartman, Fix, Kelsey, Can, Zulu, Smoot, Clay, Rene Tributary, and Dutch Cr. drainages. Proposed activities within the decision area include portions of the following areas: T35N, R32W; T35N; R31W; and T36N, R30W; PMM; Lincoln County, Montana.

The Kelsey Creek (2,770 acres), Roderick South (315 acres), and Upper Beaver (9,015 acres) fires burned within this project area in August 2000, ignited by lightning strikes. A total of over 12,100 acres burned in these fires with varying severity.

To meet the purpose and need, this project proposes:

1. Treatments in areas of high severity fire (70% or more mortality) and moderate severity (20-70% mortality) to reduce fuels, recover economic value of dead trees, and where appropriate trend forest vegetation toward mature forest:

Dead trees would be salvaged where economically feasible, while protecting other resources; mortality would be based on amount of crown scorch, and/or cambium and root damage. Approximately 60% of the Kelsey Creek and Upper Beaver fire acres and 30% of the Roderick South fire acres have been dropped from further consideration for harvest because they are either in riparian areas, low fire severity areas, in unsuitable MAs, or were previously harvested. The remaining acreage is being site-specifically reviewed for inclusion in the Proposed Action.

Salvage would be accomplished by helicopter logging, and by ground based logging systems. Treatment in the high severity fire areas would resemble a regeneration clearcut or seedtree harvest due to few surviving trees in the units. Treatments in moderate severity areas would vary depending on the amount of fire mortality. Where mortality is low (20-30%), treatment would be a light commercial thinning from below. Where mortality is moderate to high (30-70%), treatments would range from commercial thinning from below to shelterwood harvest. After harvest, fuels reduction and site preparation would be accomplished through machine piling and burning or underburning.

To expedite hydrologic and vegetative recovery from the fires, salvage harvest units in high severity fire areas would be planted. Salvage harvest units in moderate severity areas may or may not be planted depending on extent of harvest, species composition present, and availability of a desirable, natural seed source. Various native tree species would be planted, with an emphasis on blister rust resistant white pine which historically occurred in greater numbers in the Yaak than found presently.

Up to a total of 9 miles of temporary road may be built, averaging 1/2 mile in length. Temporary roads would be obliterated after post harvest activities are completed. Existing roads needed for haul may receive reconstruction work such as brushing, blading, road drainage work, and realignment.

To ensure protection of water, fish and wildlife habitat, and other resources, the following design criteria would be employed:

Soil, Water, Fisheries Protections: All harvest proposals will meet objectives in the Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook 2509.22 (USDA Forest Service, 1988). Harvest proposals will be designed to minimize peak flow conditions in watersheds already exceeding Forest Plan standards.

Wildlife Corridors: The maintenance of landscape-level connectivity and the minimization of fragmentation will be incorporated into the design of all harvest alternatives.

Old Growth Protection and Enhancement: Stands with potential to become mature forest will be managed in order to develop mature forest characteristics over time, including development of large tree size, complex stand structure, large down logs, large snags and multistoried closed canopy. To encourage this development, removal of understories killed by the fire may be necessary to reduce fuel levels and the risk of a lethal reburn. Post-fire designated old growth, and replacement old growth, will not be proposed for harvest.

Roadless Area Protection: No harvest or road construction is proposed in roadless areas.

Cavity Habitat, Small Mammal Habitat and Soils Protection: Retention of snags will be a priority in order to retain an acceptable level of both hard and soft snags and of downed woody debris for wildlife and hydrological purposes, and soil productivity. In regeneration harvest units, 6-20 trees per acre will be left as snags. Approximately 5-30 tons per acre of coarse woody debris would be left for long-term soil productivity and as small mammal habitat. Two to three small slash piles per acre would be left unburned to provide habitat for small mammals.

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Protection: No salvage harvest would occur in areas where harvest would result in a “will impact sensitive species * * * ” or “likely to adversely affect threatened and endangered” determination for these species.

2. Areas that experienced high severity fire, but are not salvaged may be planted, depending on wildlife requirements for cover, availability and type of seed sources and soil, hydrology and safety considerations. This includes past harvest units in which planted trees were destroyed by fire. Burned plantations with fuel loads that present a future fire risk to planted trees would be slashed and burned prior to replanting. These areas would be planted with various native tree species, with an emphasis on blister rust resistant white pine. Riparian areas that experienced high severity fire would be planted with a combination of native shrubs and trees. These revegetation activities may occur in high severity burn areas of the Mount Henry Roadless Area as well as areas outside this roadless area.

3. Watershed improvement activities would be implemented to reduce water routing and sediment transport from existing roads. This would be accomplished through application of Best Management Practices and activities such as outsloping, waterbarring, culvert replacement/removal or removal of the actual prism to restore a more natural surface flow pattern to the landscape. Road decommissioning and other watershed improvement activities will be identified and analyzed in the DEIS.

4. In order to implement this proposal and provide for grizzly bear security during the proposed activities, several miles of road currently restricted to public access would be opened for harvest activities and public use. To offset this, some roads that are currently open would be restricted. The Solo Joe road or the Basin Cr. road may be closed in order to open the Turner Cr. road for salvage and reforestation activities. Several more roads may be identified for access management changes during the course of the analysis.

The Forest Service will consider a range of alternatives. One of these will be the “no action” alternative in which none of the proposed activities will be implemented. Additional alternatives will examine varying levels and locations for the proposed activities to achieve the proposal's purposes, as well as to respond to the issues and other resource values.

Tentatively, several preliminary issues of concern have been identified. These issues are briefly described below:

Watershed and fisheries: Past management activities and wildfire events have resulted in predicted peak flows that exceed Forest Plan standards. Water Quality Limited Segments (WQLS), as defined by the state of Montana, exist within the analysis area. Though the intent of harvest and road construction design is to minimize additional impacts, there may be concerns that additional management activities could result in short-term increased peak flows and sediment production. While the intent is to maintain or improve long-term aquatic conditions, westslope cutthroat trout and other aquatic species may experience short-term impacts.

Wildlife: The proposed action could potentially reduce existing cavity habitat in snags and reduce suitable hiding cover for wildlife security.

Public Access: The implementation of the proposed action would change access within the Kelsey-Beaver Analysis Area and may affect the public's ability to use traditional routes.

Economic Value: Preliminary public comments expressed concern that the value of burned timber will be lost unless salvage logging occurs. Additional comment have voiced concern over the timeframe proposed for addressing salvage logging and expressed the need to recover the economic value of affected trees in a timely manner.

The Kootenai Forest Supervisor will decide the following:

1. Whether or not to salvage timber and, if so, the selection and site-specific location of, appropriate timber management practices (silvicultural prescription, logging system, fuels treatment, and reforestation); road construction/reconstruction necessary to provide access and achieve other resource objectives; and appropriate mitigation measures.

2. Whether or not to revegetate riparian or other burned areas not harvested to expedite recovery.

3. Whether or not water quality improvement projects (including road decommissioning) should be implemented and, if so, to what extent.

4. Whether road access restrictions, or other actions, are necessary to meet wildlife security needs.

5. Whether or not project specific Forest Plan amendments are necessary to meet the specific purpose and need of this project, and whether those amendments are significant under NFMA.

6. What, if any, specific project monitoring requirements would be needed to assure mitigation measures are implemented and effective.

In November 2000, preliminary efforts were made to involve the public in looking at restoration and salvage opportunities within the fire areas. Comments received prior to this notice will be included in the documentation for the EIS. The public is encouraged to take part in the process and to visit with Forest Service officials at any time during the analysis and prior to the decision. The Forest Service will be seeking information, comments, and assistance from Federal, State, and local agencies, and other individuals or organizations that may be interested in, or affected by, the proposed action. This input will be used in preparation of the draft and final EIS. The scoping process will include:

• Identify potential issues.

• Identifying major issues to be analyzed in depth.

• Identify alternatives to the proposed action.

• Explore additional alternatives which will be derived from issues recognized during scoping activities.

• Identify potential environmental effects of this project and alternatives (i.e. direct, indirect, and cumulative effects and connected actions).

The Draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public review by July 2001. At that time EPA will publish a Notice of Availability of the draft EIS in the Federal Register. The comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date the EPA publishes the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. It is very important that those interested in the management of this area participate at that time.

The final EIS is scheduled to be completed by October 2001. In the final EIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to comments and responses received during the comment period that pertain to the environmental consequences discussed in the draft EIS and to applicable laws, regulations, and policies considered in making a decision regarding the proposal.

The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45 day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider and respond to them in the final EIS.

To be most helpful, comments on the draft EIS should be as specific as possible and may address the adequacy of the statement or the merit of the alternatives discussed. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

As the Forest Supervisor of the Kootenai National Forest, 1101 US Highway 2 West, Libby, MT 59923, I am the Responsible Official. As the Responsible Official I will decide if the proposed project will be implemented. I will document the decision and reasons for the decision in the Record of Decision. I have delegated the responsibility to prepare the EIS to Michael L. Balboni, District Ranger, Three Rivers Ranger District.

The committee will meet jointly with the Lake Tahoe Basin Executives Committees. Items to be covered on the agenda include: (1) Review and Approval of Urban Lot Subcommittee Report; (2) Review of the Federal Advisory Committee Draft on Federal Actions at Lake Tahoe; (3) public comment; (4) Review of the Consensus Process; (5) Status Report on the Environmental Improvement Program; and (6) Review of Proposed Letters on Air Quality and Co-location of North Tahoe Fire Department with the Forest Service. All Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee meetings are open to the public. Interested citizens are encouraged to attend. Issues may be brought to the attention of the Committee during the open public comment period at the meeting or by filing written statements with the secretary for the Committee before or after the meeting. Please refer any written comments to the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit at the contact address stated above.

The environmental assessment of this federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, Patricia S. Leavenworth, State Conservationist, has determined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement are not needed for this project.

The project purposes are gully, sediment and flood control. The planned works of improvement include the repair of pipe separations in the principal spillway of structures 2, 3 and 5, and removal of sediment from all three structures. Enactment of a county floodplain zoning ordinance will restrict future development within the hydraulic shadow of all three structures.

A limited number of copies of the FONSI are available to fill single copy requests at the above address. Basic data developed during the environmental assessment are on file and may be reviewed by contacting Sheryl B. Paczwa.

No administrative action on implementation of the proposal will be taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in the Federal Register.

The environmental assessment of this federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, Patricia S. Leavenworth, State Conservationist, has determined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement are not needed for this project.

The project purpose is flood prevention. The planned works of improvement include the repair of the dam.

A limited number of copies of the FONSI are available to fill single copy requests at the above address. Basic data developed during the environmental assessment are on file and may be reviewed by contacting Sheryl B. Paczwa.

No administrative action on implementation of the proposal will be taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in the Federal Register.

Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that revisions made after enactment of the law, to NRCS state technical guides used to carry out highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law, shall be made available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days, the NRCS in Wisconsin will receive comments relative to the proposed change. Following that period, a determination will be made by the NRCS in Wisconsin regarding disposition of those comments and a final determination of change will be made.

The ARC was created by the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 (Reform Act), as an independent commission, to evaluate Amtrak's performance and to make recommendations to Amtrak for achieving further cost containment, productivity improvements, and financial reforms. In addition, the Reform Act provides: that the Council is to monitor cost savings from work rules established under new agreements between Amtrak and its labor unions; that the Council submit an annual report to Congress that includes an assessment of Amtrak's progress on the resolution of productivity issues; and that, after a specified period, the Council has the authority to determine whether Amtrak can meet certain financial goals specified under the Reform Act and, if it finds that Amtrak cannot, to notify the President and the Congress.

The ARAA prescribes that the Council is to consist of eleven members, including the Secretary of Transportation and ten others nominated by the President and the leadership of the Congress. Members serve a five-year term.

Through the Census Act, which is codified in title 13 of the United States Code, Congress has delegated to the Secretary of Commerce its broad constitutional authority to conduct the decennial census (see U.S. Constitution Art. I, Sec. 2, Cl.3). Included in the Census Act is a requirement for the Secretary to report tabulations of population to States and localities pursuant to 13 U.S.C. 141(c).

To meet this reporting requirement in connection with Census 2000, the Secretary decided the appropriate methodology to be used in calculating the tabulations of populations to be reported to States and localities for redistricting purposes. The procedural framework within which the Secretary made his decision is codified at Part 101 of Title 15, Code of Federal Regulations. Specifically, a committee of senior career officials of the Census Bureau reported to the Director of the Census. This committee unanimously recommended the release of unadjusted data. The Director of the Census forwarded to the Secretary of Commerce the committee's report along with the Director's concurrence in and approval of the committee's recommendation (66 FR 14004, March 8, 2001). In addition, prominent non-Government statisticians and demographers each individually recommended to the Secretary the release of unadjusted data.

On March 6, 2001, the Secretary of Commerce announced his acceptance of the Census Bureau's recommendations and determined to release unadjusted data to the States for purposes of redistricting. Set forth below is the Secretary's decision memorandum of March 7, 2001, providing the rationale for his determination.

As Secretary of Commerce, I have the privilege of overseeing the Census Bureau and its decennial census activities. One of those activities is the production of population counts for State and local redistricting purposes, as required by the Census Act. Section 141(c) of the Census Act requires the Secretary of Commerce to complete and to report the tabulations of population to each State within one year after the decennial census date. For the 2000 decennial census, that deadline is April 1, 2001.

In conjunction with the actual enumeration conducted for the 2000 census, the Census Bureau also conducted an Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (“A.C.E.”) and performed a detailed Demographic Analysis to evaluate the quality of the actual enumeration data. On March 1, 2001, the Acting Director of the Bureau of the Census, William G. Barron, Jr., forwarded to me the report and the recommendations of the Executive Steering Committee on A.C.E. Policy (ESCAP) regarding the data to be reported to the States as required by Section 141(c). The ESCAP was formed in November 1999 to “advise the Director in determining policy for the A.C.E. and the integration of the A.C.E. results into the census for all purposes except Congressional reapportionment.” The members of the ESCAP include twelve senior career Census Bureau professionals with advanced degrees and/or decades of experience in the Federal statistical system. Acting Director Barron is a member of the Committee.1

On October 6, 2000, the Department of Commerce delegated to the Director of the Census Bureau the final determination regarding the methodology to be used in calculating the tabulations of population reported to States and localities pursuant to 13 U.S.C. 141(c). This action also required the ESCAP to prepare a written report to the Director of the Census Bureau with a recommendation regarding the methodological decision. The delegation to the Director was revised on February 14, 2001, to provide that the Secretary of Commerce would make the final decision regarding the reporting of the redistricting data after receiving the recommendation, if any, of the Director of the Census Bureau, together with the ESCAP's report and the advice of other experts.2

After evaluating a wide variety of evidence relating to the accuracy of Census 2000, in its March 1, 2001 report, the ESCAP recommended that the actual enumeration data be released as the Census Bureau's official redistricting data. The ESCAP was unable to conclude that data adjusted by use of the A.C.E. methodologies would be more accurate than the unadjusted data. The Committee reached these conclusions for several reasons:

1. Demographic Analysis estimates indicated fundamental differences with the results of the A.C.E. These differences could not be explained within the time available and raised the possibility of an as-yet undiscovered problem in the A.C.E. or census methodology.

2. The Census Bureau evaluations of synthetic error found variable results. These variable results indicate that synthetic error could, in certain circumstances, affect the results of a comparison of the adjusted and unadjusted data.

3. The Census Bureau also identified potential balancing error that indicated a possible upward bias for the A.C.E. undercount estimates, the effect of which might be a reduction in the A.C.E.'s net undercount estimates.

Acting Director Barron has advised me that he concurs with and approves the Committee's recommendation. In addition, I asked six prominent non-Government statisticians and demographers with extensive experience and knowledge of the methodologies and issues before the ESCAP to review the Committee's report and recommendation. Each of these experts also has individually expressed concurrence with the Committee's recommendation.

After considering these views and the ESCAP report, I hereby accept the recommendation of both the Acting Director and the ESCAP Committee, and determine that the unadjusted census data produced in Census 2000 be reported to the States pursuant to Section 141(c) of the Census Act as the Census Bureau's official redistricting data.

The petition in this investigation was filed on behalf of the American Honey Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association (the petitioners).

On September 29, 2000, the Department received a countervailing duty petition filed in proper form on behalf of the American Honey Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association. The Department initiated this countervailing duty investigation of honey from Argentina on October 26, 2000. The notice of initiation was published in the Federal Register on November 2, 2000. See Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation: Honey from Argentina, 65 FR 65835 (Initiation Notice). Since the initiation, the following events have occurred.

Due to the large number of producers and exporters of honey in Argentina, and based on discussions with the Government of Argentine (GOA) , the Department decided to solicit information from the GOA on an aggregate or industry-wide basis in accordance with section 777A(e)(2)(B) of the Act, rather than from individual producers and exporters. See Memorandum to the File, Countervailing Duty Investigation of Honey From Argentina: Conducting the Investigation on an Aggregate Basis, dated November 3, 2000, (Aggregation Memo). On November 9, 2000, we issued a countervailing duty questionnaire to the GOA. On November 22, 2000, the GOA submitted a letter claiming green box status pursuant to the WTO Agreement on Agriculture for twenty-seven of the programs under investigation (see “Green Box Claims” section below for a detailed discussion of these claims). On November 21 and 22, 2000, the Department conducted a questionnaire presentation in Argentina. See Memorandum to the File, Honey from Argentina: Countervailing Duty Questionnaire Presentation in Buenos Aires, dated December 4, 2000.

On December 5, 2000, petitioners made a timely request pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(e) for postponement of the preliminary determination in accordance with section 703(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Pursuant to section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act, on December 15, 2000, the Department postponed the preliminary determination to March 5, 2001 (65 FR 78474).

On December 22, 2000, the Department issued an additional questionnaire addressing the GOA's green box claims. The Department received questionnaire responses from the GOA on January 2 and January 18, 2001. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to the GOA on January 26 and January 31, 2001. The Department received the GOA's supplemental responses on February 14 and 16, 2001.

For purposes of this investigation, the products covered are natural honey, artificial honey containing more than 50 percent natural honeys by weight, preparations of natural honey containing more than 50 percent natural honeys by weight, and flavored honey. The subject merchandise includes all grades and colors of honey whether in liquid, creamed, combs, cut comb, or chunk form, and whether packaged for retail or in bulk form.

The merchandise subject to this investigation is currently classifiable under subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90, and 2106.90.99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs Service (U.S. Customs) purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.

In the scope section of the Initiation Notice for this investigation, the Department encouraged all parties to submit comments regarding product coverage by November 9, 2000. The Department did not receive any comments regarding scope.

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, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (2000).

Because Argentina is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, the International Trade Commission (ITC) is required to determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from Argentina materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry. On November 13, 2000, the ITC published its preliminary determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is being materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports from Argentina of the subject merchandise (64 FR 41458). The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3369 (November 2000), Honey from Argentina and China; Investigations Nos. 701-TA-402 and 731-TA-892-893 (Preliminary).

On February 27, 2000, petitioners submitted a letter requesting alignment of the final determination in this investigation with the final determination of the antidumping duty investigation of honey from the People's Republic of China. See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Honey From Argentina and the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 65831 (November 2, 2000). In accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act, we are aligning the final determination in this investigation with the final determination in the companion antidumping investigation of honey from the People's Republic of China.

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

Under section 777A(e)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department may calculate a single country-wide rate applicable to all exporters if the Department determines it is not practicable to determine individual countervailable subsidy rates due to the large number of exporters or producers involved in the investigation or review.

In the current countervailing duty investigation of honey from Argentina, petitioners' allegations show that there are between 18,000 and 20,000 honey producers in Argentina (see p. 20 of the petition, citing to the Argentine National Statistics Office, export statistics for 1998). Further information provided by the GOA indicates that there are approximately 25,000 honey producers in the country. (See Aggregation Memo.) The GOA also expressed concern, in meetings with the Department, about the difficulty of identifying individual producers, and the producers' ability to provide information. Thus, due to the extremely large number of honey producers subject to this investigation and the complexities associated with identifying and investigating individual producers, the Department determined that it would not be practicable to investigate alleged countervailable subsidies received by individual honey producers and exporters in Argentina. In making this decision, it was our understanding that the GOA would be in a position to provide the information on an aggregate basis that would be necessary to conduct our subsidy analyses. Accordingly, we are following the statutory provision that permits the Department “to determine a single countrywide subsidy rate to be applied to all exporters and producers.” See section 777A(e)(2)(B) of the Act. See also Aggregation Memo.

