Section 203 (c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “to develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade, and packaging and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices * * *.” AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities and will make copies of official standards available upon request. The United States Standards for Grades of Dry Whole Milk no longer appear in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) but are maintained by USDA/AMS/Dairy Programs.

AMS is revising the United States Standards for Grades of Dry Whole Milk using the procedures it published in the August 13, 1997, Federal Register and that appear in Part 36 of Title 7 of the CFR.

The notice, which included a request for comments on the proposed changes, was published in the Federal Register on July 28, 2000 (65 FR 46399-46421).

The current United States Standards for Grades of Dry Whole Milk have been in effect since May 13, 1983. AMS initiated a review of these standards and discussed possible changes with the dairy industry. The American Dairy Products Institute (ADPI), a trade association representing the dry whole milk industry, provided specific suggestions, including suggestions to lower the maximum bacterial content requirements and to expand the definition of dry whole milk to include optional ingredients that may be added. AMS proposed changes to reflect improvements in the quality of dry whole milk and marketing changes that have occurred since the standards were last revised. In addition, AMS proposed changes to promote greater uniformity and consistency in the application of these standards.

AMS published the notice in the Federal Register with an outline of the specific proposed changes and provided a comment period of 60 days, which ended on September 26, 2000.

ADPI filed comments expressing their general support for the proposal and provided a specific recommendation to retain roller process product in the standards. This recommendation would reincorporate currently existing roller process product provisions in the “Definitions” section, the “Specifications for U.S. grades” section, and in the summary provided in Table III. ADPI reported that a significant amount of roller process product is manufactured for its unique functional properties. No other comments were received.

Before the proposed changes to the United States Standards for Grades of Dry Whole Milk were published, AMS discussed the issue of roller process product with the dairy industry. At that time there was little interest in retaining specific provisions for roller process product. However, during the comment period ADPI identified manufacturers of roller process product interested in retaining these provisions. AMS agrees to maintain roller process product provisions in the United States Standards for Grades of Dry Whole Milk so that these standards can continue to be used to establish quality standards for roller process product.

There was an inadvertent omission of titratable acidity information in “Table III. Classification According to Laboratory Analysis.” In its proposal, AMS proposed changes that would make titratable acidity a required test to determine U.S. Grade and included information in the “Specifications for U.S. grades” section. AMS intended that this information also be included in the summary table.

In addition to the revisions discussed in the July 28, 2000, Federal Register notice, the following sections of the United States Standards for Grades of Dry Whole Milk are also revised as follows:

The “dry whole milk” definition is changed to read as follows:

“Dry whole milk” made by the Spray process or Roller process is the product obtained by removal of water only from pasteurized milk which may have been homogenized. It contains not more than 5 percent by weight of moisture on a milk solids not fat basis and not less than 26 percent but less than 40 per cent by weight of milk fat. It shall conform to the applicable provisions of 21 CFR 131 “Milk and Cream” as issued by the Food and Drug Administration. Alternatively, dry whole milk may be obtained by blending fluid, condensed, or dried nonfat milk with liquid or dried cream or with fluid, condensed, or dried milk, as appropriate, provided the resulting dry whole milk is equivalent in composition to that obtained by drying. It contains the lactose, milk proteins, milkfat, and milk minerals in the same relative proportions as the milk from which it was made. It may be optionally fortified with either Vitamins A or D or both.

Under the section beginning “(a) U.S. Extra Grade.” paragraphs (7) and (8) are changed to read as follows:

(7) Scorched particle content. Not more than 15.0 mg. for spray process, and 22.5 mg. for roller process. See Table III. Classification According to Laboratory Analysis of this section.

(8) Solubility Index. Not more than 1.0 ml. for spray process, and 15.0 ml. for roller process. See Table III. Classification According to Laboratory Analysis of this section.

Under the section beginning “(b) U.S. Standard Grade.” paragraphs (7) and (8) are changed to read as follows:

(7) Scorched particle content. Not more than 22.5 mg. for spray process, and 32.5 mg. for roller process. See Table III. Classification According to Laboratory Analysis of this section.

(8) Solubility index. Not more than 1.5 ml. for spray process, and 15.0 ml. for roller process. See Table III. Classification According to Laboratory Analysis, of this section.

Under “Table III. Classification According to Laboratory Analysis” the scorched particle and solubility index information is revised and the titratable acidity information is added to read as follows:

A typographical error in the ZIP code for the Association of Official Analytical Chemists that appears in the “Test Methods” section of the revised standard should read 20877-2417.

Accordingly, the notice revising the United States Standards for Grades of Dry Whole Milk published in the Federal Register at 65 FR 46399-46421 on July 28, 2000, as well as the changes and corrections made in this notice, are incorporated in the revised United States Standards for Grades of Dry Whole Milk.

The revised United States Standards for Grades of Dry Whole Milk are available either through the address included in this notice or by accessing the AMS Home Page on the Internet at http://www.ams.usda.gov/dairy/stand.htm.

This notice is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.

This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of this Act.

This notice does not contain reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507).

This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs under No. 10.557 and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials (7 CFR Part 3015, Subpart V, 48 FR 29112 June 24, 1983).