In accordance with section 771(5B)(F) of the Act, the Secretary will treat as non-countervailable domestic support measures that are provided with respect to certain agricultural products listed in Annex 1 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture (Agriculture Agreement), provided such measures conform to the criteria of Annex 2 of the same agreement. Furthermore, in accordance with section 351.522(a) of the Department's regulations, the Department will determine that a particular domestic support measure conforms fully to the green box criteria in the Agriculture Agreement if it finds that the measure (1) is provided through a publicly-funded program (including government revenue foregone) not involving transfers from consumers; (2) does not have the effect of providing price support to producers; and (3) meets the relevant policy-specific criteria and conditions laid out in Annex 2 of the Agriculture Agreement. According to § 351.301(d)(6) of the Department's regulations, a claim that a particular agricultural support program should be accorded green-box status under section 771(5B)(F) of the Act must be made by the competent government with the full participation of the government authority responsible for funding and/or administering the program. Because the GOA, in consultations prior to initiation of this investigation had indicated that most of the alleged programs met the criteria for green box treatment, the Department, in its initial questionnaire cover letter issued on November 9, 2000, gave the GOA specific instructions for submitting claims that programs meet the requirements of Annex 2. The Department also addressed green box issues in its questionnaire presentation in Argentina, on November 20 and 21, 2000.

As noted in the “Case History” section, on November 22, 2000, the GOA submitted a letter claiming green box status for twenty-seven of the programs under investigation. This letter made reference to the specific paragraph(s) of Annex 2 with which the particular programs were claimed to conform. The Department issued a questionnaire addressing the GOA's claims on December 22. In its January 18, 2001 response, the GOA reduced to three the number of programs for which it is claiming green box status. The three remaining programs for which the GOA claims green box status are the PROMEX Consortium for Honey Exportation (PROMEX), PROAPI, and the Law 22,913 Emergency Aid program. The Department issued a supplemental green box questionnaire on January 31, 2001, and the GOA submitted its response on February 16, 2001. The green box issues with respect to each of these programs are discussed in the relevant program-specific sections below.

Section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act states the Department “shall use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination” if an interested party “fails to provide the information requested in a timely manner and in the form required.” For several programs (discussed under the relevant programs below), the GOA did not provide all of the information requested by the Department and needed for a complete analysis. We must therefore resort to the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination for those programs.

Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act provides that in selecting from among the facts available, the Department may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of a party if it determines that a party has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. In this investigation, the Department requested that the GOA submit information necessary to determine the potential countervailablity of the alleged subsidy programs and to calculate potential subsidy rates applicable to those programs. When the Department was making its decision to apply an aggregate methodology to this case, the GOA indicated that it would be in a position to provide the information on an aggregate basis that would be necessary to conduct our subsidy analyses.

For most of the programs, the GOA submitted sufficient information for the Department to conduct its analysis of the countervailablity of such programs and to calculate a benefit from those programs. However, for some of the programs, the GOA has not provided sufficient information for the Department to analyze at least one or more of the three elements that are necessary to determine whether a program is countervailable: (1) Specificity; (2) financial contribution; and (3) benefit. For these particular programs, and in light of the information the GOA did provide, we preliminarily determine that the GOA had the ability to provide the additional information, as requested. Therefore, we determine that, in these few instances, it is appropriate for us to make adverse inferences. See section 776(b) of the Act. The specific information that is lacking is discussed under the relevant program section below.

In selecting from the facts available, when the Department determines that an adverse inference is warranted, the statute indicates that the Department may rely upon information derived from (1) the petition; (2) a final determination in a countervailing duty or an antidumping investigation; (3) any previous administrative review, new shipper review, expedited antidumping review, section 753 review, or section 762 review; or (4) any other information placed on the record. See 19 CFR 351.308(c). As adverse facts available in this preliminary determination, we have relied upon information derived from the GOA's questionnaire responses to supply missing information regarding the specificity, financial contribution, and/or benefit for certain programs. The Department's selection of the information used as adverse facts available is discussed in more detail in the program-specific sections below.

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

No party requested, or submitted information which yielded, an industry-wide AUL different from the AUL listed in the IRS tables. We are therefore using the 10-year AUL as reported in the IRS tables to allocate any non-recurring subsidies under investigation.

In selecting benchmark interest rates for use in calculating the benefits conferred by the various loan programs under investigation, we would normally look for the interest rate a borrower had received on a comparable commercial loan. See 19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(i). However, since we are conducting this investigation on the aggregate level, and we are not examining individual companies, we have sought information on the national average interest rates for comparable commercial loans. See 19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(ii). The GOA provided information compiled by the Central Bank of Argentina showing the national average interest rates for various types of financing: Fixed-rate and variable-rate; denominated in Argentine pesos or in foreign currency; long-term or short-term; and secured and unsecured. For each loan program found to be countervailable, we have selected a benchmark from the information provided depending upon the terms and characteristics of the particular loan program.

As discussed in the individual loan program sections below, many of the investigated loan programs require the borrower to provide a guarantee and pay commissions and other administrative fees. When we asked the GOA to provide information about fees normally charged on loans by commercial banks, the GOA indicated that many such fees are applied, but provided no indication of the rates or the values of such fees. As such, we are not able to calculate effective interest rates, which we would normally do by taking account of all such fees and commissions on both the actual loans and the benchmark loans. Thus, when calculating the benefits from countervailable loans, we have compared the loans' nominal interest rates to nominal benchmark interest rates.

The GOA has provided information for the POI relating to the total volume of honey produced in Argentina, the volume and value of total honey exports, and the volume and value of exports of honey to the United States. They have also broken down, where possible, the export volumes and values according to the province in which the honey was produced. However, the GOA was unable to provide information relating to total sales of honey during the POI. As a proxy for total sales information, the GOA provided data showing the volume of honey production by province during the POI. However, no data was provided showing the value of production. We have estimated the value of the total production reported by the GOA using the volume and value data provided for exports to the United States. We divided the value of Argentine honey exports to the United States by the volume of those exports to calculate a per kilogram value in U.S. dollars. (We note that, throughout the POI, the exchange rate was one U.S. dollar equal to one Argentine peso.) We then multiplied this per kilogram value by the provincial production data provided to arrive at the value of total Argentine honey production during the POI. We have used this estimated total production value as our denominator when calculating the subsidy from federal domestic programs and we have used the relevant provincial production value as our denominator when calculating the subsidy from domestic subsidies provided at the provincial level; and, we have used the total or provincial export values, as reported, as our denominators when calculating the subsidy from programs we have determined to be export subsidies.

To determine the final subsidy from each provincial program that is attributable to exports of honey to the United States we applied the following methodologies: (1) For provinces for which we have reported export data, we weight-averaged the subsidies from each provincial program by multiplying each subsidy by that province's share of total honey exports, by value, to the United States during the POI; and (2) for provincial domestic subsidy programs in provinces that do not have reported exports of honey to the United States during the POI, but do have reported honey production during the POI, and for which the GOA did not specifically report that that province had no exports to the United States, we divided the benefits by the value of total Argentine honey production during the POI.

Based upon our analysis of the petition and responses to our questionnaires, we preliminarily determine the following:

The Reintegro program entitles Argentine exporters of honey produced in Argentina to a rebate of many internal or domestic taxes that are levied during the production and distribution process in Argentina on the finished export product. The Reintegro program provides a cumulative tax rebate paid upon export, calculated as a percentage of the FOB invoice price of exported product.

According to the questionnaire responses, the GOA established a rebate system in 1971, which was known as the “reembolso” program. In 1986, Decree 1555/86 was promulgated to implement the reembolso program in a manner consistent with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. In May 1991, the GOA issued Decree 1011/91, which renamed the reembolso program as Reintegro and modified the legal structure of the program. Under Decree 1011/91, Reintegro rebated indirect taxes only. Decree 1011/91 has been the relevant governing decree since 1991. The nature and structure of the program have remained unchanged since then, although the Ministry of Economics modifies Reintegro rebate levels from time to time. Exports of bulk and processed honey have been eligible for Reintegro since at least August 1996.

The Reintegro rate applicable to bulk honey was 4.1 percent from February 1998 through April 2000. The Reintegro rate applicable to processed honey was 8.1 percent from February 1998 until August 1999, when it increased to 10 percent. In April 2000, the Reintegro rate for bulk honey increased to 5.4 percent while the rate for processed honey increased to 12 percent.

The Reintegro is specific under section 771(5A)(B) of the Act because it is contingent upon export performance. The Reintegro confers a financial contribution in the form of a direct transfer of funds from the GOA to exporters of the subject merchandise. (See Section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act.)

To determine whether a benefit exists for a tax rebate program, the Department will normally examine whether the amount remitted or rebated exceeds the amount of prior-stage cumulative indirect taxes paid on inputs that are consumed in the production of the exported honey, making normal allowances for waste, and if there is an excess, will find it to be the benefit. (See § 351.518(a) of the Department's regulations.) However, there is an exception to this rule under § 351.518(a)(4)(i-ii) of the Department's regulations. Section 351.518(a)(4)(i-ii) states that the Department will consider the entire amount of the tax rebate or remission to confer a benefit unless the Department finds that:

(i) The government in question has in place and applies a system or procedure to confirm which inputs are consumed in the production of the exported products and in what amounts, and to confirm which indirect taxes are imposed on these inputs, and the system or procedure is reasonable, effective for the purposes intended, and is based on generally accepted commercial practices in the country of export; or

(ii) If the government in question does not have a system or procedure in place, if the system or procedure is not reasonable, or if the system or procedure is instituted and considered reasonable, but is found not to be applied or not to be applied effectively, the government in question has carried out an examination of actual inputs involved to confirm which inputs are consumed in the production of the exported product, in what amounts and which indirect taxes are imposed on the inputs.

In both our original and supplemental questionnaires, we asked the GOA to describe the system or procedures that it had used to establish the appropriate level of Reintegro for bulk and processed honey (i.e., how it had initially determined that honey exporters were entitled to a rebate, and how it determined the level of rebate including the goods consumed in production and the indirect tax incidence on those goods). The GOA responded that for certain sectors (e.g., steel and textiles), it monitors and evaluates which inputs are consumed in the production of the exported products and in what amounts, and confirms which indirect taxes are imposed on these inputs through the collection of production and tax incidence information from representative producers. However, the GOA reported that it does not have the resources necessary to monitor the tax incidence of numerous representative honey producers. Instead, the GOA stated that its approach to the honey sector has been to gather information from the private sector, and the agricultural and tax authorities. The GOA claimed that this information is then corroborated through publicly-available sources and through studies done by independent third parties.

The GOA explained that the Directory for Industrial Alimentation of the Agricultural Secretariat (SAGyP) is in constant contact with Provincial governments, honey producers, acopiadors (honey intermediaries who collect and consolidate raw honey from multiple producers for sale and export), and exporters. The GOA states that their communications with members of the honey sector take the form of phone calls, electronic mail, etc. The GOA submitted copies of written communications between it and the honey sector dated July 2000. These communications appear to be questionnaires to sample beekeeping costs, and responses to those questionnaires, from the Corrientes and Rio Cuarto zones.

In addition, the GOA submitted a study entitled “Production, Industrialization, and Commercialization of Honey,” prepared by the Federal Administration of Public Revenue (AFIP), and dated September 1997, which the GOA states is a “study of the beekeeping sector.” The GOA stated that the objective of this study was to provide AFIP agents with a guide to “understanding the manner in which the taxpayers comply with their obligation to pay taxes” and “new alternatives for increasing the amount and efficiency of tax payments in the sector.” The study's introduction is translated and describes the study as follows. Chapter I deals with the macroeconomic aspects, production system, and commercialization system of honey. Chapter II explains the motive for creating an inspection strategy and examples of tax evasion. Chapters I and II are not translated. Chapter III, which is partially translated, describes the inspection strategy recommended by the study.

Thus, this study appears to deal primarily with improving the efficiency of tax payments from the honey sector and increasing the tax compliance from the honey sector with respect to direct taxes. As such, it is not clear how this study is relevant to the establishment of the appropriate levels of Reintegro applicable to bulk and processed honey. In addition, the GOA did not explain how the guidelines listed in the 1997 AFIP study were, if ever, used to confirm the appropriate level of Reintegro for bulk and processed honey.

The information and documentation submitted by the GOA does not demonstrate that the government had, or has, in place a system or set of procedures to confirm which inputs are consumed in the production of the exported products and in what amounts, and to confirm which indirect taxes are imposed on these inputs. While the GOA apparently gathers various types of information from a number of sources about the honey sector and its production processes and costs, it has provided no evidence demonstrating that there was or is a system or set of procedures in place that is followed to determine the specific inputs consumed in production of honey and the indirect tax incidence on those inputs. Moreover, the GOA did not explain, let alone substantiate, the process through which it analyzed the general information collected on the honey industry to determine the specific Reintegro rate for bulk and processed honey exports. Therefore, we find that the requirements for non-countervailablity set forth in § 351.518(a)(4)(i) of the regulations have not been met.

However, as outlined in § 351.518(a)(4)(ii), even if the government does not have a system or procedure in place, it may still carry out ”. . . an examination of actual inputs involved to confirm which inputs are consumed in the production of the exported product, in what amounts, and which indirect taxes are imposed on the inputs.”

In the questionnaire response, the GOA submitted a report entitled “Reintegros for Argentine Honey Exports,” prepared by EcoLatina, an independent third party, in December 2000. In commissioning the study, the GOA requested that EcoLatina calculate the incidence of indirect taxes on the average honey FOB price. The report presents information on the cost structure and tax incidence of what are described as a “representative” producer, acopiador (distributor), and exporter. However, the report does not address the cost structure and tax incidence for processed honey. In response to supplemental questions, the GOA stated that the cost structure and tax incidence data reported in the study are not based on the cost structure and tax incidence of specific producers, acopiadors, and exporters. Rather, the cost structure and tax incidence were constructed for a “typical” producer, acopiador, and exporter based on certain characteristics which the GOA relates to characteristics of the sector.

The GOA has stated that Argentine honey producers can be placed in several different groups depending on the level of dedication and on the number of hives. However, the GOA maintains that the main distinction among groups is between industrial producers and all others and that the characteristics of non-industrial producers are very similar.

In its narrative, the GOA has described the representative producer as a part-time producer who maintains 250 hives and has an alternative source of income. The report classifies honey producers by level of dedication to beekeeping and number of hives and indicates the percent of honey produced by each level of producer. Based on the criteria of the report, the “representative producer” fits into the category described as having “all personnel dedicated to beekeeping” and having between 200 and 499 hives in production. This category accounts for only 24 percent of Argentine honey production. By contrast, the report indicates that 49 percent of Argentine honey is produced by producers described in the report as “household beekeepers” who have fewer than 49 hives. Moreover, the report indicates that 24 percent of Argentine honey is produced by producers described as having only a “partial dedication to beekeeping” and between 50 and 199 hives. As such, it is unclear how the producer level and the relative production level information detailed in the report supports the GOA's narrative description of what constitutes a representative Argentine honey producer. Thus, the “representative producer” which the GOA states is the “basic assumption” of the report apparently bears little resemblance to the household and partially-dedicated beekeepers which account for 71 percent of Argentine honey production.

We do not disagree that it would be an enormous burden for a government to collect the necessary data from the thousands of honey producers in Argentina or that the use of an alternative method for collecting the necessary information automatically invalidates the data. However, this report was not based on even a representative sample of actual companies, nor were its identification of inputs and indirect tax incidence (which had been collected from public sources) tested against actual company information or experience. Moreover, as noted in the report, tax incidence at the producer level accounts for the vast majority of the claimed indirect tax incidence on exports of Argentine bulk honey. As such, the report cannot be considered representative of the honey industry in Argentina, and, as such, it cannot meet the standard set forth in § 351.518(a)(4)(ii) that an examination of the “actual” inputs has been carried out.

Even if the report were to be considered an examination of the “actual” inputs involved, it does not demonstrate that the Reintegro is based solely on the indirect tax incidence on the inputs consumed in production. The report provided by the GOA includes a list of virtually all of the costs associated with production, distribution, and export of bulk honey and bases its calculation of indirect tax incidence on this list. The list contains numerous items, such as spare parts, transportation, and insurance, which cannot be considered to be consumed in the production of bulk honey. In our supplemental questionnaire, we asked the GOA to explain how it was determined that each of the costs listed for the representative producer, acopiador, and exporter could be considered to be inputs consumed in the production of bulk honey. In its supplemental questionnaire response, the GOA offered descriptions of eight general cost categories found at the producer level. The GOA did not explain or substantiate how it was determined that each of the costs listed for the representative producer, acopiador, and exporter could be considered to be inputs consumed in the production of bulk honey.

We also examined whether the listed taxes paid on the listed inputs were accurately characterized as “indirect taxes” paid on inputs consumed in the production of bulk honey. Some of the taxes in the report were described as Real Estate Tax, Minimum Prospective Income Tax, and Tax on Debt. In our supplemental questionnaire, we asked the GOA to explain how it was determined that each of the taxes listed for the representative producer, acopiador, and exporter in its report could be considered to be indirect taxes paid to be inputs consumed in the production of bulk honey. In its supplemental questionnaire response, the GOA simply made the conclusory statements that its report only considered indirect taxes and did not explain how it determined that each of the taxes listed for the representative producer, acopiador, and exporter in the report could be considered to be indirect taxes paid on inputs consumed in the production of bulk honey.

Furthermore, the report did not list any additional inputs or indirect taxes incurred in the production of processed honey. Accordingly, based on our analysis of the report and other information submitted by the GOA, the Department preliminarily determines, pursuant to § 351.518(a)(4)(ii) of the regulations, that the GOA has not carried out a “reasonable examination” of actual inputs involved to confirm which inputs are consumed in the production of exported bulk and processed honey, in what amounts, and which indirect taxes are imposed on those inputs. As such, the Department preliminarily determines that the entire amount of the Reintegro for bulk and processed honey confers a countervailable benefit.

Because we find the entire amount of the Reintegro for bulk and processed honey to be countervailable, we need not address the Reintegro's countervailablity under § 351.518(a)(2) of the Department's regulations.

Because the Reintegro is calculated as a percentage of the FOB value of the exports, the percentage rebated serves as the subsidy rate. To calculate a single subsidy rate for subject merchandise, which includes both bulk and processed honey, we weight-averaged the Reintegro rates for bulk and processed honey by the FOB value of exports to the United States of bulk and processed honey during the POI. Thus, we preliminarily determine that Reintegro provided a countervailable subsidy of 4.16 percent ad valorem.

In April 2000, the Reintegro rates for bulk and processed honey changed. These changes affected all firms that export subject merchandise and were effectuated by a change in the rebate schedule of the existing decree. These changes constitute program-wide changes in accordance with § 351.526(b)(1-2) of the regulations. Therefore, consistent with § 351.526(c)(1), for the purposes of establishing the cash deposit rate of estimated countervailing duties we have weight-averaged the Reintegro rates currently in effect (5.4 percent for bulk honey and 12 percent for processed honey) by the FOB value of exports of bulk and processed honey to the United States during the POI. The cash deposit rate applicable to this program is 5.48 percent ad valorem.

According to the questionnaire responses, the Pre-Financing of Exports Regime for the Agriculture Sector program was established by the Banco de la Nacion de Argentina (BNA), a government-owned bank. In our notice of initiation, we identified this program as Law 24,467 Short- and Long-term Export Financing based on petitioners' allegation and supporting documentation which indicated that such assistance was either being provided pursuant to Law 24,467, or that companies meeting the criteria in Law 24,467 were eligible for such assistance. In its questionnaire response, the Government of Argentina clarified that Law 24,467 is the Argentine law pertaining to small and medium-sized companies (PYMES). The GOA explained that only a few programs are explicitly provided for in Law 24,467 and that there have been budgetary constraints in fulfilling the legislative intent of the law. Therefore, “. . . mechanisms which predated Law 24, 467 and which were already in place have been used to show some progress toward the goal of helping the small and medium-sized companies in Argentina.” (Questionnaire Response at 24). As such, assistance has been provided through other programs to fulfill the goal of Law 24,467 to assist small and medium-sized companies. Therefore, for certain programs identified as Law 24,467 programs in the notice of initiation, the GOA has identified the correct legislative or authorizing authority for the program, and clarified the title of the program. As reported in the questionnaire response, this program, the BNA Pre-Financing of Exports Regime for the Agriculture Sector, was established pursuant to Annex B to the BNA Circular No. 10715/I.

This line of credit is offered by BNA to final exporters, for the financing of agricultural exports. In addition to fulfilling the standard application process for seeking a loan before the BNA, the BNA requires all applicants to submit an irrevocable letter of credit opened to his/her order, or, in the alternative, a firm offer or firm purchase order stating the terms and conditions of the export transaction, or a confirmation obtained from the intervening broker. This line of credit is offered in U.S. dollars, at a variable interest rate tied to LIBOR plus a spread added by the BNA. The additional spread is calculated based on the credit risk of the borrower, as determined on a case-by-case basis by the BNA. Financing under this line of credit is available for up to 80 percent of the FOB value of the export goods. Financing can be granted for a maximum period of 180 days. During the POI, there were loans outstanding to honey exporters under this program.

We preliminarily determine that these lines of credit are specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(B) of the Act because they are contingent upon export performance. Furthermore, a financial contribution is conferred in the transfer of funds through loans, under section 771(5)(D) of the Act.

To determine whether there is a benefit, we compared the interest rate charged on loans provided under this program to the commercial interest rates for loans that most closely resemble loans under this program. Based on this comparison, there is a difference in the amount the recipient of the loan pays and the amount the recipient would pay on a comparable commercial loan that the recipient could actually obtain on the market. Thus, these lines of credit provide a benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the Act.

The GOA reported that there were five loans granted under this program to honey producers that were outstanding during the POI. Two of the loans were shown to have been for honey exports to a country other than the United States; two of the loans were shown to have been for honey exports to the United States; and, for the fifth loan, the GOA did not indicate the destination of the export shipment financed. Thus, in addition to the two loans specifically identified as providing financing for shipments to the United States, and because it appears that BNA loan records must contain information on the destination of the fifth loan, we have assumed adversely that the fifth loan also provided financing for honey shipments to the United States. The GOA reported all of the relevant loan information for these loans.

To calculate the benefit, we applied our standard short-term loan methodology, multiplying the difference between the actual interest rate and the benchmark interest rate by the loan principal amount and the number of days outstanding. We then divided the sum of the benefits from all loans by the value of honey exports to the United States during the POI. We thus preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy for this program to be 0.044 percent ad valorem.

According to the questionnaire responses, the BNA established a line of credit for financing the acquisition of goods of Argentine origin for the agricultural sector. In our notice of initiation, this program was identified as the Law 24,467 Line of Credit for the Acquisition of New Capital Goods of Argentine Origin. However, the GOA has reported that this program is a BNA program for Financing the Acquisition of Goods of Argentine Origin. (See discussion of alleged Law 24,467 programs under the “BNA Pre-Financing of Exports Regime for the Agricultural Sector” above).

Under this program, the goods financed must be of Argentine origin, or must have a maximum foreign component of 40 percent. The financing is provided for up to five years, is limited to 80 percent of the purchase price, excluding VAT, and cannot exceed US$500,000 per borrower. The applicable interest rate is 11 percent. The BNA also charges an administration of guarantees fee for all investment and working capital loans offered for 90 days or more, which are secured with a mortgage, warrant, assignment of credit, third party surety bond, or a security interest in personal property.

A program that is contingent upon the use of domestic goods over imported goods, “alone, or as 1 of 2 or more conditions,” is an import substitution subsidy under section 771(5A)(C) of the Act. Because the goods for which financing is requested under this program must be of Argentine origin, or must have a maximum foreign component of 40 percent, we preliminarily determine that under section 771(5A)(C) of the Act, the BNA Line of Credit for the Acquisition of New Capital Goods of Argentine Origin is specific as an import substitution subsidy.

Loans under this program provide a financial contribution under section 771(5)(D) of the Act in the form of a transfer of funds. To determine whether there is a benefit, we compared the interest rate charged on loans provided under this program to the commercial interest rate for loans that most closely resemble loans under this program. Based on this comparison, there is a difference in the amount the recipient of the loan pays on the loan and the amount the recipient would pay on a comparable commercial loan that the recipient could actually obtain on the market. Thus, this line of credit provides a benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the Act.

To calculate the benefit, we used the following methodology. Because the GOA did not provide requested information regarding the specific loans to honey producers granted under this program that were outstanding during the POI, or information showing the aggregate value of loans outstanding to the honey industry under this program during the POI, we had to estimate, from other information on the record, the amount of loans to the honey industry that were outstanding during the POI under this program.

In the 1999 BNA annual report provided by the GOA, there is data showing the balance of all BNA lending (regardless of program) to the agricultural sector for the years ending December 31, 1998 and 1999. Absent any other information on the record, we have used this information to calculate a proxy for the loans provided to honey producers under this program. First, we determined the ratio of the value of honey production during the POI to the value of total Argentine agricultural production during the POI, based on information provided in the questionnaire responses. We have multiplied this ratio by the average balance of total loans outstanding to the agriculture sector during the POI (calculated by averaging the two year-end loan balance amounts) to estimate the average outstanding loan balance for all BNA lending to the honey sector.

Because this figure represents the total of all BNA lending to honey producers and because there are multiple BNA loan programs under investigation, we had to adjust this figure to derive the outstanding loan balance during the POI for loans to the honey industry under this program. First, because actual loan information was submitted for all loans provided to honey under the “BNA Pre-Financing of Exports Regime for the Agriculture Sector,” we subtracted that amount from the total amount that we calculated for all BNA loans outstanding to honey during the POI. The balance was then divided by the remaining number of BNA loan programs under investigation in order to estimate the outstanding loan balance from this particular BNA program.

Because these are long-term loans, the benefit is calculated by multiplying the outstanding loan balance during the POI by the difference between the interest rate charged under the program and the benchmark interest rate in accordance with section 351.505(c) of the regulations. We then divided this amount by the value of total honey production in Argentina during the POI. We thus preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from this program to be 0.173 percent ad valorem.

According to the questionnaire responses, the GOA established the Regional Productive Revitalization: National Program for the Promotion and Development of Local Productive Initiative (Regional Productive Revitalization Program) to strengthen the economies of small and medium-sized towns in the Argentine interior. In our notice of initiation, we identified this program as Law 24,467 Program for the Enhancement of Regional Production. (See discussion of alleged Law 24,467 programs under the “BNA Pre-Financing of Exports Regime for the Agricultural Sector” above). As reported in the questionnaire response, the Regional Productive Revitalization program was established by the Ministry of the Interior to improve the quality of life in small and medium-sized towns in the Argentine interior, and increase employment and incomes in these areas through the transformation and modernization of the local productive base. Individual projects are not eligible for this line of credit; only collective projects, involving three to five producers associated with the development of the project, are eligible. Eligibility is also contingent upon a two-year residency requirement in the area where the project is to be developed. The associated producers must also provide a guarantee covering 130 percent of the loan. The program provides credit for the acquisition of capital goods, technology, working capital, training needs, and technical assistance.

There are two levels of loans under this line of credit. The first level provides loans for municipal projects based in a single municipality for financing up to $200,000. The second level provides credit for inter-municipal projects that are based in more than one municipality. These projects are eligible for financing up to $1,000,000. These loans are granted at 8.0 percent interest, for a period of up to five years, with a grace period of up to 18 months. Interest accrues and is payable after the expiration of the grace period. There were loans to honey projects under this program outstanding during the POI.

We preliminarily determine this program to be specific under section 771(5A)(D) of the Act because the program is limited to only certain regions of Argentina. Enterprises or industries located within the provincial capitals are not eligible for use of this program. This program is therefore de jure regionally specific. This program provides a financial contribution in the form of a transfer of funds, as defined by section 771(D)(i) of the Act. To determine whether there is a benefit, we compared the interest rate charged on loans provided under this program to the commercial interest rates for loans that most closely resemble loans under this program. Because there is a difference in the amount the recipient of the loan paid on the loan and the amount the recipient would have paid on a comparable commercial loan during the POI, this line of credit provided a benefit during the POI under section 771(5)(E) of the Act.

The GOA reported that there were two loans outstanding to honey producers during the POI. The GOA did not report the dates that these loans were granted, or whether any interest or principal payments were made prior to or during the POI. Thus, we have made certain assumptions regarding the specifics of these loans in order to calculate the benefit: we assume that the loans were granted on January 1, 1999 and that during the POI, the loans are in the 18-month grace period on principal and interest repayment and the entire loan principal is outstanding during the POI. However, since interest is accruing during the grace period and will be payable thereafter, we have calculated the benefit by multiplying the principal outstanding during the POI by the difference between the loan interest rate and the benchmark interest rate. We then divided this benefit by the value of honey production in Argentina during the POI. Thus we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from this program to be 0.055 percent ad valorem.

In our notice of initiation, we identified this program as Preferential Export Financing Based on Warrants based on petitioners' allegation and the supporting documentation which indicated that preferential financing was administered pursuant to Law 9643 and contingent upon export performance.

According to the questionnaire responses, the warrant is a financing instrument that was created by Law 9643/14 in 1914 to secure commercial lending transactions. A warrant and a certificate of deposit can be issued upon the storage of products in a certified warehouse, under certain conditions. Both the certificate of deposit and the warrant are negotiable instruments. The certificate of deposit is a legal title to the stored goods. A warrant is a financing instrument attached to the certificate of deposit, which may be used to secure commercial financing. Once detached from the certificate of deposit, the warrant can be pledged as collateral, thereby perfecting a security interest in the stored goods. A warrant can be pledged as collateral for a financing transaction if the owner of the instrument endorses it to the lending institution.

The GOA reported that the Argentine Small Business Association (the SePYME) has no substantive responsibility or regulatory authority over warrant-based financing and there is no specific warrant-based program in Argentina. However, the GOA indicated that the BNA, like other banks, offers warrant-based financing for a maximum term of 180 days. Furthermore, Law 9643 specifically indicates that warrant-based financing can be used as a form of export prefinancing. With no other information on the record to examine BNA's Warrant-Based financing, we preliminarily determine on the basis of facts available that the BNA provides warrant-based financing for export purposes.

The BNA Warrant-Based Export Financing program is a de jure specific export subsidy pursuant to section 771(5A)(B). These lines of credit provide a financial contribution within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act because they are in the form of a transfer of funds from the government.

To determine whether there is a benefit, we compared the interest rate charged on loans provided under this program to the commercial interest rates for loans that most closely resemble loans under this program. Based on this comparison, there is a difference in the amount the recipient of the loan pays on the loan and the amount the recipient would pay on a comparable commercial loan that the recipient could actually obtain on the market. Thus, this line of credit provides a benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the Act.

To calculate the benefit, we used the following methodology. Because the GOA did not provide information regarding the specific loans to honey producers granted under this program that were outstanding during the POI, or information showing the aggregate value of loans outstanding to the honey industry under this program during the POI, we had to derive, from other information on the record, the amount of loans to the honey industry that were outstanding during the POI under this program. Our methodology to derive the amount of loans to the honey industry that were outstanding during the POI from this BNA program is set forth in detail in the section on “BNA Financing for the Acquisition of Goods of Argentine Origin” above. After calculating the loans outstanding to the honey industry during the POI under this BNA program, we multiplied that amount by the difference between the benchmark and the program interest rate.

Because these are short-term loans, the product of the prior calculation is multiplied by the number of days the loan is outstanding divided by 365 days. We have assumed that these loans were outstanding for 180 days, the maximum term available for warrant-based financing. Because this program provides export financing, we then divided this amount by the total value of honey exports during the POI. We thus preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from this program to be 0.153 percent ad valorem.

The GOA's Fundacion Export*Ar (Export*Ar) program was established in 1995. Though it was originally funded through the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the Argentine Foreign Ministry was the source of all funds provided during the POI. Export*Ar's objective is the promotion of Argentine exports. To achieve this objective, the program provides advice to small and medium-sized businesses, supplies information on international markets and purchasers, and organizes participation in trade missions, fairs, seminars and meetings. According to the GOA, all information services provided under Export*Ar are offered free of charge. Only participants in trade fairs must pay for their participation. Such participants must pay all costs associated with their participation, along with at least fifty percent of the cost of their stand. Export*Ar will pay the remainder of the stand cost.

According to the questionnaire responses, during the POI, general export promotion information, in the form of profiles and studies of potential markets, and reports on trade opportunities, was made available to members of the honey industry by Export*Ar. The honey sector also participated in one Export*Ar-sponsored overseas trade show during the POI. This trade show was held in the United States. Export*Ar provided a grant to the honey sector participant in that trade show to help offset the cost of that participant's exhibit stand.

Under § 351.514 of the regulations, general export promotion activities undertaken by the government are not countervailable if the activities consist of general informational activities that do not promote particular products over others. See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico, 49 FR 15007 (1984). However, where such activities provided financial assistance to a firm, the Department has found the subject programs to be countervailable. See, e.g., Fresh Atlantic Salmon from Chile, 63 FR 31437 (1998); and Fresh Atlantic Groundfish from Canada, 51 FR 10041 (1986) (government funding of attendance at trade fair which targeted the exports of specific product to the U.S. market found to be countervailable); and Fresh Cut Flowers from Israel, 52 FR 3316 (1987) (government reimbursements of up to 50 percent of actual expenses incurred by the firm for promotional activities found to be countervailable).

Based on the information provided in the questionnaire responses, we preliminarily determine that the information services provided by Export*Ar on countries and markets and trade opportunities constitute general export promotion activities, and, as such are not countervailable in accordance with § 351.514 of the regulations. However, with regard to the financial assistance provided to honey producers/exporters during the POI to attend an overseas trade fair, we preliminarily determine that such financial assistance is not part of general export promotion activities, and is thus, countervailable within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Act. The financial assistance that was provided during the POI covered the costs associated with a stand at a trade fair in the United States. This financial contribution provides a benefit equivalent to the amount of the grant. The grants are also specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(B) of the Act because their receipt is tied to the anticipated exportation of honey to the United States.

To calculate the subsidy, we divided the amount of the grant received during the POI by the value of honey exports to the United States during the POI. We preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy for this program is 0.008 percent ad valorem.

According to the questionnaire responses, the BNA established a line of credit for the Acquisition of Industrial and Agricultural Machinery, Silos and Transportation Vehicles in 1996. In our notice of initiation, we identified this program as Law 24,467 Additional Lines of Credit to Foment the Purchase of Capital Goods of Argentine Origin. As reported in the questionnaire response, the “Acquisition of Industrial and Agricultural Machinery, Silos and Transportation Vehicles” is not a Law 24,467 program, but rather a BNA program. (See discussion of alleged Law 24,467 programs under the “BNA Pre-Financing of Exports Regime for the Agricultural Sector” above).

Through this program, BNA aims to assist companies in the industrial, commercial, services, transportation, and agricultural sectors by providing financing for the purchase of capital goods of Argentine origin or of goods that have a maximum foreign component of 40 percent. To receive financing, the BNA requires all applicants to submit a pro-forma invoice indicating that the merchandise is of Argentine origin or has a maximum foreign component of 40 percent. Loan applications are evaluated by the standard criteria of creditworthiness established by the Argentine Central Bank, set forth by Circular No. 2180.

Under this line of credit, financing is limited to up to 75 percent of the purchase value, excluding the VAT, and must not exceed US $500,000 per application. Interest rates under this line of credit vary based on industry. Generally, the applicable interest rate for agricultural loans is 14.5 percent. Approved loans under this line of credit are subject to an “administration of guarantees” fee, and a fee for the evaluation of investment projects. Repayments for the agricultural sector are amortized in equal installments, quarterly or biannually, based on the seasonal activity of the borrower. The repayment period is not to exceed five years.

We preliminarily determine that the Acquisition of Industrial and Agricultural Machinery, Silos and Transportation Vehicles line of credit is specific because it is an import substitution subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5A)(C) of the Act. This line of credit also provides a financial contribution under section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act because the loans are a transfer of funds from the GOA.

To determine whether there is a benefit, we compared the interest rate charged on loans provided under this program to the commercial interest rates for loans that most closely resemble loans under this program. Based on this comparison, there is a difference in the amount the recipient of the loan pays on the loan and the amount the recipient would pay on a comparable commercial loan that the recipient could actually obtain on the market. Thus, this line of credit provides a benefit under section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act.

To calculate the benefit, we used the following methodology. Because the GOA did not provide requested information regarding the specific loans to honey producers granted under this program that were outstanding during the POI, or information showing the aggregate value of loans outstanding to the honey industry under this program during the POI, we had to derive, from other information on the record, the amount of loans to the honey industry that were outstanding during the POI under this program. Our methodology to derive the amount of loans to the honey industry that was outstanding during the POI from this BNA program is set forth in detail in the section on “BNA Financing for the Acquisition of Goods of Argentine Origin” above. After calculating the loan balance outstanding to the honey industry during the POI under this BNA program, we multiplied that amount by the difference between the benchmark and the program interest rate. We then divided this amount by the value of total honey production in Argentina during the POI. We thus preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from this program to be 0.027 percent ad valorem.

According to the questionnaire responses, the GOA established PROAPI as a project for honey sector research, development and technology transfer. In our notice of initiation, we identified this program as “PROMEX/PROAPI Development Plan for the Enhanced Exportation of Honey” based on petitioners' allegation and supporting documentation indicating that the aforementioned assistance was being provided under a program partially coordinated by PROMEX. According to the GOA, PROMEX is a separate export promotion program. PROAPI is not an export promotion program.

PROAPI was created by the National Institute for Agricultural and Livestock Technology (INTA) in 1995, and was initially funded by both INTA and the Argentine Technology Fund (FONTAR), an IDB-funded project. FONTAR provided a loan to PROAPI through the BNA, while INTA supplied an equivalent amount of in-kind services, equipment and overhead expenses.

According to the GOA, PROAPI has been self-sustaining since 1998, and now finances itself entirely through the sale of goods and services produced from the project. These goods and services are reportedly sold at market rates. Furthermore, according to the GOA, the terms of the IDB/FONTAR loan initially funding PROAPI require that PROAPI achieve a twelve percent rate of return, and that, because of this, PROAPI must make returns on sales greater than its costs.

The goods provided to honey producers under PROAPI during the POI were fertilized queen bees and a disease control product called “BeeVar.” The services provided during the POI were inspection and certification services for live beehive materials and sponsorship for trade fairs. However, when PROAPI sponsored trade fairs, it did so in name only; PROAPI did not provide benefits to individual trade fair participants or groups. According to the GOA, PROAPI is the only Argentine supplier of BeeVar, and of inspection and certification services for live beehive material.

On November 22, 2000, the GOA claimed green box status for the PROAPI program. According to the GOA, PROAPI is a general services program which qualifies for green box status under paragraphs 2(c), (d), and (f) of Annex 2 of the Agriculture Agreement. In order to determine whether the assistance provided under PROAPI qualifies for green box status under section 771(5B)(F) of the Act, we examined whether PROAPI met the criteria set forth in the Agriculture Agreement. As noted in the “Green Box Claims” section above, according to § 351.522 of the regulations, the Department will determine that a particular domestic support measure conforms fully to the green box criteria in the Agriculture Agreement if it finds that the measure (1) is provided through a publicly-funded program (including government revenue foregone) not involving transfers from consumers; (2) does not have the effect of providing price support to producers; and (3) meets the relevant policy-specific criteria and conditions laid out in Annex 2.

With regard to the first criterion of § 351.522, the GOA indicated that all monies used to initially fund this program came directly from public sources (i.e., INTA and FONTAR). As for the second criterion of § 351.522, the GOA claimed that PROAPI does not have the effect of providing price support to producers, and is not tied in any manner to international or domestic prices. According to the GOA, producers must pay fees for all goods and services provided to them under this program. As for the third criterion of § 351.522, because the GOA claimed green box status for this program under paragraphs 1 and 2 of Annex 2, the assistance provided under PROAPI must meet the policy-specific conditions and criteria contained in those paragraphs.

According to paragraph 1 of Annex 2, domestic support measures for which exemption from the reduction commitments is claimed must meet the fundamental requirement that they have no, or at most minimal, trade-distorting effects or effects on production. The support in question must be provided through a publicly-funded government program not involving transfers from consumers. Furthermore, the support in question must not have the effect of providing price support to producers. In this case, as noted above, the GOA has reported that support under this program is provided through a publicly-funded government program not involving transfers from consumers. The GOA also reported that support provided under PROAPI is not tied in any manner to production or prices, and, in conjunction with the fact that users pay for the services provided under the program, could therefore not have trade-distorting effects or effects on production. Finally, the GOA has claimed that, since PROAPI is self-sustaining from fees paid by users of the program's services, these users do not receive any price support from the program.

According to paragraph 2 of Annex 2, government service programs for which exemption from the reduction commitments is claimed shall not involve direct payments to producers or processors. These general service programs must meet both the general criteria in paragraph 1 of Annex 2 and the relevant policy-specific conditions set forth in paragraph 2. Although the GOA has argued that the entire PROAPI program meets the requirements for green box treatment, there are different and distinct types of assistance provided under PROAPI. Because there are different types of assistance, we must examine each one to determine whether it meets the green box requirements for domestic support measures.

With regard to inspection and certification services, the GOA reported that users pay for the inspection and certification services and receive no direct payments under the PROAPI program. In addition, the PROAPI inspection and certification services appear to conform to the policy-specific conditions set out in paragraph 2(e) of Annex 2. Although the GOA did not claim green box status under paragraph 2(e) specifically, paragraph 2 states that general service programs include, but are not restricted to, the services discussed in the illustrative list of subparagraphs (a) through (g). As this is an illustrative list, we may analyze the potential green box status of the support components of a program by considering all of the policy-specific conditions listed in paragraph 2. Thus, since the PROAPI inspection and certification services appear to conform to the policy-specific conditions set out in paragraph 2(e) of Annex 2, we preliminarily determine that the inspection and certification services component of PROAPI is entitled to green box status under section 771(5B)(F) of the Act.

The second type of assistance provided under PROAPI involves the sale of BeeVar, a disease control product, to honey producers. PROAPI is the only supplier of this product in Argentina. The GOA submitted proprietary information on the costs and sales prices charged by PROAPI for the BeeVar provided during the POI. Paragraph 2 of Annex 2 states that green box status may be granted to certain programs which “. . . provide services or benefits to agriculture or the rural community” (emphasis added). It is not clear whether goods could be considered “benefits” for purposes of government services programs under the Agreement. However, we need not reach that issue if we determine that the assistance in question is otherwise non-countervailable based on the statutory provisions.