Section 17(d)(2)(A) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786 (d)(2)(A)) requires the Secretary of Agriculture to establish income criteria to be used with nutritional risk criteria in determining a person's eligibility for participation in the WIC Program. The law provides that persons will be income eligible for the WIC Program only if they are members of families that satisfy the income standard prescribed for reduced-price school meals under section 9(b) of the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(b)). Under section 9(b), the income limit for reduced-price school meals is 185 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines, as adjusted.

Section 9(b) also requires that these guidelines be revised annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index. The annual revision for 2001 was published by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) at 66 FR 10695, Feb. 16, 2001. The guidelines published by DHHS are referred to as the poverty guidelines.

Section 246.7(d)(1) of the WIC regulations specifies that State agencies may prescribe income guidelines either equaling the income guidelines established under section 9 of the National School Lunch Act for reduced-price school meals or identical to State or local guidelines for free or reduced-price health care. However, in conforming WIC income guidelines to State or local health care guidelines, the State cannot establish WIC guidelines which exceed the guidelines for reduced-price school meals, or which are less than 100 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines. Consistent with the method used to compute income eligibility guidelines for reduced-price meals under the National School Lunch Program, the poverty guidelines were multiplied by 1.85 and the results rounded upward to the next whole dollar.

At this time the Department is publishing the maximum and minimum WIC income eligibility guidelines by household size for the period July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002. Consistent with section 17(f)(17) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 786(f)(17)), a State agency may implement the revised WIC income eligibility guidelines concurrently with the implementation of income eligibility guidelines under the Medicaid program established under title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396, et seq.). State agencies may coordinate implementation with the revised Medicaid guidelines, but in no case may implementation take place later than July 1, 2001. State agencies that do not coordinate implementation with the revised Medicaid guidelines must implement the WIC income eligibility guidelines on July 1, 2001. The first table of this notice contains the income limits by household size for the 48 contiguous States, the District of Columbia and all Territories, including Guam. Because the poverty guidelines for Alaska and Hawaii are higher than for the 48 contiguous States, separate tables for Alaska and Hawaii have been included for the convenience of the State agencies.

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, William J. Hartman, State Conservationist, has determined that the preparation and review of a supplemental environmental impact statement are not needed for this project.

The supplemental project purpose is to address water supply shortages in Hardy County, West Virginia through the inclusion of 400 acre-feet of rural water supply storage to the planned Lost River Dam Site 10, located on Camp Branch of Baker Run near Needmore, West Virginia.

The Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency and to various Federal, State, and local agencies and interested parties. 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 William J. Hartman.

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 after enactment of the law, revisions made 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 Georgia will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. Following that period, a determination will be made by the NRCS in Georgia regarding disposition of these comments and a final determination of changes will be made.

Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that after enactment of the law, revisions made 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 Indiana will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. Following that period, a determination will be made by the NRCS in Indiana regarding disposition of those comments and a final determination of changes will be made.

Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that after enactment of the law, revisions made 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 Indiana will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. Following that period, a determination will be made by the NRCS in Indiana regarding disposition of those comments and a final determination of changes will be made.

Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that after enactment of the law, revisions made 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 Indiana will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. Following that period, a determination will be made by the NRCS in Indiana regarding disposition of those comments and a final determination of changes will be made.

Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that after enactment of the law, revisions made to NRCS state technical guides used to carry out highly erodible land and wetland 2 provisions of the law, shall be made available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days, the NRCS in Indiana will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. Following that period, a determination will be made by the NRCS in Indiana regarding disposition of those comments and a final determination of changes will be made.

On December 21, 2000, the President signed the “Launching Our Communities' Access to Local Television Act of 2000,” Pub. L. 06-553 (the “Act”). The Act provides for the establishment of the Local Television Loan Guarantee Board (the “Board”), which consists of the Secretaries of Agriculture, Treasury, Commerce, and the Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, or their designees. The Board may approve loan guarantees up to 80% of not in excess of $1.25 billion of loans, to facilitate access, on a technologically neutral basis, to signals of local television stations for households located in nonserved areas and underserved areas. The Act provides that, among other matters, the Administrator of RUS shall prescribe regulations to implement the Act and shall issue and otherwise administer loan guarantees approved by the Board. Congress has not yet provided appropriations for these guarantees, but may do so in the near future. The Act contains several specialized technical and business provisions and may be found in its entirety on the RUS website (www.rurdev.usda.gov/rus).

In light of its statutory role in implementing and administering the Act's loan guarantee program, RUS is currently analyzing the provisions of the Act, identifying issues potentially affecting the implementation of the program, and considering how the program can be effectively implemented. RUS is interested in receiving information regarding all aspects, including any financial and technological implications, of the program as well as analyses of any provisions of the Act that may present issues or practical problems in implementing the program. RUS invites interested parties including, but not limited to, financial and lending institutions, equipment providers, facility and other TV broadcast providers, cable and satellite providers, trade associations, consumer groups, and individuals to comment on a series of questions and provide RUS, in writing and in informal meetings, any information or analyses they believe to be relevant to the implementation of the loan guarantee program.