With respect to the provision of goods, section 771(5)(E) of the Act provides that a benefit is conferred where goods or services are provided for less than adequate remuneration. In accordance with § 351.511(a)(2)(i) of the regulations, the adequacy of such remuneration is determined in relation to prevailing market conditions for the goods or services in the country which is subject to the investigation. Prevailing market conditions include price, quantity, availability, and other conditions of purchase. Under section 351.511(a)(2)(ii) of the regulations, if there is no usable market-determined price with which to make the comparison, we will seek to measure the adequacy of remuneration by comparing the government price to a world market price where it is reasonable to conclude that such a price would be available to purchasers in the country in question. Pursuant to § 351.511(a)(2)(iii) of the regulations, if there is no world market price available to purchasers in the country in question, the Secretary will normally measure the adequacy of remuneration by assessing whether the government price is consistent with market principles. Based on our analysis of the proprietary data provided by the GOA, we preliminarily determine that the sales prices set by PROAPI for BeeVar were consistent with market principles, and, as such, that PROAPI received adequate remuneration for the sale of BeeVar. Because we have determined that BeeVar is not provided for less than adequate remuneration, and, this element of the PROAPI program is not countervailable, we need not reach the issue of whether a good can be considered a “benefit” under the Agreement.

The third type of assistance provided under PROAPI involves the sale of fertilized queen bees. As discussed above with respect to BeeVar, even if goods could be considered “benefits” under paragraph 2 of Annex 2 of the Agreement, such benefits must meet the policy-specific conditions set forth in subparagraphs (a) through (g). Based upon our review, nothing in any of these paragraphs should be construed to cover the provision of a key component in the production of a specific product. The provision of a good, such as fertilized queen bees, involved in the production of honey, cannot be considered to be research (subparagraph a), pest and disease control (subparagraph b), training (subparagraph c), extension and advisory services (subparagraph d), inspection services (subparagraph e), marketing and promotion services (subparagraph f), or infrastructural services (subparagraph g). Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that the provision of fertilized queen bees cannot meet the green box requirements set forth in Annex 2, and we have analyzed whether the provision of queen bees is countervailable under the countervailing duty statute.

The provision of fertilized queen bees under PROAPI is specific to the honey industry pursuant to section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act. The provision of fertilized queen bees provides honey producers with a financial contribution through the provision of goods and services under section 771(5)(D)(iii) of the Act.

As noted above, section 771(5)(E) of the Act provides that in the case of goods or services provided, a benefit is conferred where such goods and services are provided for less than adequate remuneration. The GOA did not provide information related to what factors affect market prices for fertilized queen bees, and how such factors apply to PROAPI's fertilized queen bees. However, the GOA did provide what are described as market prices in Argentina for fertilized queen bees. Since the average of the market prices reported by the GOA is higher than the price charged by PROAPI for fertilized queen bees, we preliminarily determine that the fertilized queen bees are sold by PROAPI for less than adequate remuneration in accordance with section 771(5)(E)(iv) of the Act. We calculated the benefit by subtracting the price PROAPI charged for its queen bees from the average market price. We divided this amount by the value of honey production in Argentina during the POI. We preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy for this component of the PROAPI program to be 0.004 percent ad valorem.

In 1996, the Province of Buenos Aires created the Buenos Aires (Bonaerense) Honey Program. The purpose of this program is to increase provincial honey production, and improve production efficiency and quality within the province's honey sector. Through the program, the Banco de la Provincia de Buenos Aires (Banco Provincia), a bank owned by the Province of Buenos Aires, provides two types of credit lines to honey producers in the province: the Line of Credit for Working Capital; and the Line of Credit for the Acquisition of Capital Goods. Eligibility for both credit lines requires honey producers to be registered in the Province's Registry of Honey Producers.

a. Line of Credit for Working Capital. The Line of Credit for Working Capital enables beekeepers to finance their operating expenses. There are two elements of this line of credit. The first element offers US$15.00 per active producing beehive with no limit on the number of beehives. The term for repayment of the loan may not exceed nine months from the date of the loan. The principal and accrued interest are payable at the expiration of the repayment term. This line of credit also allows pre-production cash advances for the purpose of acquiring inert material for beehives. Financing in this case is limited to 50 percent of the value of the assets to be acquired, not exceeding US$30 per beehive. Repayment for cash advances must be made within 90 days of the date of the disbursement. The interest rates applied to this element are variable.

The second element of this line of credit provides that, if applicants demonstrate that the honey is for exportation, they can receive a lower interest rate. To receive the lower interest rate, beekeepers must submit a commitment letter stating that the honey obtained from the beehives for which financing is requested has been sold for export, and a letter issued by the purchaser of the honey indicating that it was acquired for export purposes. Loans under the first element of this line of credit for working capital are de jure specific under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act because they are limited to honey producers. Loans under the second element constitute export subsidies under section 771(5A)(B) because receipt of the lower interest rate is contingent upon exportation. For both elements of this line of credit, a financial contribution is conferred in the transfer of funds through loans, under section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act.

To determine whether there is a benefit, we compared the interest rate charged on loans provided under this program to the commercial interest rates for loans that most closely resemble loans under this program. Based on this comparison, there is a difference in the amount the recipient of the loan pays on the loan and the amount the recipient would pay on a comparable commercial loan that the recipient could actually obtain on the market. Thus, this line of credit provides a benefit under section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act.

To determine the benefit for those loans provided for exports, we multiplied the loan balance outstanding during the POI by the difference between the interest rate and the benchmark, and the number of days outstanding during the POI. We divided this amount by the value of honey exports from Buenos Aires. To determine the final subsidy that is attributable to exports of honey to the United States from this provincial program, we weight-averaged the subsidy from this program by multiplying the subsidy by the Province of Buenos Aires' share of total honey exports to the United States during the POI. We thus preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from this line of credit to be 0.002 percent ad valorem.

To determine the benefit from all other loans under the honey-specific element of this line of credit, we multiplied the balance outstanding during the POI by the difference between the interest rate and the benchmark, and the number of days outstanding during the POI. We divided this amount by the value of honey production in Buenos Aires during the POI, and then weight-averaged this rate by multiplying it by Buenos Aires' share of total exports of honey to the United States. We thus preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from this line of credit to be 0.012 percent ad valorem.

b. Line of Credit for the Acquisition of Capital Goods. The Line of Credit for the Acquisition of Capital Goods under the Buenos Aires Honey Program extends a line of credit for the acquisition of capital goods to beekeepers in the Province of Buenos Aires. This line of credit was implemented by the Banco Provincia through Circular “A” No. 13,854 in July 1997, pursuant to an agreement between the Banco Provincia and Banco de Inversion y Comercio Exterior S.A. (BICE), and utilizes funding provided through the BICE Norms 006 and 006/1. The BICE is a GOA entity which functions as a “second-tier” bank, lending money to other banks (both commercial and other government-owned or controlled banks) for the purpose of implementing government lending programs.

Beekeepers are able to finance the acquisition of capital goods and are eligible to receive financing for the acquisition of beehives, new nuclei, inert material, extraction and processing material, among other goods. Applicants must provide a technical-economic proposal to the Provincial Ministry of Agriculture, and must meet the standard requirements of creditworthiness of the Banco Provincia. Financing for this line of credit carries a maximum repayment term of five years. Interest and principal payments are scheduled annually or semiannually based on the seasonality of honey production. Interest rates are variable and are calculated based upon LIBOR, plus a spread imposed by the BICE and a spread added by the Banco Provincia. The spreads given by both the BICE and Banco Provincia vary depending upon the repayment schedule of the loan.

Because financing under this program is limited to honey producers, it is de jure specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. Furthermore, a financial contribution is conferred in the transfer of funds through loans, consistent under section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. To determine whether there is a benefit, we compared the interest rate charged on loans provided under this program to the commercial interest rates for loans that most closely resemble loans under this program. Based on this comparison, there is a difference in the amount the recipient of the loan pays on the loan and the amount the recipient would pay on a comparable commercial loan that the recipient could actually obtain on the market. Thus, this line of credit provides a benefit, under section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act.

To calculate the benefit, we have multiplied the outstanding loan balance during the POI by the difference between the interest rate charged under the program and the benchmark interest rate. We then divided this amount by the value of honey production in Buenos Aires during the POI. To determine the final subsidy that is attributable to exports of honey to the United States from this provincial program, we weight-averaged the subsidy from this program by multiplying the subsidy by the Province of Buenos Aires' share of total honey export to the United States during the POI. We thus preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from this line of credit to be 0.117 percent ad valorem.

The Entre Rios Honey Program is a provincial honey development program originally established in 1984. As detailed in Law No. 7435/84, the program was designed to provide a wide range of services and support for promoting honey production in the province. However, according to the GOA, the only function performed by the Government of Entre Rios (GER) pursuant to Law No. 7435/84 is that it puts on presentations and exhibitions related to beekeeping activities throughout the province. The GOA provided a list of all such presentations and exhibitions put on during the POI, along with an estimate of the average costs and expenses incurred by the GER in preparation of these events. According to the GOA, such events are open to the public, free of charge. There are no records of attendance at these events.

The Entre Rios Honey Program is de jure specific pursuant to section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act because it is expressly limited in the law to the honey industry. It provides honey producers with a financial contribution through the provision of services under section 771(5)(D)(iii) of the Act.

Section 771(5)(E) of the Act provides that in the case of goods or services, a benefit is conferred where such goods and services are provided for less than adequate remuneration. The adequacy of such remuneration is determined in relation to prevailing market conditions for the goods or services in the country which is subject to the investigation. Prevailing market conditions include price, quantity, availability, and other conditions of purchase. We preliminarily determine that the provision of services under the Entre Rios Honey Program conferred a benefit to honey producers during the POI under section 771(5)(E)(iv) of the Act because all services were provided free of charge.

Because these exhibitions and presentations were provided free of charge, and because there are no other providers of similar services, there is no basis on which we can measure the benefit from the free provision of these services using a market-determined price. Therefore, for purposes of this preliminary determination, we are using the total of the costs incurred by the GER in preparation of the aforementioned exhibitions and presentations during the POI to determine the benefit.

To calculate the subsidy, we divided the costs incurred during the POI by the total value of honey production in Entre Rios during the POI. To determine the final subsidy that is attributable to exports of honey to the United States from this provincial program, we weight-averaged the subsidy from this program by multiplying the subsidy by the Province of Entre Rios's share of total honey exports to the United States during the POI. We thus preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from this line of credit to be less than 0.001 percent ad valorem.

According to the questionnaire responses, the Ministry of Production in the province of Chaco, through Provincial Law No. 4320, issued Decree No. 2076/96 in December 1996, establishing an emergency line of credit following a natural disaster that affected the agricultural production of the province. Through this decree, the Ministry allocated a total of 830,000 pesos specifically to assist the affected beekeeping sector. Financing is provided by the Nuevo Banco del Chaco S.A. (Chaco Bank), acting as an agent of the Government of Chaco Province. Terms and conditions for this line of credit are in accordance with Resolution No. 196/96. To be eligible for this line of credit, beekeepers must have no outstanding debt with the Provincial Government. Each producer can receive a maximum of 10,000 pesos and the principal is repayable in four equal annual installments following a two-year grace period (interest is payable during the grace period). Funding is utilized for the purpose of acquiring capital goods for beekeeping activity. The interest rate is 12 percent plus applicable taxes. Qualified candidates for this line of credit are also subject to a 1.5 percent bank commission over the principal and a 2 percent commission to cover administrative expenses related to the loan. Additionally, in September 1999, 450,000 pesos was allocated under this program in accordance with Resolution No. 253/99, and offered under the same loan terms and conditions as described above.

Because this line of credit was created specifically to assist the beekeeping sector of the Province of Chaco, we preliminarily determine that it does not meet the provision of the regulations under which disaster relief is not countervailable. See 19 CFR 351.502(f). Because it is only available to beekeepers, we preliminarily determine that it is de jure specific in accordance to section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. This line of credit provides a financial contribution because it is a transfer of funds in the form of loans within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. To determine whether there is a benefit, we compared the interest rate charged on loans provided under this program to the commercial interest rates for loans that most closely resemble loans under this program. Because these are long-term loans, we selected from information provided by the GOA a long-term benchmark from 1996 to apply to the 1996 tranche and a long-term benchmark from 1999 to apply to the 1999 tranche. Based on this comparison, there is a difference in the amount the recipient of the loan pays on the loan and the amount the recipient would have paid on a comparable commercial loan that the recipient could have actually obtained on the market. Thus, this line of credit is providing a benefit, under section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act.

For the loans granted pursuant to both the 1996 and 1999 Decrees, the GOA provided information about actual loans granted but did not indicate the actual principal outstanding during the POI. Thus, we are assuming that the entire principal was outstanding during the POI.

We determined the difference between the program interest rate and the benchmark interest rate and multiplied the differential by the loan principal outstanding during 1999. We have added the benefits from both tranches of loans and divided that amount by total Argentine honey production during the POI. (See “Denominator Issues” section above.) We thus preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from this line of credit to be 0.029 percent ad valorem.

The San Luis Honey Development Program was created in 1990 by the Ministry of Social Development of the Province of San Luis. The purpose of the program is to promote honey production in underdeveloped geographic areas and to provide training to the citizens of San Luis on beekeeping activity. Eligibility for this program targets unemployed and under-employed people with little income, and with no access to credit. The program provides assistance in two forms: leasing agreements, and financing through several types of credit lines.

a. Leasing Agreements. When the leasing agreement program was created, it was carried out in two different stages each governed by a contract for rental of hives. The first stage was implemented by forming 10 groups of 10 people, all of whom received training. Each group received 10 beehives and colonies for five years. In addition, each group received equipment for the extraction of the honey produced. Repayment for the extraction equipment and beehives was made to the Bank of San Luis. The repayment terms for the beehives included 24 installments over a period of eight years, with a one-year grace period. Repayment terms for the extraction equipment involved two consecutive equal annual installments. The second stage of the program involved forming groups of 10 to 15 people, each of which received 150 beehives and 50 colonies. The repayment terms for this element of the program required 15 quarterly payments over the course of five years, with a one-year grace period.

Because this program is only available to the honey industry in the Province of San Luis, we preliminarily determine that under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act, the leasing agreement section of the San Luis Honey Development Program is de jure specific. While the participants in this program are required to repay the cost of the materials provided to them, there is no interest component involved. Although the activity under this program is described as leasing, it appears that companies simply receive the goods directly from the supplier and pay for them over time rather than borrowing money from a third party. However, they paid no interest even though they are allowed to pay for the goods over five years. Thus, this program essentially operates as an interest-free loan. As such, this program provides a financial contribution within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act and it provides a benefit within the meaning of section 771(5)(E)(ii) because no interest is charged. The GOA did not provide any information on the value of the materials provided under the leasing agreement but did report the funding allocated for this program for each year since its inception in 1994. Thus, we are assuming that the total funding allocated was actually used. We calculated the benefit by treating each annual funding allocation as an interest-free loan. We estimated the loan balance outstanding during the POI by assuming equal annual principal payments, accounting for the grace period on principal repayment, and subtracting them from the total loan principal for each year the loan was outstanding. We selected as our benchmark a long-term interest rate for each of the years funding was allocated. Since the loans are interest-free, we multiplied the outstanding principal by the benchmark.

We summed the benefits provided by each year's loan, and divided that amount by the value of total Argentine honey production during the POI. (See “Denominator Issues” section above.) We thus preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from this line of credit to be 0.389 percent ad valorem.

b. CFI Lines of Credit Provided Through the Banco de San Luis. In addition to the leasing agreements provided under the San Luis Honey Development Program, there are multiple lines of credit made available through the Banco de San Luis within the framework of the Federal Investment Board (Consejo de Inversiones; CFI) Credit for Small Business Ventures program. (See discussion of “Credit for Small Business Ventures” below). The CFI established four lines of credit available to the beekeepers of the province, identified as Lines 600, 700, 900, and 950. Because these CFI lines of credit are made available only to the honey industry in the Province of San Luis, we preliminarily determine that under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act, these CFI lines of credit are de jure specific. These lines of credit provide a financial contribution because they are transfers of funds from the GOA in the form of loans within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. To determine whether there is a benefit, we compared the interest rate charged on loans under each line of credit to a benchmark interest rate. Based on this comparison, there is a difference in the amount the recipient pays on the loan and the amount the recipient would pay on a comparable commercial loan that the recipient could actually obtain on the market. Thus, these lines of credit provide a benefit under section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act. The specifics of the four lines of credit are discussed below.

Funding under Lines of Credit 600 and 700 was available with a nine percent interest rate and with a repayment term of either two and a half years or four and a half years depending on the purpose of the loan. These two lines of credit were terminated in 1994 and 1995, respectively. The GOA has provided information for each loan granted under these two credit lines. However, the GOA did not provide any information, in response to our requests, about the principal balance outstanding during the POI. Thus, we have assumed that all loans were for a four and a half year term and made in 1995, and thus, principal remains outstanding during the POI. We estimated the loan balance outstanding during the POI by assuming equal annual principal payments, accounting for the grace period on principal repayment, and subtracting them from the total loan principal for each year the loan was outstanding. We selected as our benchmark a long-term interest rate for each of the years funding was allocated. Since the loans are long-term, we multiplied the outstanding principal by the difference between the benchmark and the loan interest rate to determine the benefit during the POI from Lines of Credit 600 and 700.

CFI Line of Credit 900 is another line of credit that is extended to the beekeepers in the Province of San Luis. Funding under this line of credit is also available with a nine percent interest rate and with a repayment term of either two and a half years or four and a half years depending on the purpose of the loan. This line of credit was terminated in 1997. However, documentation provided by the GOA demonstrates that loan balances for this line of credit were still outstanding during the POI.

CFI line of credit 950 has not been terminated and credit is still being extended to beekeepers within the Province. There are two elements to this line of credit. Under the first element, beekeepers with a minimum of 50 active beehives are eligible to receive funding. This line of credit provides loans for (1) the acquisition of beehives; (2) the construction of extraction chambers; (3) the construction of separation chambers; and, (4) the construction of plants for the production of material used for honey production. The maximum financing available depends upon the number of beehives per applicant. A beekeeper with 50 to 100 hives, can receive up to $5,000; a beekeeper with more than 100 beehives can receive up to $25,000. The repayment term for this line of credit is four and half years, with an 18-month grace period for the repayment of principal. The interest rate is 10 percent and the loan requires a guarantee in the form of a security interest or mortgage equal to 130 percent of the value of the acquired property. The total funding allocated for this line of credit is $500,000.

The second element of Line of Credit 950 is designed both for active beekeepers, and for individuals with beekeeping experience who are willing to start up a beekeeping business. The amount of financing provided depends upon the purpose of the loan. Loans are provided up to $25,000 for the acquisition of capital goods; up to $10,000 for working capital; and up to $2,000 for training. Repayment terms for this line of credit vary depending upon the purpose of the loan and the loans require a guarantee in the form of a security interest or mortgage equal to 130 percent of the value of the acquired property. The applicable interest rate is 9 percent. The total funding (both CFI and provincial funding) allocated under this line of credit total $1,000,000.

The GOA reported that all loans provided under lines 900 and 950 were included in the loan information reported under the “Credit for Small Business Ventures” (CFI) program (See, “Programs Preliminarily Determined to be Not Countervailable” section below). Therefore, to determine the benefit from Lines of Credit 900 and 950, we have extracted from the CFI list those loans that were listed as being provided to San Luis. While the loan information specifies the original amounts of all of the loans which were granted to San Luis that were outstanding during the POI, the data provided did not indicate the actual loan balances outstanding during the POI for the San Luis loans. Thus, as facts available, we are assuming that the entire loan balance was outstanding during the POI. However, all loans granted under line 950 were granted in 1999 and are therefore still in the grace period for repayment of both interest and principal. In accordance with § 351.505(b), benefits resulting from countervailable loans are considered to have been received in the year in which the firm otherwise would have had to make a payment on the comparable commercial loan. Since the repayment terms on long-term commercial loans would not likely differ significantly from repayment terms on these loans, and since the first payments of interest and principal would occur after the POI, we preliminarily determine that no benefits were received during the POI from the loans provided under line 950 during the POI. To calculate the benefit from line 900 loans, we multiplied the difference between the interest rate under the line of credit and the benchmark interest rate by the outstanding loan balance.

To determine the subsidy from these various lines of credit, we summed the benefits calculated for Lines of Credit 600, 700, and 900 and divided that sum by the value of total Argentine honey production during the POI. (See “Denominator Issues” section above.) We thus preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from these lines of credit to be 0.055 percent ad valorem.

According to the questionnaire responses, the BNA offers a line of credit to businesses for working capital and investment purposes. In our notice of initiation, we identified this program as Law 24,467 Preferential Lines of Credit for Working Capital Purposes. As reported in the questionnaire response, the BNA Line of Credit for Working Capital and Investment Purposes was established under BNA's own authority. (See discussion of alleged Law 24,467 programs under the “BNA Pre-Financing of Exports Regime for the Agricultural Sector” above).

This line of credit is offered to businesses in all economic sectors in Argentina, and to agricultural and livestock producers associated with agricultural cooperatives. The actual interest rate varies according to the transaction, and the maximum length of the loan is five years.

We preliminarily determine that these lines of credit are not de jure specific within the meaning of section 771(5A) of the Act. Thus, we analyzed whether the actual use of these lines of credit gives rise to de facto specificity under section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act. However, based on the information provided in the questionnaire responses, these credit lines were used by a broad range of borrowers, both within and outside the agricultural sector, and there is no apparent concentration of lending to any group of borrowers. Thus, there is no basis for concluding that benefits under this program are de facto specific to an enterprise, industry or group of enterprises or industries under section 771(5A) of the Act. As a result, we preliminarily determine that the lines of credit offered under the BNA Line of Credit for Working Capital and Investment Purposes are not countervailable subsidies under section 771(5) of the Act.

According to the questionnaire responses, the GOA established the Global Credit Program for Micro and Small Businesses to provide assistance to small businesses. In our notice of initiation, we identified this program as Law 24,467 Global Credit Program. As reported in the questionnaire response, the Global Credit Program for Micro and Small Businesses was established pursuant to an GOA/IDB agreement. (See discussion of alleged Law 24,467 programs under the “BNA Pre-Financing of Exports Regime for the Agricultural Sector” above).

The Global Credit Program for Micro and Small Businesses is administered by the Ministerio de Economia y Obras y Servicios Publicos (The Ministry of Economy and Public Services or MECON) through the Secretaria de la Pequena y Mediana Empresa (the Argentine Small Business Administration or the SEPyME). The SEPyME was established in 1992 to serve new and existing micro-and small businesses involved in primary or industrial production, or services. The goals of the program are to increase the access of micro-and small businesses to credit and technical assistance in an attempt to raise employment and income levels through increased productivity, and to develop and strengthen the technical support groups that supply training, technical assistance and other services to micro-and small businesses.

The GOA reported that the Global Credit Program for Micro and Small Businesses is funded entirely by the IDB and is administered by the Argentine Ministry of Economy. However, information provided in the GOA's exhibits suggests that this program is only partially funded by the IDB, with the balance of funding provided by the GOA. While eligibility for this program is limited to small and micro-enterprise companies involved in primary or industrial production, trade or the service sector in Argentina, in accordance with section 351.502(e) of the Department's regulations, a subsidy is not specific solely because the subsidy is limited to small firms or small and medium-sized firms. As such, we preliminarily determine that this program is not de jure specific. We analyzed whether the actual use of these lines of credit gives rise to de facto specificity under section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act. Based on information submitted in the questionnaire responses, these credit lines were used by a broad range of borrowers and there is no apparent concentration of lending to any category of borrowers. Thus, there is no basis for concluding that benefits under this program are de facto specific to an enterprise, industry or group of enterprises or industries within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act. As a result, we preliminarily determine that the lines of credit offered under the Global Credit Program for Micro and Small Businesses are not countervailable subsidies within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Act.

According to the questionnaire responses, the GOA established the Credit for Small Business Ventures program to provide assistance to small businesses. In our notice of initiation, this program was identified as Law 24,467 Credit for Small Business Establishments. As reported in the questionnaire response, the Credit for Small Business Ventures program was established pursuant to Annex B to Circular BNA No. 10,111/1. (See discussion of alleged Law 24,467 programs under the “BNA Pre-Financing of Exports Regime for the Agricultural Sector” above).

The Federal Investment Board (CFI) administers the Credit for Small Business Ventures (Creditos para Microemprendimentos) program. The CFI is a government agency created through an agreement between Argentina's provinces, the municipality of Buenos Aires, and the National Territory of Tierra del Fuego, Antarctic, and the Islands of the South Atlantic. The CFI program has as its objective promoting the development of small business ventures through the financing of economically viable projects designed to increase productivity, increase employment, and improve income distribution. Eligibility for this program is limited to applicants whose net worth does not exceed US$200,000 and who are planning economically viable projects designed to increase production and generally improve the welfare of the population. The CFI can finance up to 100 percent of the investment for acquisition of capital goods, working capital, and training. For capital goods, the CFI will authorize financing up to US$50,000, up to US$20,000 for working capital, and up to US$4,000 for training. The CFI will not authorize a combined sum for all three categories exceeding US$50,000. The repayment term for capital goods financing is up to four and one half years and the repayment term for working capital financing is up to two and one half years.

This financing is limited to small businesses, but under § 351.502(e) of the regulations, the Department will not regard a subsidy as being specifically provided solely because it is limited to small firms. However, even though this program cannot be considered de jure specific, we must analyze whether these lines of credit are de facto specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act. The GOA provided a list showing the distribution, by industry, of all lending provided under this program from 1992 through 1999. A number of agricultural industries, as well as numerous non-agricultural industries received CFI loans. Moreover, based on the information provided, no industry appears to be a predominant user of the program, or to have received a disproportionately large share of the subsidy. However, as discussed above in the section on the “San Luis Honey Development Program,” based on the information provided, it appears that some CFI funds are funneled through provincial authorities, including government-owned provincial banks. Where the information provided in the response indicated that CFI funds were allotted to provinces or provincial banks, and either the CFI designated that a line of credit was to be provided to a specific industry within the province, or the province decided how to expend those funds within the province, we have conducted a separate analysis of whether such loans—funded by the CFI, but for which recipients within the province are expressly designated by either the CFI or the province—are specific (See, “San Luis Honey Development Program” above). Except for those CFI loans for which the lending decision appears to be controlled by a provincial government or for which the CFI appears to have designated a specific group of recipients within the province, we preliminarily determine that CFI loans are not provided on either a de jure or de facto basis to a specific enterprise or industry or group thereof, and are, therefore, not countervailable.

Based on our review of the questionnaire responses on this program, we preliminarily determine that this income tax program is the same program which was found not countervailable in Carbon Steel Wire Rod from Argentina; Suspension of Investigation, 47 FR 42393. As such, we preliminarily determine that this program is not countervailable.

In 1983, Law 22,913 established an agricultural disaster relief program administered by the National Commission on Agricultural Emergencies (CNEA). The purpose of the program is to provide financial, tax and transportation relief to areas designated to be in a state of emergency or state of disaster. When there is a natural or weather-related disaster, provincial authorities can declare a state of emergency or state of disaster and present information related to the emergency or disaster to the CNEA. After reviewing the information, the CNEA makes a recommendation to the Ministry of Economy regarding whether to issue a national decree. Article 5(a) of Law 22,913, states that the CNEA can declare an agricultural emergency or disaster when “weather related, telluric, biological or physical factors . . . unforeseeable or inevitable” seriously impedes the agricultural production or the capacity to produce in a region.

Any agricultural and livestock producer is eligible for emergency aid when its province is certified as an emergency or a disaster area. Producers who experience a loss of at least 50 percent of production capacity are eligible to receive benefits for emergency relief. Producers with a minimum loss of 80 percent receive disaster relief. Assistance under this program is provided in the form of loans at preferential rates and tax benefits. Beneficiaries can receive a deferral of taxes owed, an exemption from taxes owed, and deductions from earnings from forced sales. According to the GOA, the most common form of tax relief given is tax deferrals. In addition, an affected agricultural producer who receives a certificate from the provincial authority after an emergency has been formally declared can receive loans at preferential rates from the BNA.

We preliminarily determine that Law 22,913 is not a countervailable subsidy in accordance with Department's regulations. According to section 531.502(f) of the regulations, the Department will not find disaster relief countervailable when “such relief constitutes general assistance available to anyone in the area affected by the disaster.” The GOA has provided information that its emergency/disaster aid is provided in this manner. The GOA claimed that Law 22,913 was entitled to green box treatment and was therefore not countervailable. However, because we preliminarily determine that this program is not a countervailable subsidy under section 351.502(f), we do not need to examine the GOA's green box claim.

Article 109 of Law 150 (the Buenos Aires Tax Code), provides that a levy on gross income will be imposed upon each transaction of commerce, industry, professional services, or any other business activity which occurs in the City of Buenos Aires. The GOA reported that the gross income tax is an indirect tax levied on each transaction which constitutes the taxpayer's revenue stream. The GOA states that the gross income tax on sales of bulk and processed honey occurring within the City of Buenos Aires is 1.5 percent.

Article 116(12) of the Buenos Aires Tax Code provides that revenue obtained from exports is exempt from the application of the local gross income tax. The City of Buenos Aires exempted export revenues from this indirect tax in order to prevent the tax from increasing the export price of Argentine products. The GOA states that “rather than require payment and then pay a rebate,” the exemption “arises automatically upon completion of the tax forms by the exporter, who simply applies zero tax rate to revenues obtained from all export transactions.” The GOA contends that the exporter must provide copies of documentation related to the export sales e.g., commercial invoice, bill of lading, etc., in order to enable the local tax authorities to verify that a specific transaction is entitled to an exemption.

Section 351.517(a) of the Department's regulations states that in the case of an exemption upon export of indirect taxes, a benefit exists only to the extent that the Department determines that the amount exempted “exceeds the amount levied with respect to the production and distribution of like products when sold for domestic consumption.” Information on the record of this review indicates that gross income tax is an indirect tax levied on business transactions for export and that the amount exempted by the Buenos Aires Gross Income Tax Exemption does not exceed the amount levied with respect to the production and distribution of like products when sold for domestic consumption. Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines that, for purposes of this investigation, the Buenos Aires Gross Income Tax Exemption does not confer a countervailable benefit. We note that if we had found the Reintegro to be not countervailable (see section on “Reintegro” in “Programs Preliminarily Determined to be Countervailable,” above), this exemption from a final stage indirect tax would need to be reexamined to ensure that exporters in the city of Buenos Aires were not receiving both a rebate of these same indirect taxes under the Reintegro program (which includes a rebate of both prior stage and final stage indirect taxes upon export) as well as an exemption of these indirect taxes upon export.

According to the questionnaire responses, the GOA established the BICE Norm 011 program to provide assistance to small businesses. In our notice of initiation, we identified this program as Law 24,467 Short-Term Financing, Including Pre-Financing of Export Sales. As reported in the questionnaire response, this type of financing is provided by the BICE. (See discussion of alleged Law 24,467 programs under the “BNA Pre-Financing of Exports Regime for the Agricultural Sector” above).

Through Norm 011, the BICE offers a line of credit which finances the production of goods destined for export as well as the transformation, modernization, repair or assembly of goods imported under the temporary import regime. As a second-tier bank, the BICE offers this credit line to the “Participating Agents” (the first-tier banks) which the BICE considers eligible to participate. BICE determines the interest rate that it will charge to the Participating Agent. The interest rate ultimately charged to the borrower will be determined by the participating agent. Financing is available for up to 90 percent of the FOB value of either the exported goods, or the value of goods imported under the temporary import regime. Generally this line of credit is limited to projects that require a minimum investment of $20,000 and a maximum of $5 million. However, the BICE may consider financing requests for amounts outside of this.

The GOA reported that the BICE did not grant any loans through this line of credit to honey producers or exporters that were outstanding during the POI. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that this program is not used.

According to the questionnaire responses, the GOA established the BNA Line of Credit to the Agricultural Producers of the Patagonia to provide assistance to agricultural producers in the Patagonian region of Argentina. In our notice of initiation, we identified this program as Law 24,467 Preferential Line of Credit to Increase Agricultural and Agro-Industrial Production in the Southern Argentine Provinces. As reported in the questionnaire response, the BNA Line of Credit to the Agricultural Producers of the Patagonia was established pursuant to Regulation Annex to Circular BNA No. 10,111/1. (See discussion of alleged Law 24,467 programs under the “BNA Pre-Financing of Exports Regime for the Agricultural Sector” above).

The BNA offers a line of credit to the agricultural producers in the Patagonian region (the provinces of Rio Negro, Neuquen, Chubut, Santa Cruz, Tierra del Fuego, Antarctica, and the islands of the South Atlantic) to promote and finance investments oriented to diversifying production activities in eligible provinces. This line of credit is limited to those producers who had previously obtained loans pursuant to the credit line “Supervised Loans for the Agricultural and Agro-Industrial Production” that was implemented by the Board of Directors of the BNA in May 1992. These producers are eligible to benefit from the new BNA line of credit as long as they have not refinanced their prior loans, and have fulfilled their investment plans and obligations pursuant to their prior loan agreements. According to the questionnaire responses, honey producers and exporters are not among those eligible to receive this financing. As a result, we preliminarily determine this program to be not used during the POI.

According to the questionnaire responses, the GOA established the “Production Poles” program to provide assistance to small businesses pursuant to Decree 1304/94. The Production Poles program was created in order to integrate different producers and manufacturers of each of the production sectors in the Argentine provinces. The program attempts to stimulate business initiatives with the ultimate purpose of enhancing the quality of the regional producers and increasing their products' marketability. Businesses interested in participating in a production pole enter into an agreement with the National and Provincial Government and the respective municipality. The administering authority provides technical advice, grants for capital goods and working capital.

According to the GOA, there is one production pole that benefitted the honey sector and it was established prior to the enactment of Decree 1304/94. However, pursuant to section 5 of Decree 1304/94, certain groups that had entered into agreements similar to those under the Production Pole program are eligible for benefits under Decree 1304/94. A preexisting honey production pole in the municipality of Castelli, Chaco Province (Castelli Honey Production Pole), is one of the groups that qualified under section 5 of Decree 1304/94.

The GOA has stated that the Castelli Honey Production Pole only received grants under this program during 1994. These were grants for working capital and grants for the acquisition of capital equipment. Such grants are treated as non-recurring and are allocated over time, provided they do not meet the exception outlined in § 351.524(b)(2) of the regulations, i.e., the grant amount is not greater than 0.5 percent of total sales in the year of receipt. Because this program is federally-administered, the appropriate denominator for conducting the 0.5 percent test is the value of Argentine production (as a proxy for sales) in the year the grants were approved. Since we do not have that information on the record, we used as our denominator the value of Argentine honey production during 1999. The grants under the “Production Poles” program are significantly less than 0.5 percent and therefore would be expensed in the year of receipt, 1994. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the Production Pole for Honey program was not used by producers or exporters of honey to the United States during the POI.

According to the questionnaire responses, the GOA established the Enterprise Restructuring Program (PRE) to provide assistance to small and medium-sized businesses. In our notice of initiation, we identified this program as Law 24,467 Enterprise Restructuring Program (PRE). As reported in the questionnaire response, the Enterprise Restructuring Program was established by the GOA with IDB funds. (See discussion of alleged Law 24,467 programs under the “BNA Pre-Financing of Exports Regime for the Agricultural Sector” above).

The Secretary for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises administers the PRE which was established in 1997 by the Government of Argentina. The purpose of the program is to assist small and medium-sized businesses in increasing administrative and technical capacity with the aim of increasing competitiveness. Companies receive direct support, information gathering (through a business information system (BIS) made available nationwide), and business re-orientation support. The PRE program also makes management consultants available to small and medium-sized businesses.

The PRE is available to any Argentine small and medium-sized enterprise that meets PRE qualifications, possesses a tax identification number, and whose imported products do not represent more than 25 percent of its sales. Grants, or non-disbursed contributions, under this program are not limited to any sector or any geographic region. Although funding is still provided by the IDB, the PRE relies upon contributions from the national budgetary process and the private sector to cover its overhead costs. The size of PRE grants vary based upon need as assessed by each consultant.

According to the GOA, the honey sector has preliminarily been approved for 12 projects under the PRE. A listing of all approved grants has been provided by the GOA. Only one honey project has received a grant from the PRE, and the GOA reported that no disbursements were made before March 2000. Because no disbursements were made under the PRE program until after the POI, we preliminarily determine that this program was not used by honey producers or exporters during the POI.

Under Law 24,467, the GOA established the Reciprocal Guarantee Company (SGR). The SGR is essentially a new type of legal entity under Argentine corporate law which can be formed for the specific purpose of reducing the credit risks confronting small and medium-sized businesses. While several GOA agencies have regulatory authority over the SGRs, none of them has direct administrative authority over them. The SGRs are private companies consisting of small and medium-sized enterprises and large companies and banks that join together for the purpose of minimizing the credit risks facing the small and medium-sized companies who are part of the SGR. The purpose of the SGR is to issue certificates of guarantee to the small and medium-sized business members of the SGR so that those companies have greater access to sources of financing. There have been only five SGRs organized under Law 24,467, none of which involve honey producers or exporters. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that this program was not used during the POI.

Law No. 4430/98 was promulgated in 1998 to provide support to the provincial honey industry, instructing executive government agencies to implement programs to develop honey production, standardization, processing, industrialization, marketing, use of products and byproducts, and to support and encourage research, experimentation and training geared toward the development and use of apiarian byproducts. According to the questionnaire responses, Law No. 4430/98 has not yet been wholly implemented. The only portion of Law No. 4430/98 which has been implemented is Article 5.9, which authorizes measures necessary for the opening of lines of credit in official government and private regional banks, with promotional interest rates and loan structures in alignment with the goals of commercial and industrial honey production. Article 5.9 was implemented in 1999 via Decree 491. On March 24, 1999, and in accordance with the stated purposes of Law No. 4430/98, CORFO, the agency responsible for implementation of agricultural policy in Chubut, implemented Resolution 057/99, creating the Honey Activity Development Program to provide the credit lines approved under Decree 491. This program provides lines of credit for the acquisition of beehives, nuclei, work clothing, beekeeping material and equipment, and the purchasing of queen bees. Under this program, interest-free loans are provided for five-year terms, with repayments due annually and consecutively. The maximum loan amount authorized is 2,000 pesos.

According to the questionnaire responses, the first repayments of principal on loans issued under this program were not due until June 2000. In accordance with § 351.505(b), benefits resulting from countervailable loans are considered to have been received in the year in which the firm otherwise would have had to make a payment on the comparable commercial loan. Since the repayment terms on long-term commercial loans would not likely differ significantly from repayment terms on these loans, and since the first payments occurred in June 2000, after the POI, we preliminarily determine that no benefits were received from these loans during the POI.

In 1997, the Government of Santiago del Estero authorized the Trust Credits program. The program was administered by the Government of Santiago del Estero through the private sector entity Grupo Taxco S.A. The line of credit provided under this program is designed for low-income honey producers. A producer's beehives and profits earned from honey production comprise the collateral for the loans.

According to the GOA, none of the honey produced in Santiago del Estero was exported to the United States during the POI. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that this program did not benefit honey exports for the United States during the POI.

The GOA's PROMEX export promotion program was created in 1990 through joint funding from the World Bank and the IDB. PROMEX provided export promotion assistance to small and medium-sized businesses. According to the GOA, PROMEX was terminated in 1998, and the last grant provided under this program was distributed on September 15, 1997.

Export promotion assistance is normally treated as a recurring benefit. Since the last grant under this program was distributed in 1997, there are no residual benefits after the date of the grant distribution. Therefore, the termination of this program constitutes a program-wide change in accordance with § 351.526. We note that the GOA submitted a green box claim for this program, but since we have determined that it has been terminated, we do not address this issue.

The GOA administered a regional promotion regime for provinces in the Patagonian region, including Rio Negro, Neuquen, Chubut, Santa Cruz, the National Territory of Tierra del Fuego, the Antarctic, the Falkland Islands, and part of the Patagonian region located in the Province of Buenos Aires. The program, implemented via Decree 2332/83, provided exemptions or deductions from import duties on capital goods utilized in certain industrial activities. The program was terminated as of December 31, 1983.

Even assuming that benefits provided under this program were non-recurring and should be allocated over the honey industry's 10-year AUL, there would be no benefits from this program allocable to the POI. Therefore, we determine that this program has been terminated in accordance with section 351.526 of the regulations.

The Honey-Specific Line-of-Credit Program for the Pre-Financing of Development Expenses Associated with Export Sales is, according to the questionnaire responses, the same as one of the lines of credit available under the Buenos Aires Honey Program. See the discussion of the section on “Buenos Aires Honey Program” above.

In our notice of initiation, we identified a program as La Pampa Lines of Credit. According to the questionnaire responses, the La Pampa Lines of Credit are the same lines of credit offered under the Federal Investment Board's (CFI's) “Credit for Small Business Ventures” program, discussed above.

According to the questionnaire responses, the Province of San Luis: Creditos de Confianza (Trust Credits) does not exist.

According to the questionnaire responses, the GOA established the BICE Norm 007 program to provide assistance to small businesses. In our notice of initiation, we identified this program as Law 24,467 Investment-Expenditure Credits for Exports. As reported in the questionnaire response, the BICE Norm 007 program was established by the BICE. (See discussion of alleged Law 24,467 programs under the “BNA Pre-Financing of Exports Regime for the Agricultural Sector” above).

As noted above, BICE is a GOA entity which functions as a “second-tier” bank, lending money to other banks (both commercial and other government-owned or controlled banks) for the purpose of implementing government lending programs. The commercial banks then offer the credit to the borrower with substantially the same terms and conditions set forth in the regulations of the particular BICE line of credit, plus an additional spread for their services. These first-tier banks, or intervening financial entities (IFEs), are authorized by the Central Bank of Argentina as eligible to participate in BICE programs. For each loan application, the IFE will analyze the technical, economic and financial feasibility of the transactions and make the decision whether to assume the credit risk and make the loan to the ultimate borrower. If the IFE decides to extend the loan, the IFE presents the application to the BICE with all supporting documentation, and BICE will decide whether the transaction is eligible.

Through Norm 007, the BICE offers a line of credit to finance industrial investment projects, directed to both the production sector and the services sector. Under this line of credit, financing is available for up to 90 percent of the total value of the eligible projects. A list of eligible projects is provided in section 2 of the BICE Norm 007; these projects include investment projects in the agricultural sector, involving the incorporation of machinery, equipment, and investment goods, and associated working capital. Generally, credit under this program is limited to projects that require a minimum investment of US $100,000, and a maximum investment of US $10 million. The financing is granted for a period of no more than 10 years, including a two-year grace period for the repayment of the principal, and interest rates are determined on a case-by-case basis.

In our notice of initiation, we identified this program as one providing export financing based on petitioner's allegation and the supporting documentation, which indicated that this financing was being provided to improve export capacity. The GOA has indicated that one of the first-tier banks which received funding through Norm 007, the BNA, used the funding to establish an export-related financing facility, as documented in the petition. The GOA has also indicated that BNA terminated this facility in 1997, and further, that no honey producers received such financing when the program was active.

However, the information related to the BNA export financing facility highlights the necessity of examining whether other first-tier banks have similarly established export financing facilities with Norm 007 funds. For purposes of this preliminary determination, we are not making a finding with respect to this program. We will seek additional information from the GOA prior to our verification and final determination.

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

In accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(A)(ii) and 777A(e)(2)(B) of the Act, we calculated a single, country-wide rate for Argentina, applicable to all exporters and producers. The total estimated countervailable subsidy rate is 5.23 percent ad valorem. Because of a program-wide change, discussed above in the Reintegro section, we have calculated a cash deposit rate of estimated countervailing duties of 6.55 percent ad valorem.

In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, we are directing the U.S. Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of honey from Argentina, which are entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, and to require a cash deposit or bond for such entries of the merchandise in the amount listed above. This suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

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

If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination within 45 days after the Department makes its final determination.

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

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

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

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 refer to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (2000).

On December 13, 2000, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of its new shipper administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Turkey. See Notice of Preliminary Results of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Pasta from Turkey, 65 FR 77855 (“Preliminary Results”). As discussed in the preliminary results, this review covers shipments by Beslen Makarna Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., and Beslen Pazarlarma Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., respectively (collectively “Beslen”), during the period of review (“POR”) July 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999. Interested parties did not submit case briefs nor did they request a hearing. There have been no changes since the preliminary results.

Imports covered by this review are shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta in packages of five pounds (or 2.27 kilograms) or less, whether or not enriched or fortified or containing milk or other optional ingredients such as chopped vegetables, vegetable purees, milk, gluten, diastases, vitamins, coloring and flavorings, and up to two percent egg white. The pasta covered by this scope is typically sold in the retail market, in fiberboard or cardboard cartons or polyethylene or polypropylene bags, of varying dimensions.

Excluded from the scope of this review are refrigerated, frozen, or canned pastas, as well as all forms of egg pasta, with the exception of non-egg dry pasta containing up to two percent egg white.

The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under item 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope is dispositive.

The Department has issued the following scope ruling to date:

On October 26, 1998, the Department self-initiated a scope inquiry to determine whether a package weighing over five pounds as a result of allowable industry tolerances is within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. On May 24, 1999, we issued a final scope ruling finding that, effective October 26, 1998, pasta in packages weighing or labeled up to (and including) five pounds four ounces is within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. See “Memorandum from John Brinkmann to Richard Moreland,” dated May 24, 1999, in the case file in the Central Records Unit (“the CRU”), main Commerce building, room B-099.

We calculated export price and NV based on the same methodology described in the Preliminary Results.

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Results. As noted above, we received no comments from any party.

As a result of our review, we determine that Beslen had a zero weighted-average margin for the period July 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculated an assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise. For assessment purposes, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing the amount by the total entered value of the sales to that importer. Where appropriate, in order to calculate the entered value, we subtracted international movement expenses (e.g., international freight) from the gross sales value. Where the importer-specific assessment rate is above de minimis we will instruct Customs to assess antidumping duties on that importer's entries of subject merchandise.

The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this new shipper review for all shipments of certain pasta from Turkey entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Beslen will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent final results in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent final results for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 51.49 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order and Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta from Turkey, 61 FR 38546 (July 24, 1996).

These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

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

This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act (19 USC 1675(a)(1) and 19 USC 1677f(i)(1)).

On January 23, 2001, Dana requested that the Department revoke in part the antidumping duty order on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Japan. Specifically, Dana requested that the Department revoke the order with respect to imports meeting the following specifications: carbon steel coil or strip, measuring 1.93 millimeters or 2.75 millimeters (0.076 inches or 0.108 inches) in thickness, 87.3 millimeters or 99 millimeters (3.437 inches or 3.900 inches) in width, with a low carbon steel back comprised of: carbon under 8%, manganese under 0.4%, phosphorous under 0.04%, and sulfur under 0.05%; clad with aluminum alloy comprised of: 0.7% copper, 12% tin, 1.7% lead, 0.3% antimony, 2.5% silicon, 1% maximum total other (including iron), and remainder aluminum. Dana also requested that the Department revoke the order with respect to imports meeting the following specifications: carbon steel coil or strip, clad with aluminum, measuring 1.75 millimeters (0.069 inches) in thickness, 89 millimeters or 94 millimeters (3.500 inches or 3.700 inches) in width, with a low carbon steel back comprised of: carbon under 8%, manganese under 0.4%, phosphorous under 0.04%, and sulfur under 0.05%; clad with aluminum alloy comprised of: 0.7% copper, 12% tin, 1.7% lead, 2.5% silicon, 0.3% antimony, 1% maximum total other (including iron), and remainder aluminum. Dana is an importer of the products in question.

The products covered by the antidumping duty order include flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the HTSUS under item numbers 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090. Included in this review are corrosion-resistant flat-rolled products of non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling”)—for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges.

Excluded from this review are flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin-free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating.

Also excluded from this review are clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness.

Also excluded from this review are certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat-rolled products less than 4.75 millimeters in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio.

Also excluded from this review are certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products meeting the following specifications: (1) Widths ranging from 10 millimeters (0.394 inches) through 100 millimeters (3.94 inches); (2) thicknesses, including coatings, ranging from 0.11 millimeters (0.004 inches) through 0.60 millimeters (0.024 inches); and (3) a coating that is from 0.003 millimeters (0.00012 inches) through 0.005 millimeters (0.000196 inches) in thickness and that is comprised of either two evenly applied layers, the first layer consisting of 99% zinc, 0.5% cobalt, and 0.5% molybdenum, followed by a layer consisting of chromate, or three evenly applied layers, the first layer consisting of 99% zinc, 0.5% cobalt, and 0.5% molybdenum followed by a layer consisting of chromate, and finally a layer consisting of silicate.

Also excluded from this review are carbon steel flat products measuring 1.84 millimeters in thickness and 43.6 millimeters or 16.1 millimeters in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) clad with an aluminum alloy that is balance aluminum, 20% tin, 1% copper, 0.3% silicon, 0.15% nickel, less than 1% other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 783 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys.

Also excluded from this review are carbon steel flat products measuring 0.97 millimeters in thickness and 20 millimeters in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper-lead alloy powder that is balance copper, 9% to 11% tin, 9% to 11% lead, less than 1% zinc, less than 1% other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 792 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys, the second layer consisting of 45% to 55% lead, 38% to 50% PTFE, 3% to 5% molybdenum disulfide and less than 2% other materials.

Also excluded from this review are doctor blades meeting the following specifications: Carbon steel coil or strip, plated with nickel phosphorous, having a thickness of 0.1524 millimeters (0.006 inches), a width between 31.75 millimeters (1.25 inches) and 50.80 millimeters (2.00 inches), a core hardness between 580 to 630 HV, a surface hardness between 900-990 HV; the carbon steel coil or strip consists of the following elements identified in percentage by weight: 0.90% to 1.05% carbon; 0.15% to 0.35% silicon; 0.30% to 0.50% manganese; less than or equal to 0.03% of phosphorous; less than or equal to 0.006% of sulfur; other elements representing 0.24%; and the remainder of iron.

Also excluded from this review are products meeting the following specifications: carbon steel flat products measuring 1.64 millimeters in thickness and 19.5 millimeters in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) with a lining clad with an aluminum alloy that is balance aluminum; 10 to 15% tin; 1 to 3% lead; 0.7 to 1.3% copper; 1.8 to 3.5% silicon; 0.1 to 0.7% chromium, less than 1% other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 783 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys.

Also, excluded from this review are products meeting the following specifications: carbon steel coil or strip, measuring 1.93 millimeters or 2.75 millimeters (0.076 inches or 0.108 inches) in thickness, 87.3 millimeters or 99 millimeters (3.437 inches or 3.900 inches) in width, with a low carbon steel back comprised of: carbon under 8%, manganese under 0.4%, phosphorous under 0.04%, and sulfur under 0.05%; clad with aluminum alloy comprised of: 0.7% copper, 12% tin, 1.7% lead, 0.3% antimony, 2.5% silicon, 1% maximum total other (including iron), and remainder aluminum.

Also excluded from this review are products meeting the following specifications: carbon steel coil or strip, clad with aluminum, measuring 1.75 millimeters (0.069 inches) in thickness, 89 millimeters or 94 millimeters (3.500 inches or 3.700 inches) in width, with a low carbon steel back comprised of: carbon under 8%, manganese under 0.4%, phosphorous under 0.04%, and sulfur under 0.05%; clad with aluminum alloy comprised of: 0.7% copper, 12% tin, 1.7% lead, 2.5% silicon, 0.3% antimony, 1% maximum total other (including iron), and remainder aluminum.

Pursuant to sections 751(d)(1) and 782(h)(2) of the Act, the Department may revoke an antidumping or countervailing duty order, in whole or in part, based on a review under section 751(b) of the Act (i.e., a changed circumstances review) where the Department determines that producers accounting for substantially all of the production of that domestic like product have expressed a lack of interest in issuance of an order. Section 751(b)(1) of the Act requires a changed circumstances review to be conducted upon receipt of a request which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review. Section 351.222(g) of the Department's regulations provides that the Department will conduct a changed circumstances administrative review under 19 CFR 351.216, and may revoke an order (in whole or in part), if it determines that producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product to which the order pertains have expressed a lack of interest in the relief provided by the order, in whole or in part, or if other changed circumstances sufficient to warrant revocation exist. In addition, in the event that the Department concludes that expedited action is warranted, 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii) permits the Department to combine the notices of initiation and preliminary results.

In accordance with sections 751(d)(1) and 782(h)(2) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.222(g), based on affirmative statements by domestic producers of the like product, Bethlehem Steel Corporation; LTV Steel Company, Inc.; National Steel Corporation; and U.S. Steel Group, a unit of USX Corporation (“domestic producers”), no further interest exists in continuing the order with respect to certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products meeting the following specifications: (1) Carbon steel coil or strip, measuring 1.93 millimeters or 2.75 millimeters (0.076 inches or 0.108 inches) in thickness, 87.3 millimeters or 99 millimeters (3.437 inches or 3.900 inches) in width, with a low carbon steel back comprised of: carbon under 8%, manganese under 0.4%, phosphorous under 0.04%, and sulfur under 0.05%; clad with aluminum alloy comprised of: 0.7% copper, 12% tin, 1.7% lead, 0.3% antimony, 2.5% silicon, 1% maximum total other (including iron), and remainder aluminum; and (2) carbon steel coil or strip, clad with aluminum, measuring 1.75 millimeters (0.069 inches) in thickness, 89 millimeters or 94 millimeters (3.500 inches or 3.700 inches) in width, with a low carbon steel back comprised of: carbon under 8%, manganese under 0.4%, phosphorous under 0.04%, and sulfur under 0.05%; clad with aluminum alloy comprised of: 0.7% copper, 12% tin, 1.7% lead, 2.5% silicon, 0.3% antimony, 1% maximum other (including iron), and remainder aluminum (see domestic producers' January 30, 2001 letter to the Department), we are initiating this changed circumstances administrative review.

Furthermore, because petitioners have expressed a lack of interest, we determine that expedited action is warranted, and we preliminarily determine that continued application of the order with respect to certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products falling within the descriptions above is no longer of interest to domestic interested parties. Because we have concluded that expedited action is warranted, we are combining these notices of initiation and preliminary results. Therefore, we are hereby notifying the public of our intent to revoke in part the antidumping duty order with respect to imports of certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products meeting the above-mentioned specifications from Japan.

If the final revocation in part occurs, we intend to instruct the U.S. Customs Service (“Customs”) to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties, as applicable, and to refund any estimated antidumping duties collected for all unliquidated entries of certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products meeting the specifications indicated above, not subject to final results of administrative review as of the date of publication in the Federal Register of the final results of this changed circumstances review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222. We will also instruct Customs to pay interest on such refunds in accordance with section 778 of the Act. The current requirement for a cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products meeting the above specifications will continue unless and until we publish a final determination to revoke in part.

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. Parties to the proceedings may request a hearing within 14 days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held no later than two days after the deadline for the submission of rebuttal briefs, or the first workday thereafter. Case briefs may be submitted by interested parties not later than 14 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to the issues raised in those comments, may be filed not later than five days after the deadline for submission of case briefs. All written comments shall be submitted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303 and shall be served on all interested parties on the Department's service list in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303. Persons interested in attending the hearing should contact the Department for the date and time of the hearing.

The Department will publish the final results of this changed circumstances review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written comments.

This notice is published in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.222. Effective January 20, 2001, Bernard T. Carreau is fulfilling the duties of Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

On December 1, 1999, the Department initiated (64 FR 67247), and the Commission instituted (64 FR 67315), a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. As a result of its review, the Department found on July 5, 2000, that revocation of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the PRC (65 FR 41432) would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and notified the Commission of the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail were the order revoked.

On February 28, 2001, the Commission determined, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the PRC would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. See 66 FR 12810 (February 28, 2001) and USITC Publication 3393 (February 2001) Investigation Nos. 731-TA-683 (Review).

The product subject to this antidumping duty order is all grades of garlic, whole or separated into constituent cloves, whether or not peeled, fresh, chilled, frozen, provisionally preserved, or packed in water or other neutral substance, but not prepared or preserved by the addition of other ingredients or heat processing. The differences between grades are based on color, size, sheathing, and level of decay. The scope of this order does not include the following: (a) Garlic that has been mechanically harvested and that is primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use; or (b) garlic that has been specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed. The subject garlic is currently classifiable under subheadings 0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, and 2005.90.9700 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. In order to be excluded from the antidumping duty order, garlic entered under the HTSUS subheadings listed above that is (1) mechanically harvested and primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use or (2) specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed must be accompanied by declarations to the Customs Service to that effect.

As a result of the determinations by the Department and the Commission that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from China. The effective date of continuation of this order will be the date of publication in the Federal Register of this Notice of Continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) and 751(c)(6) of the Act, the Department intends to initiate the next five-year review of this order not later than February 2006.

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 Department's regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (2000).

On September 7, 2000, the Department published the Preliminary Results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from the PRC. (65 FR 54224). We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results of the review. On October 12, 2000, the respondent Universal Candle Company, Ltd. (Universal) filed its case brief. On October 13, 2000, the petitioner, National Candle Association, and respondents Liaoning Native Product Import and Export Corporation and Tianjin Native Produce Imp. & Exp. Group Corp., Ltd. (Liaoning and Tianjin, respectively) filed their case briefs. On October 20, 2000, the petitioner and Universal filed rebuttal briefs. On November 1, 2000, a public hearing was held with respect to this review. The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Merchandise covered by this review includes certain scented or unscented petroleum wax candles made from petroleum wax and having fiber or paper-cored wicks. They are sold in the following shapes: tapers, spirals, and straight-sided dinner candles; rounds, columns, pillars, votives; and various wax-filled containers. The products are currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item 3406.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order remains dispositive.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (Decision Memo) from Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, to Bernard T. Carreau, fulfilling the duties of Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated March 6, 2001, which is hereby adopted by this notice.

A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memo, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/frnhome.htm. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content.

Based on our review of comments received, we have made no changes in the margin for the final results.

We determine that the following margin exists for the period August 1, 1998, through July 31, 1999:

The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to Customs.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of petroleum wax candles from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For all PRC exporters, all of which were found not to be entitled to separate rates, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC country-wide rate, which is 54.21 percent; and (2) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

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

This notice also serves as a 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 written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

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

On February 27, 2001, Cray requested that the Department conduct a changed circumstances review and revoke the antidumping duty order on vector supercomputers from Japan, retroactive to October 1, 2000. In their February 27, 2001 request, Cray claims that it is the only U.S. producer of vector supercomputers and was the sole petitioner in the antidumping investigation that led to the antidumping order. Further, Cray states that it no longer has an interest in maintaining this order.

The scope of this order consists of all vector supercomputers, whether new or used, and whether in assembled or unassembled form, as well as vector supercomputer spare parts, repair parts, upgrades, and system software, shipped to fulfill the requirements of a contract entered into on or after October 16, 1997, for the sale and, if included, maintenance of a vector supercomputer. A vector supercomputer is any computer with a vector hardware unit as an integral part of its central processing unit boards.

In general, the vector supercomputers imported from Japan, whether assembled or unassembled, covered by this order are classifiable under heading 8471 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States (“HTS”). Merchandise properly classified under HTS numbers 8471.10 and 8471.30, however, is excluded from the scope of this order. Although, these references to the HTS are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

Pursuant to sections 751(d)(1) and 782(h)(2) of the Act, the Department may revoke an antidumping or countervailing duty order, in whole or in part, based on a review under section 751(b) of the Act (i.e., a changed circumstances review). Section 751(b)(1) of the Act requires a changed circumstances review to be conducted upon receipt of a request which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review. Section 351.222(g) of the Department's regulations provides that the Department will conduct a changed circumstances administrative review under 19 CFR 351.216, and may revoke an order (in whole or in part), if it determines that producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product have expressed a lack of interest in the relief provided by the order, in whole or in part, or if other changed circumstances sufficient to warrant revocation exist. In addition, in the event that the Department concludes that expedited action is warranted, 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii) permits the Department to combine the notices of initiation and preliminary results.

Cray is a domestic interested party as defined by section 771(9)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b). Cray indicated that it is the only U.S. producer of the domestic like product to which this order pertains. Therefore, based on the lack of interest by the domestic industry in the continued application of the antidumping duty order on vector supercomputers from Japan, we are initiating this changed-circumstances review. Further, based on the affirmative statement of no interest by Cray, we have determined that expedited action is warranted, and we are combining the notices of initiation and preliminary results.

We have preliminarily determined that the petitioner's statement of no interest in the continuation of the order constitutes changed circumstances sufficient to warrant revocation of the entire order. We are hereby notifying the public of our intent to revoke in whole the antidumping duty order on vector supercomputers from Japan, retroactive to October 1, 2000.

If final revocation of the order occurs, we intend to instruct the Customs Service to discontinue the suspension of liquidation and to refund any estimated antidumping duties collected for all unliquidated entries of vector supercomputers from Japan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 1, 2000. We will also instruct the Customs Service to pay interest on any refunds with respect to the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after, October 1, 2000, in accordance with section 778 of the Act. The current requirement for a cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties will continue until publication of the final results of this changed-circumstances review.

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. Parties to the proceeding may request a hearing within 14 days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held no later than two days after the deadline for the submission of rebuttal briefs, or the first workday thereafter. Case briefs may be submitted by interested parties not later than 14 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to the issues raised in those comments, may be filed not later than five days after the deadline for submission of case briefs. All written comments shall be submitted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303 and shall be served on all interested parties on the Department's service list in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303. Persons interested in attending the hearing should contact the Department for the date and time of the hearing. The Department will publish the final results of this changed circumstances review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written comments.

This notice is published in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.222. 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 Act) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (2000).

On September 7, 2000, the Department published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Mexico. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Mexico: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 54232, (September 7, 2000) (Preliminary Results). This review covers one manufacturer/exporter, Altos Hornos de Mexico, S.A. (AHMSA). The review covers the period January 1, 1998, through December 31, 1998, and 17 programs.

The products covered by this administrative review are certain cut-to-length carbon steel plates. These products include hot-rolled carbon steel universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in coils and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat-rolled products in straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers 7208.31.0000, 7208.32.0000, 7208.33.1000, 7208.33.5000, 7208.41.0000, 7208.42.0000, 7208.43.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.11.0000, 7211.12.0000, 7211.21.0000, 7211.22.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. Included in this administrative review are flat-rolled products of nonrectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling”)—for example, products which have been bevelled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this administrative review is grade X-70 plate. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (Decision Memorandum) dated March 6, 2001, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix I. 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 room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the World Wide Web at http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov, under the heading “Federal Register Notices.” The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made certain changes to the net subsidy rate. Any changes are discussed in the relevant sections of the Decision Memorandum.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an individual subsidy rate for each producer/exporter subject to this review. We will instruct the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) to assess countervailing duties as indicated below on all appropriate entries. For the period January 1, 1998, through December 31, 1998, we determine the net subsidy rate for the reviewed company to be as follows:

We will instruct Customs to assess countervailing duties as indicated above. The Department will also instruct Customs to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the percentages detailed above of the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of the subject merchandise from reviewed companies, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review.

Because the URAA replaced the general rule in favor of a country-wide rate with a general rule in favor of individual rates for investigated and reviewed companies, the procedures for establishing countervailing duty rates, including those for non-reviewed companies, are now essentially the same as those in antidumping cases, except as provided for in section 777A(e)(2)(B) of the Act. The requested review will normally cover only those companies specifically named. See 19 CFR 351.23(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(c), for all companies for which a review was not requested, duties must be assessed at the cash deposit rate, and cash deposits must continue to be collected at the rate previously ordered. As such, the countervailing duty cash deposit rate applicable to a company can no longer change, except pursuant to a request for a review of that company. See Federal-Mogul Corporation and the Torrington Company v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 782 (CIT 1993); Floral Trade Council v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 766 (CIT 1993). Therefore, the cash deposit rates for all companies except those covered by this review will be unchanged by the results of this review.

We will instruct Customs to continue to collect cash deposits for non-reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific or country-wide rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rates that will be applied to non-reviewed companies covered by this order will be the rate for that company established in the most recently completed administrative proceeding conducted under the Act, as amended by the URAA. If such a review has not been conducted, the rate established in the most recently completed administrative proceeding pursuant to the statutory provisions that were in effect prior to the URAA amendments is applicable. See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Steel Products from Mexico, 58 FR 37352 (July 9, 1993). These rates shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned these rates is requested. In addition, for the period January 1, 1998, through December 31, 1998, the assessment rates applicable to all non-reviewed companies covered by this order are the cash deposit rates in effect at the time of entry.

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

This administrative review and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 USC 1675(a)(1)).

This notice is relevant to the Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU).

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Point-No-Point Treaty Tribes have provided a jointly developed RMP for Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca summer-run chum salmon. The RMP encompasses fisheries within the range of the Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon ESU. Harvest objectives specified in the RMP account for fisheries-related mortality throughout the migratory range of Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca summer-run chum salmon-from Northern British Columbia, Canada to South Puget Sound. The RMP also includes implementation, monitoring and evaluation procedures designed to ensure fisheries are consistent with these objectives.

As required by § 223.203 (b)(6) of the ESA 4(d) rule, the Secretary must determine pursuant to 50 CFR 223.209 and pursuant to the government to government processes therein whether the RMP for Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca summer-run chum salmon would appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon and other affected threatened ESUs. The Secretary must take comments on how the RMP addresses the criteria in § 223.203(b)(4) in making that determination.

Under section 4 of the ESA, the Secretary is required to adopt such regulations as he deems necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species listed as threatened. The ESA salmon and steelhead 4(d) rule (65 FR 42422, July 10, 2000) specifies categories of activities that contribute to the conservation of listed salmonids and sets out the criteria for such activities. The rule further provides that the prohibitions of paragraph (a) of the rule do not apply to actions undertaken in compliance with a RMP plan developed jointly by the State of Washington and the Tribes (joint plan) and determined by the Secretary to be in accordance with the salmon and steelhead 4(d) rule (65 FR 42422, July 10, 2000).

Under the Act, the then-Acting Secretary of Commerce appointed members to the two Patent and Trademark Public Advisory Committees on July 13, 2000. The Advisory Committees' duties include:

• Review and advise the Director of the USPTO on matters relating to policies, goals, performance, budget, and user fees of the USPTO relating to patents and trademarks, respectively; and

• Within 60 days after the end of each fiscal year: (1) Prepare an annual report on the matters listed above; (2) transmit the report to the Secretary of Commerce, the President, and the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives; and (3) publish the report in the Official Gazette of the USPTO. Members of the Patent and Trademark Public Advisory Committees are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Secretary of Commerce for three (3)-year terms.

The Public Advisory Committees are each composed of nine (9) voting members who are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce (the “Secretary”) and who have “substantial backgrounds and achievement in finance, management, labor relations, science, technology, and office automation.” 35 U.S.C. 5(b)(3). The Public Advisory Committee members must be United States citizens and represent the interests of diverse users of the USPTO both large and small entity applicants in proportion to the number of such applications filed. In the case of the Patent Public Advisory Committee, at least twenty-five (25) percent of the members must represent “small business concerns, independent inventors, and nonprofit organizations,” and at least one member must represent the independent inventors' community. 35 U.S.C. 5(b)(2). Each of the Public Advisory Committees also includes three (3) non-voting members representing each labor organization recognized by the USPTO.

Each newly appointed member of the Patent and Trademark Public Advisory Committees will serve for a term of three years. Members appointed in the current fiscal year shall serve from July 13, 2001, to July 12, 2004.

As required by the Act, members of the Patent and Trademark Public Advisory Committees will receive compensation for each day, including travel time, while the member is attending meetings or engaged in the business of that Advisory Committee. The rate of compensation is the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay in effect for level III of the Executive Schedule under section 5314 of title 5, United States Code. While away from home or regular place of business, each member will be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by Section 5703 of Title 5, United States Code. The USPTO will provide the necessary administrative support, including technical assistance, for the Committees.

Members of each Public Advisory Committee shall be special Government employees within the meaning of Section 202 of Title 18, United States Code. The following additional information assumes that members are not engaged in Public Advisory Committee business more than sixty days during each calendar year:

• Each member will be required to file a confidential financial disclosure form within thirty (30) days of appointment. 5 C.F.R. 2634.202(c), 2634.204, 2634.903, and 2634.904(b).

• Each member will be subject to many of the public integrity laws, including criminal bars against representing a party, 18 U.S.C. 203(c), or acting where the United States has an interest, 18 U.S.C. 205(c), in a particular matter that came before the member's committee and that involved at least one specific party. See also 18 U.S.C. 207 for post-membership bars. A member also must not act on a matter in which the member (or any of certain closely related entities) has a financial interest. 18 U.S.C. 208.

• Representation of foreign interests may also raise issues. 35 U.S.C. 5(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. 219.

Meetings of each Advisory Committee will take place at the call of the chair to consider an agenda set by the chair. Meetings may be conducted in person, electronically through the Internet, or by other appropriate means. The meetings of each Advisory Committee will be open to the public except each Advisory Committee may, by majority vote, meet in executive session when considering personnel or other confidential matters. Nominees must also have the ability to participate in Committee business through the Internet.

Submit resumes for nominations for the Patent Public Advisory Committee and the Trademark Public Advisory Committee to the USPTO's Chief of Staff as provided above.

The meeting will be closed to discuss the relative merits of persons and companies nominated for the Medal. Public disclosure of this information would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of the National Medal of Technology program because premature publicity about candidates under consideration for the Medal, who may or may not ultimately receive the award, would be likely to discourage nominations for the Medal.

Accordingly, I find and determine, pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, as amended, that the March 29, 2001, meeting may be closed to the public in accordance with section 552b(c)(9)(B) of Title 5, United States Code because revealing information about Medal candidates would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency Action.

Due to closure of the meeting, copies of the minutes of the meeting will not be available, however a copy of the Notice of determination will be available for public inspection and copying in the office of Mildred Porter, Director, National Medal of Technology, 1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Herbert Hoover Building, Room 4226, Washington, D.C. 20230, Phone: (202) 482-1424.

The current limit for Category 622 is being reduced for carryforward used. The sublimit for Category 622-L remains unchanged.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 65 FR 82328, published on December 28, 2000). Also see 65 FR 69739, published on November 20, 2000.

The current limit for Category 443 is being reduced for carryforward used.

This limit does not apply to goods entered under the Outward Processing Program, as defined in the notice and letter to the Commissioner of Customs published in the Federal Register on December 14, 1999 (64 FR 69746).

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 65 FR 82328, published on December 28, 2000). Also see 65 FR 66724, published on November 7, 2000.

Pursuant to the National and Community Service Act of 1990, as amended (42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq.), the Corporation for National and Community Service (Corporation) makes grants to support national service programs. The Corporation has sent out application packets announcing the availability of approximately $2,000,000 for its 2001 AmeriCorps competition for new and continuing AmeriCorps program grants to Indian Tribes. According to the application instructions, no grant may exceed the total number of FTE AmeriCorps members multiplied by $12,100. This notice is to inform potential applicants that the Corporation will consider applications with a cost per FTE of up to $15,000, provided that the necessity for the increase is clearly documented in the proposal.

For example, if an applicant wishes to apply for a program supporting 20 full-time AmeriCorps members, the maximum grant award the applicant may receive is 20 x $15,000, or $300,000. If the applicant applies for 15 full-time members and 10 part-time members, the maximum grant award would also be 20 x $15,000, or $300,000.

Applicants should keep in mind that proposals requesting a lower cost per member might be deemed more competitive, as this is a factor in our evaluation criteria. Further, whether the Corporation will approve a budget of $15,000 per member may depend upon the aggregate amount requested by all applicants under this announcement.

The Final PEIS includes analyses of the environmental consequences that each of four alternatives may have on land use, infrastructure, airspace, earth resources, air quality, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, noise, safety, hazardous materials, socioeconomics, and environmental justice. The findings indicate that potential environmental impacts from each alternative may include changes to land use, increased soil erosion, and impacts to biological and cultural resources. Cumulative impacts may occur to land use, biological resources, soils, and water resources. The level of military training use may increase under Alternatives 2 and 3. Improved cultural and natural resource management practices are proposed within their respective management plans and are expected to reduce the impacts of military training.

Public comment regarding environmental impacts centered on two principal issues: (1) Continuing availability of public access to the training complex for a variety of recreational and non-military purposes; and (2) impacts to vegetation and other natural resources arising from military training activities.

The alternatives to No Action (no implementation of Army short- and long-range plans or resource management plans, the current Fort Bliss missions, certain planned developments, and on-going maintenance activity) considered in this Final PEIS are as follows:

Alternative 1 incorporates the current missions assigned to Fort Bliss as described in the No Action Alternative. Beyond this, Alternative 1 would adopt recent updates to components of the Fort Bliss Real Property Master Plan, which includes the Long-range Component, Short-range Component, the Power Projection Platform Capital Investment Strategy, and informal modifications to the Mobilization Component. Also to be adopted under Alternative 1 are the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, the Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan and a supplement to the Long-range Component. This includes adoption of a definitive training area land use plan for the Fort Bliss Training Complex as designated in Chapter 3.0—Current Conditions, of the Fort Bliss Training Area Development Concept. Adoption of these plans would authorize the steps leading to program and appropriate project implementation as described in the Final PEIS.

Alternative 2 includes all actions in Alternative 1 and additionally would increase, by approximately 13.5 square miles, the availability of controlled access Field Training Exercise sites on the McGregor Range portion of the Fort Bliss Training Complex. If Alternative 2 is adopted programmatically, environmental impacts of these additional proposed Field Training Exercise sites will be specifically evaluated in a separate environmental document(s) that may be tiered from this Final PEIS.

Alternative 3 is the Army's preferred alternative and includes all actions in Alternatives 1 and 2 and additionally would adopt the training uses of the Fort Bliss Training Complex as presented in Chapter 4.0—Future Development Concept, of the Fort Bliss Training Area Development Concept. If approved programmatically, evaluation of specific projects proposed in the future will be evaluated in a separate environmental document(s).

The revised Long-range Component of the Fort Bliss Real Property Master Plan, the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, the Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan, and the Training Area Development Concept are available for review in the following libraries: El Paso Public Library Main Library, 501 North, Oregon Street, El Paso, TX; Irving Schwartz Branch, El Paso Public Library, 1865 Dean Martin Drive, El Paso, TX; Westside Branch, El Paso Public Library, 125 Belvidere Street, El Paso, TX; Branigan Memorial Library, 200 E Picacho Avenue, Las Cruces, NM; Library, Dell City, TX; Library, 920 Oregon, Alamogordo, NM; New Mexico State University Branson Library, Frenger at Williams, Las Cruces, NM; New Mexico State University, Roswell, Library, 52 University Boulevard, Roswell, NM; University of Texas at El Paso Library, 500 West University Avenue, El Paso, TX; and Library, 20 Curfew Place, Cloudcroft, NM.

The DEIS concluded that the cumulative impacts of all past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would have a significant impact on traffic and air quality in the study area. Whereas the population in the area immediately surrounding Fort Meade is not expected to noticeably increase, growth in population and activity in the Region of Influence (Anne Arundel and Howard Counties) are expected to exceed the average annual rate in Maryland. Detailed studies concluded, however, that the contribution of Fort Meade is small relative to the regional air quality and traffic problems, and that it is reasonable to proceed with the Proposed Action while intensifying efforts to work in partnership with the State and others to address the larger traffic and air quality issues.

Fort Meade is currently undertaking four initiatives that will help mitigate the adverse air quality impacts in the region: (1) Conversion of existing oil-fired heating systems to natural gas, (2) use of vehicles powered by natured gas, (3) installation of more energy-efficient devices, and (4) fostering an extensive tree planting and reforestation program. To address traffic impacts, Fort Meade is considering encouraging the use of alternative transportation (e.g., carpooling and flextime), although major rail or bus lines do not currently service the installation. In addition, the construction of the MD Route 198 by-pass onto Fort Meade via the former Tipton Army Airfield by the Maryland State Highway Administration is designed to limit the through traffic at Fort Meade to those who reside, work or visit the installation for recreation or other purposes. This is expected to reduce congestion at the intersection of MD Routes 198 and 32.

Other resources that would be measurably affected by the Proposed Action or Alternative A are water quality (by stormwater runoff), utility systems infrastructure, and noise. Considering the best management practices planned by Fort Meade to address these effects, no significant impacts to these resources from the Proposed Action, Alternative A or cumulative effects of other actions are expected to occur. The completion of the 11 projects under the Proposed Action would increase Fort Meade's annual economic contribution to the Region of Influence.

A public meeting will be held after publication of this Notice of Availability of the DEIS during the 45-day public comment period at a date to be announced in the local news media. All interested individuals, private organizations, and government agencies are encouraged to provide input into the EIS review process. All comments received will be addressed and included in the FEIS.

Resource agency coordination was undertaken with the following agencies: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service; National Park Service; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; State of Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Department of the Environment, Department of Agriculture, Highway Administration, and Historical Trust; Anne Arundel County Office of Planning and Zoning, Soil Conservation District, and Department of Public Works.

The Department of the Army systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The specific changes to the records system being amended are set forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its entirety. The proposed amendments are not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

The Department of the Army systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The specific changes to the records system being amended are set forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its entirety. The proposed amendments are not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

The National Board of the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education is established under Title VII, Part B, Section 742 of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 (20 U.S.C. 1138a). The National Board of the Fund is authorized to recommend to the Director of the Fund and the Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education priorities for funding and procedures for grant awards.

The meeting of the National Board is open to the public. The National Board will meet on Tuesday, March 20, 2001, from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. to provide an overview of the Fund's program status and special initiatives.

The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. An individual with a disability who will need an auxiliary aid or service to participate in the meeting (e.g., interpreting service, assistive listening device or materials in an alternate format) should notify the contact person listed in this notice as soon as possible before the scheduled meeting date. Although the Department will attempt to meet such a request, the requested auxiliary aid or service may not be available because of insufficient time to arrange it.

Records are kept of all Board proceedings, and are available for public inspection at the office of the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, 8th Floor, 1990 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-8544 from the hours of 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

In accordance with section 252(c)(1)(A)(i) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6272(c)(1)(A)(i)), the following notice of meetings is provided:

Meetings of the Industry Advisory Board (IAB) to the International Energy Agency (IEA) will be held on March 20-23, 2001, at the headquarters of the IEA, 9, rue de la Fédération, Paris, France, commencing on March 20, 2001, at approximately 2 p.m.. The meeting on March 20, 2001, will be of the IAB alone. The meetings on March 21-22, 2001, are being noticed in order to permit attendance by representatives of U.S. company members of the IAB at the “IEA Millennium Conference on Oil Security Strategy” which is to be held on those dates at IEA headquarters under the sponsorship of the IEA's Standing Group on the Oil Market (SOM) and Standing Group on Emergency Questions (SEQ). The meeting on March 23, 2001, is being noticed in order to permit attendance by U.S. company members of the IAB at a meeting of the SEQ to be held on that date at IEA headquarters.

The Agenda for the IAB meeting on March 20, 2001, is as follows:

The Agenda for the “IEA Millennium Conference on Oil Security Strategy” on March 21-22, 2001, is under the control of the SOM and SEQ. It is expected that the IEA Millennium Conference will have the following Agenda:

The Agenda for the SEQ meeting on March 23, 2001, is under the control of the SEQ. It is expected that the SEQ will adopt the following agenda:

As provided in section 252(c)(1)(A)(ii) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6272(c)(1)(A)(ii)), these meetings are open only to representatives of members of the IAB and their counsel, representatives of members of the SEQ, representatives of the Departments of Energy, Justice, and State, the Federal Trade Commission, the General Accounting Office, Committees of Congress, the IEA, and the European Commission, and invitees of the IAB, the SEQ, or the IEA.

The Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 (Pub. L. No. 93-275, 15 U.S.C. 761 et seq.) and the DOE Organization Act (Pub. L. No. 95-91, 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.) require the EIA to carry out a centralized, comprehensive, and unified energy information program. This program collects, evaluates, assembles, analyzes, and disseminates information on energy resource reserves, production, demand, technology, and related economic and statistical information. This information is used to assess the adequacy of energy resources to meet near and longer term domestic demands.

The EIA, as part of its effort to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), provides the general public and other Federal agencies with opportunities to comment on collections of energy information conducted by or in conjunction with the EIA. Any comments received help the EIA to prepare data requests that maximize the utility of the information collected, and to assess the impact of collection requirements on the public. Also, the EIA will later seek approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of the collections under section 3507(a) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

The Form EIA-767, “Steam-Electric Plant Operation and Design Report,” is a mandatory form filed annually by fossil-fueled steam-electric power generating plants with a combined nameplate rating of 50 (MW) or greater. The EIA-767 collects operational data from fossil and nuclear electric power plants. These data are compiled and published in several EIA publications.

The EIA will request OMB approval of: (a) A three-year extension of collection authority through December 31, 2004 and (b) the revisions described below. The proposed changes reflect the current highly competitive state of the electric power industry as a whole and the power generators in particular. EIA recognizes that its information collections must continue to adapt as the industry changes.

EIA has completed an extensive review and update of the electric power survey collection series. The form presented here is the result of that task which includes input from all sectors of the electric power industry. Electric generation and sales continue the trend toward open competition. The degree of competition is not uniform throughout the country at this time, but continues to grow sporadically, as reported by electric power data suppliers. With the increase in open competition among generators there is a corresponding need for protection from disclosure of individually-identifiable commercially sensitive information. Along with form changes, the EIA is proposing a revision to the commercially sensitive data elements collected on the Form EIA-767 which will be treated as confidential.

The Form EIA-767, “Steam-Electric Plant Operation and Design Report,” collects plant operational data. Form EIA-767 will be filed annually by all existing and planned fossil-fueled electric generating plants with a combined nameplate rating of 50 megawatts or greater. A significant change to this form is an increase in the reporting threshold from 10 megawatts to 50 megawatts. The frame of the EIA-767 has been extended to include both regulated and unregulated generators. Also, a new Schedule 4D, “Boiler Plant Information, Nitrogen Oxide Controls” was created in order for all respondents to provide nitrogen oxide control information on a single schedule. Items 1 and 2 of Schedule 4D were previously found on Schedule 4C, and were completed only by generators 100 megawatts and greater; Schedule 4D, items 3, 4a, 4b, and 5 are new data elements. As a result of these and other additions (one data element on Schedule 4A regarding analysis method for primary fuel type, and three data elements on Schedule 9 regarding exit temperature of flue gas), a total of 8 data elements were added. However, 28 data elements were deleted, resulting in an overall net reduction of approximately 20 elements on the Form EIA-767.

With regard to confidential treatment of information reported to EIA on the electric power surveys, EIA is proposing changes in what elements will be treated as confidential and not released in individually-identifiable form. As the level of generation competition increases, so does the concern for the disclosure of confidential data. EIA is aware of these concerns regarding full disclosure of trade secrets. EIA is continuously monitoring the industry through the electric power survey system. Following are the EIA-767 survey data elements that will be treated as confidential and will not be disclosed at the identifiable individual facility level. Elements that are currently treated as confidential by EIA on the Form EIA-767 are marked by asterisks. EIA is proposing additional confidential data elements which are listed below:

Prospective respondents and other interested parties should comment on the actions discussed in item II. The following guidelines are provided to assist in the preparation of comments.

A. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency and does the information have practical utility? Practical utility is defined as the actual usefulness of information to or for an agency, taking into account its accuracy, adequacy, reliability, timeliness, and the agency's ability to process the information it collects.

B. What enhancements can be made to the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?

A. Are the instructions and definitions clear and sufficient? If not, which instructions need clarification?

B. Can the information be submitted by the due date?

C. Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 83.16 hours per response, previous burden was 84.00 hours per response. In your opinion, how accurate is this estimate?

D. The agency estimates that the only cost to a respondent is for the time it will take to complete the collection. Will a respondent incur any start-up costs for reporting, or any recurring annual costs for operation, maintenance, and purchase of services associated with the information collection?

E. What additional actions could be taken to minimize the burden of this collection of information? Such actions may involve the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

F. Does any other Federal, State, or local agency collect similar information? If so, specify the agency, the data element(s), and the methods of collection.

A. Is the information useful at the levels of detail to be collected?

B. For what purpose(s) would the information be used? Be specific.

C. Are there alternate sources for the information and are they useful? If so, what are their weaknesses and/or strengths?

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

The Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 (Pub. L. No. 93-275, 15 U.S.C. 761 et seq.) and the DOE Organization Act (Pub. L. No. 95-91, 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.) require the EIA to carry out a centralized, comprehensive, and unified energy information program. This program collects, evaluates, assembles, analyzes, and disseminates information on energy resource reserves, production, demand, technology, and related economic and statistical information. This information is used to assess the adequacy of energy resources to meet near and longer term domestic demands.

The EIA, as part of its effort to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), provides the general public and other Federal agencies with opportunities to comment on collections of energy information conducted by or in conjunction with the EIA. Any comments received help the EIA to prepare data requests that maximize the utility of the information collected, and to assess the impact of collection requirements on the public. Also, the EIA will later seek approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of the collections under section 3507(a) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

The EIA collects information about the electric power industry for use by government and private sector analysts. The survey information are disseminated in a variety of publications, electronic products, and electronic data files. For details on EIA's electric power information program, please visit EIA's web site at http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelelectric.html.

The EIA will request OMB approval of: (a) a three-year extension, through December 31, 2004, for all the forms listed, and (b) modifications to the specific forms described below. The proposed changes EIA is requesting through this action reflect the increasingly competitive nature of the electric power industry as a whole and the power generators in particular. EIA recognizes that its information collections must continue to adapt as the industry changes. Elements associated with distributed generation are not included on current forms at this time. A final decision regarding the collection of this information has not been made, and the elements may be included in EIA's final proposal.

EIA has completed an extensive review and update of the electric power survey collection series. The forms presented here are the result of that task which includes input from all sectors of the electric power industry. Electric generation and sales are continuing the trend toward open competition. The degree of competition is not uniform throughout the country at this time, but continues to grow sporadically, as reported by the EIA electric power data suppliers. With the increase in competition among generators there is a corresponding increase in the need for protection from disclosure of individually-identifiable commercially sensitive information. Along with the forms changes, the EIA is proposing a revision to the commercially sensitive data elements collected on EIA's electric power forms which will be treated as confidential.

As a means of improving its electric power surveys to reflect the changing industry, EIA proposes the following changes.

Form EIA-411, “Coordinated Bulk Power Supply Program Report.” The most important change to the Form EIA-411 is the expansion of the data collected on transmission assets. Specifically, Item 6, Proposed Bulk Electric Transmission Line Additions, has been replaced with Schedule 6, Proposed Electric Transmission Asset Data. The new schedule collects 10 additional data elements on planned transmission lines (Part A), 10 new data elements on planned substations (Part B), and five new data elements on other transmission facilities (Part C). Four data elements were added to Schedule 3, Parts B and D, collecting information on existing and planned generating capacity (Parts B and D, respectively). Together, these represent a net addition of 29 data elements on the Form EIA-411. Respondents also will be asked to provide a transmission system schematic, in addition to the transmission system map already required. The form and instructions will be modified to show these changes.

Form EIA-412 “Annual Report of Public Electric Utilities,” will be renamed “Annual Electric Industry Financial Report,” to reflect the new requirement that unregulated power producers will also provide annual plant cost data on Schedule 10, Large Electric Generating Plant Statistics. On Schedule 1, one element was deleted. Schedule 10 combines the old Schedules X and XI that collected similar data from steam-electric and hydroelectric plants, respectively. The scope of the survey also has been broadened to include all steam-electric generators with an electric generator nameplate rating of 25,000 kilowatts (kW) or larger, and gas-turbine and hydro plants with a nameplate rating of 10,000 kW or larger.

Also of significance are the changes proposed for the collection of transmission asset data on the Form EIA-412. Schedule 12 has been deleted and replaced with Schedule 11 to collect transmission line, substation, and other transmission facility information. This new schedule will collect existing and added (within the last year) asset information. Included in the “added” asset information will be cost data. By deleting the current Schedule 12, eight data elements will be eliminated. The new Schedule 11 will consist of six sections as shown below:

As a result of these actions, the overall net change for the Form-412 is an increase of about 35 data elements. The form and instructions will be modified to show these changes.

Form EIA-423, “Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric Plants,” is a new EIA electric power survey form. Currently, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) collects information on fuels received by electric plants subject to FERC jurisdiction. EIA proposes to collect monthly information on fossil fuels from electric plants not reporting on FERC Form 423. The data to be collected includes the cost and quality of fossil fuels delivered for the generation of electric power by unregulated generators, and from all non-steam regulated generators with a nameplate capacity of 50 megawatts or greater.

Form EIA-826, “Monthly Electric Utility Sales and Revenue Report with State Distributions,” will be renamed “Monthly Electric Sales and Revenue Report with State Distributions.” The form and instructions will be modified to show these changes.

Form EIA-860A, “Annual Electric Generator Report—Utility,” will be replaced with Form EIA-860, “Annual Electric Generator Report.”

Form EIA-860B, “Annual Electric Generator Report—Nonutility,” will be replaced with Form EIA-860, “Annual Electric Generator Report.”

Form EIA-860, “Annual Electric Generator Report,” will be a new form merging all information currently collected on Form EIA-860A and portions of the Form EIA-860B. As a result of combining these forms, there is a net decrease of four data elements. Respondents will include all electric generators over 1 megawatt. The form and instructions will be modified to show these changes.

Form EIA-861, “Annual Electric Utility Report,” will be renamed “Annual Electric Power Industry Report.” The change in the survey name more accurately reflects the current industry structure. On Schedule 1, two elements pertaining to the identification of the company were deleted. Two elements with respect to the North American Electric Council will be combined as one, eliminating one element on Schedule 2, Part A. On the changed form Schedule 2B, Sources and Disposition, will be completed by companies in both the regulated and unregulated sectors of the electric power industry. Two data elements are being added to Schedule 3, revenue from unbundled customers and cost of wholesale purchases. Two additional data elements pertaining to “price responsive” customer load have been added to Schedule 5, Demand-Side Management. One data element related to the term of requirement contracts was deleted from Schedule 2A. The form and instructions will be modified to show these changes.

Form EIA-906, “Power Plant Report,” is a new form in 2001 that replaced the Form EIA-759, “Monthly Power Plant Report,” and Form EIA-900 “Monthly Nonutility Sales for Resale Report.” The Form EIA-906 combined and incorporated data elements from both the Form EIA-759 and the Form EIA-900. No further revisions are planned to Form EIA-906 at this time.

With regard to confidential treatment of information reported to EIA on the electric power surveys, EIA is proposing changes in certain elements that will be treated as confidential and not released in individually-identifiable form. As the level of generation competition increases, so does the concern for the disclosure of confidential data. EIA is aware of these concerns regarding full disclosure of trade secrets and proprietary information. EIA is continuously monitoring the industry through the electric power survey system. Based on EIA's review of the industry and the changing competitive environment, EIA is proposing to increase the number of electric power survey elements that will be treated as confidential. Following are the data elements that will be treated as confidential across all EIA electric power surveys beginning in 2002 and will not be disclosed in individually-identifiable form. (Elements that are currently treated as confidential by EIA are marked by asterisks.)

Prospective respondents and other interested parties should comment on the actions discussed in item II. The following guidelines are provided to assist in the preparation of comments. Please indicate to which form(s) your comments apply.

A. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency and does the information have practical utility? Practical utility is defined as the actual usefulness of information to or for an agency, taking into account its accuracy, adequacy, reliability, timeliness, and the agency's ability to process the information it collects.

B. What enhancements can be made to the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?

A. Are the instructions and definitions clear and sufficient? If not, which instructions need clarification?

B. Can the information be submitted by the due date?

C. Public reporting burden for each collection is estimated and shown below as an average hour(s) per response. The estimated burden includes the total time necessary to provide the requested information. In your opinion, how accurate are these new estimates?

D. The agency estimates that the only cost to a respondent is for the time it will take to complete the collection. Will a respondent incur any start-up costs for reporting, or any recurring annual costs for operation, maintenance, and purchase of services associated with the information collection?

E. What additional actions could be taken to minimize the burden of this collection of information? Such actions may involve the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

F. Does any other Federal, State, or local agency collect similar information? If so, specify the agency, the data element(s), and the methods of collection.

A. Is the information useful at the levels of detail to be collected?

B. For what purpose(s) would the information be used? Be specific.

C. Are there alternate sources for the information and are they useful? If so, what are their weaknesses and/or strengths?

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

The Act affords EPA a 45-day period to review, and object to as appropriate, operating permits proposed by State permitting authorities. Section 505(b)(2) of the Act authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator within 60 days after the expiration of this review period to object to State operating permits if EPA has not done so. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the State, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period or the grounds for the issues arose after this period.

Ms. Marylee Orr, Executive Director of the Louisiana Environmental Action Network (Petitioner) submitted a petition to the Administrator on August 24, 1999, seeking EPA's objection to the Title V operating permit to be issued for Borden Chemical. Inc.'s formaldehyde plant in Geismar, Louisiana. The petition objects to issuance of the permit on nine grounds:

(1) Violation of public notice and comment provisions; (2) emission reduction credits proposed to offset its emissions are not valid; (3) the facility will hinder reasonable further progress in achieving the ozone standard for the Baton Rouge non-attainment area; (4) environmental impacts of facility significantly outweigh the social and economic benefits of the facility; (5) Borden failed to submit a complete application; (6) Borden's environmental assessment of the site was inadequate; (7) no risk management plan on file; (8) failure to meet Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards; and (9) title VI civil rights complaint. The Order expresses the Administrator's agreement with Petitioner on issues 2 and 3, regarding the validity of emission reduction credits used as offsets, and re-emphasizes the Clean Air Act requirement that credits must be “surplus” of Federal or State requirements at the time they are generated as well as when they are used. However, the Order does not grant relief on those points because the permit was recently modified to no longer rely on such offsets, thereby mooting the issue.

On December 22, 2000, the Administrator issued an order dismissing items 2 and 3 of the petition as moot and denying the remainder of the petition. The order explains the reasons for the Administrator's decision.

On January 25, 2001, EPA published in the Federal Register (66 FR 7759) a notice announcing availability of the preliminary administrative determination document and a public comment period that was scheduled to end on March 12, 2001. EPA received requests for additional time to provide comments. This action provides an additional 90 days, for a total of four-and-a-half months, for public comments.

Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46 and section 2.34 of the Commission's Rules of Practice (16 CFR 2.34), notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for March 7, 2001), on the World Wide Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2001/03/index.htm. A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room H-130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-3627.

Public comment is invited. Comments should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20580. Two paper copies of each comment should be filed, and should be accompanied, if possible, by a 31/2 inch diskette containing an electronic copy of the comment. Such comments or views will be considered by the Commission and will be available for inspection and copying at its principal office in accordance with section 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission's Rules of Practice (16 CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)).

The Federal Trade Commission has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement for entry of a consent order from Enerjet Corporation (“Enerjet”). The agreement would settle a complaint by the Federal Trade Commission that Enerjet violated (1) the Rule Concerning Disclosures Regarding Energy Consumption and Water Use of Certain Home Appliances and Other Products Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (“Appliance Labeling Rule” or “Rule”), 16 CFR part 305, and (2) the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (“EPCA”), 42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.

The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make final the agreement's proposed order.

This matter concerns Enerjet's compliance with regulatory requirements relating to certain boilers that it manufactures. The administrative complaint alleges that Enerjet violated the Appliance Labeling Rule in several respects. First, the complaint alleges that Enerjet knowingly distributed certain oil-fired boilers that were not marked with labels displaying the information that the Rule requires. In particular, the complaint alleges, the labels Enerjet used did not display the name of the manufacturer, the annual fuel utilization efficiency rating of the boiler, the range of annual fuel utilization efficiency ratings for comparable products, an indication of where the labeled product falls within this range, and certain prescribed generic statements. Second, the complaint alleges that during 1997 Enerjet knowingly distributed boilers without furnishing a fact sheet concerning the boilers, and without supplying the required information in an approved industry directory. Third, the complaint alleges that Enerjet failed to submit a 1997 annual report concerning its boilers.

The complaint also alleges that Enerjet violated the EPCA by distributing brochures that do not accurately disclose the annual fuel utilization efficiency ratings of its boilers in accordance with the test procedure prescribed by the Secretary of the Department of Energy, but rather overstate the energy efficiency of the boilers.

The proposed consent order requires Enerjet to pay $10,000 civil penalty for violating the Rule. It also prohibits Enerjet from making any representation about the energy use or efficiency of any product it manufactures that is subject to the Rule, or the cost of energy consumed by such product, unless the product has been tested in accordance with a test procedure prescribed by the Secretary of Energy and the representation fairly discloses the results of such testing.

The remainder of the proposed consent order contains provisions regarding recordkeeping, distribution of the order, notification of changes in corporate status, filing of a compliance report, and termination of the order.

The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the agreement or the proposed order or to modify their terms in any way.

In the Federal Register of February 14, 2001 (66 FR 10304), FDA announced that a meeting of the Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee would be held on March 13, 14, and 15, 2001. On page 10304, beginning in the last column, the Date and Time, Agenda, and Procedure portions of this meeting are amended to read as follows:

Date and Time: The meeting will be held on March 13 and 14, 2001, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Location: Holiday Inn, The Ballroom, Two Montgomery Village Ave., Gaithersburg, MD.

Agenda: On March 13, 2001, the committee will discuss drug development for individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). In the recent literature there has been a discussion of an entity referred to as MCI. While MCI is considered by some to be a distinct clinical entity, others consider that the majority of patients diagnosed with MCI have an early form of Alzheimer’s Disease. It is critical for regulatory purposes that the issues surrounding this diagnosis are fully explored. Toward that end the committee will listen to speakers and discuss the following and other related questions:

1. Can MCI be clearly defined in a clinical setting?

2. Are there valid criteria for the diagnosis of MCI?

3. Can MCI be distinguished from Alzheimer’s Disease and other causes of dementia?

4. What outcome measures are appropriate to use in clinical drug trials conducted in MCI?

5. Should clinical drug trials in MCI incorporate any special features in their design?

On March 14, 2001, the committee will discuss drug development for individuals with vascular dementia. While vascular dementia is considered by some to be a distinct entity others do not agree that it can be easily distinguished from Alzheimer’s Disease and/or other dementias. It is critical for regulatory purposes that the issues surrounding this diagnosis are fully explored. Toward that end the committee will listen to presentations and then discuss the following and other related questions:

1. Can vascular dementia be clearly defined in a clinical setting?

2. Are there valid criteria for the diagnosis of vascular dementia?

3. Can vascular dementia be distinguished from Alzheimer’s Disease and other causes of dementia?

4. What outcome measures are appropriate to use in clinical drug trials conducted in vascular dementia?

5. Should clinical drug trials in vascular dementia incorporate any special features in their design?

FDA will provide a background position paper on MCI and on vascular dementia prior to each meeting. When the background material becomes available, it will be posted under the Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee Docket site at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/acmenu.htm. (Click on the year 2001 and scroll down to the Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs meetings.)

In recent years, many important initiatives have been undertaken by regulatory authorities and industry associations to promote the international harmonization of regulatory recommendations. FDA has participated in efforts to enhance harmonization and has expressed its commitment to seek scientifically based harmonized technical recommendations for the development of pharmaceutical products. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify and then reduce the differences in technical recommendations for drug development among regulatory agencies in different countries.

FDA has actively participated in the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use for several years to develop harmonized technical recommendations for the approval of human pharmaceutical and biological products among the European Union, Japan, and the United States. The VICH is a parallel initiative for VMP’s. The VICH is concerned with developing harmonized technical recommendations for the VMP’s in the European Union, Japan, and the United States, and includes input from both regulatory and industry representatives.

The VICH Steering Committee is composed of member representatives from the: European Commission; European Medicines Evaluation Agency; European Federation of Animal Health; U.S. FDA; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Animal Health Institute; Japanese Veterinary Pharmaceutical Association; Japanese Association of Veterinary Biologics; and the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries.

Two observers are eligible to participate in the VICH Steering Committee: One representative from the Government of Australia/ New Zealand, and one representative from the industry in Australia/ New Zealand. The VICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, is provided by the Confédération Mondiale de L’Industrie de la Santé Animale (COMISA). A COMISA representative also participates in the VICH Steering Committee meetings.

In the Federal Register of September 17, 1999 (64 FR 50519), FDA published the notice of availability of the VICH GL6 guidance entitled “Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA’s) for Veterinary Medicinal Products (VMP’s)-Phase I” giving interested persons until October 18, 1999, to submit comments. In response to the Federal Register notice, the agency received one comment that endorsed adoption of the Phase I document. The European Union and Japan also published this guidance in their respective countries and requested comments. The comments were evaluated at the November 12 through 16, 1999, VICH Ecotoxicity/Environmental Impact Assessment Working Group meeting in Brussels, Belgium. In response to the comments from the European Union and Japan, the working group revised the wording in questions 2, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 16, and 17 to clarify the questions, the issues covered by questions or the information to be provided in response to questions. The working group also added questions 18 and 19 to the Phase I document. Questions 18 and 19 were added to account for regional laws that can alter environmental introductions of VMP’s. Specifically in the European Union, certain member countries have legal requirements for a minimum manure storage period. Others have legal restrictions on the amount of manure that may be spread in a given area. These legal requirements will modify variables in the predicted environmental concentration in soil PECsoil calculation and the resulting PECsoil, as described in question 17. Therefore, it is important to consider them in the Phase I EIA. At a meeting held June 14 through 16, 2000, the VICH Steering Committee endorsed the final VICH GL6 guidance that incorporates these changes.

VICH GL6 offers guidance on how to assess the environmental impact of VMP’s other than veterinary biological products.

In the United States, the environmental impact of VMP’s is determined under the requirements established by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR part 1500 and 21 CFR part 25) and under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(d)). Under NEPA, an environmental assessment (EA) is conducted to determine whether a VMP may have a significant environmental impact. A particular VMP may be categorically excluded from the requirement of an EA, or it may require an EA, an environmental impact statement (EIS), or both.

This final guidance document is intended to be consistent with the laws of the European Union, Japan, and the United States. In an effort to harmonize the different recommendations in each of these areas for assessing the environmental impact of VMP’s, this final guidance document adopts the terminology “Phase I EIA’s” and “Phase II EIA’s.” Using the terminology of the final guidance document, a Phase I EIA is equivalent under NEPA to either a categorical exclusion or an EA that addresses only environmental exposures (40 CFR 1508.4 and 1508.9). A Phase II EIA is equivalent to an EA with more extensive data than would be necessary under the U.S. equivalent of a Phase I EIA. A Phase II EIA may lead to a finding of no significant impact or preparation of an EIS under NEPA.

This final Level 1 guidance is being issued consistent with FDA’s good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115; 65 FR 56468, September 19, 2000). This final guidance document represents a portion of FDA’s current thinking on the conduct of ecological risk assessment for veterinary medicinal products proposed for marketing in the European Union, Japan, and the United States. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person, and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternate method may be used as long as it satisfies the requirements of applicable statutes and regulations.

Information collected is covered under OMB control number 0910-0332.

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

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

FDA regulations allow for the acceptance of foreign clinical studies not performed under an IND or IDE in support of a marketing approval application for a drug, biological product, or device if certain conditions are met. Under these regulations, the study must conform to the ethical principles contained in the Declaration of Helsinki (the Declaration) or with the laws and regulations of the country in which the research was conducted, whichever provides greater protection of the human subjects. In October 2000, the World Medical Association approved a fifth revision of the Declaration. FDA is making this guidance available to clarify which version of the Declaration was incorporated into the drug regulations, and which version of the Declaration was incorporated into the device regulations, and, therefore, which version of the Declaration is applicable to foreign studies conducted without an IND or IDE. FDA will also review any other guidance documents on this subject, and modify them, if necessary, to conform to the clarification expressed in this guidance.

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 the ethical principles with which a sponsor must comply before FDA would accept a foreign clinical study not conducted under an IND or IDE in support of a marketing approval application. 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.

Under FDA’s good guidance practice regulations, this guidance is being issued as a Level 2 guidance because it sets forth the agency’s existing practices (21 CFR 10.115(c)(2); 65 FR 56468, September 19, 2000). Therefore, FDA is issuing this document as a final guidance prior to receiving public comment. However, as with all FDA guidance, the public is encouraged to submit written comments with new data or other new information pertinent to this guidance. The comments in the docket will be periodically reviewed, and, where appropriate, the guidance will be amended.

Interested persons may, at any time, submit written comments on the final 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 final 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.