Interested parties are requested to submit comments and are encouraged to participate in informal meetings regarding the implementation of a guaranteed loan program to provide the highest quality access to signals of local television stations to the largest number of rural households located in nonserved and underserved areas in the most economical and expedient manner. The questions below should serve as a guide and are not intended to limit comments or discussions regarding the guaranteed loan program.

1. Identify the technologies capable of providing high quality access to local television and the advantages and disadvantages of each (i.e. the financial, operational, and technological risks and rewards). For any wireless technology, what is the availability and estimated cost of sufficient spectrum?

2. What technology or combination of technologies would be the most cost effective method of delivering local TV signals to the largest number of nonserved and underserved rural residences not located in the top 40 designated market areas (as that term is defined in section 122(j) of title17, United States Code)?

3. What is an acceptable minimum quality of service? If a system can be expanded to deliver high quality (HDTV or neat HDTV) service, what criteria should be used to evaluate the system?

4. Identify the revenues and expenses associated with providing local broadcast signals. Discuss industry practices for setting fees for transmitting local signals.

5. What additional factors should be considered to accomplish the goals of the Act?

6. What, if any, effect will “must carry” have on the possible technologies being considered?

The U.S. Census Bureau plans to request approval of the 2002 Census of Governments Local Government Directory Survey data collection forms: Form G-26 (County Governments), Form G-28 (Municipal and Township Governments), Form G-29 (Special District Governments), Form G-30 (Special District Governments), Form G-32 (Public School Systems), and Form G-33 (Public School Systems). These forms will be used for the following purposes: (1) To produce the official count of state and local government units in the United States; (2) to obtain descriptive information on the basic characteristics of governments; (3) to identify and delete inactive units; (4) to identify file duplicates and units that were dependent on other governments; and (5) to update and verify the mailing addresses of governments.

The 2002 Census of Governments Local Government Directory Survey consists of three basic content areas: government organization, government finance, and government employment. For government organization we will ask for authorizing legislation, incorporation date, fiscal year ending date, area served, services provided, web address, and corrections to the name and address of the government. In addition we will ask if special districts have taxing powers, if general purpose governments and special districts own and operate the services they are responsible for providing, if school districts operate schools, and if the government conducts e-government transactions. For government finance we will ask for total revenue, total expenditure, and total debt. For government employment we will ask for full-time employees, part-time employees, and annual payroll.

Each of the 89,000 county governments, consolidated city-county governments, independent cities, towns, townships, special district governments, and public school systems designated for the census will be sent an appropriate form. Respondents will be asked to verify or correct the name and mailing address of the government, answer the questions on the form, and return the form.

The feasibility of electronic data collection will be explored.

OMB Number: None.

Form Number: G-26, G-28, G-29, G-30, G-32, and G-33.

Type of Review: Regular.

Affected Public: County governments, consolidated city-county governments, independent cities, towns, townships, special district governments, and public school systems.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 89,000.

Estimated Time Per Response: 0.25 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 22,250.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $356,000.00.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Legal Authority: Title 13 United States Code, Section 161.

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

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

The Quarterly Financial Report (QFR) Program is planning to resubmit for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) its four data collection forms: Quarterly Financial Report Forms QFR-101 (MG)—long form, QFR-102 (TR)—long form, and QFR-101A(MG)—short form, and QFR-103 (NB)—Nature of Business Report. The current expiration for these forms is December 31, 2001.

The QFR Program has published up-to-date aggregate statistics on the financial results and position of U.S. corporations since 1947. It is a principal economic indicator that also provides financial data essential to calculation of key Government measures of national economic performance. The importance of this data collection is reflected by the granting of specific authority to conduct the program in Title 13 of the United State Code, Section 91, which requires that financial statistics of business operations be collected and published quarterly. Public Law 105-252 extended the authority of the Secretary of Commerce to conduct the QFR Program under Section 91 through September 30, 2005.

The QFR is scheduled to convert to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) in April 2002 with the publication of the fourth quarter 2001 data. With the adoption of the NAICS, a number of industries currently covered by QFR under the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system will be out of scope. Specifically, QFR will no longer collect data from companies primarily engaged in Publishing and Printing, except Commercial Printing; Logging; and Eating and Drinking Places. Publishing and Printing was moved to the NAICS’ Information sector; Logging to the Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting sector; Eating and Drinking Places to the Accommodation and Food Services sector. Removal of companies previously operating in these industries will result in a reduction in sample size. That reduction is estimated to be approximately 350 companies or about 4 percent of the current QFR sample. The reduction in the out of scope SIC companies will offset an increase of in-scope NAICS companies. As a result, there will be a minimal change in sample size.

The main purpose of the QFR is to provide timely, accurate data on business financial conditions for use by Government and private-sector organizations and individuals. An extensive subscription mailing list attests to the diverse groups using these data including foreign countries, universities, financial analysts, unions, trade associations, public libraries, banking institutions, and U.S. and foreign corporations. The primary users are U.S. Governmental organizations charged with economic policymaking responsibilities. These organizations play a major role in providing guidance, advice, and support to the QFR Program.

The Census Bureau will use mail out/mail back survey forms to collect data. Companies will be asked to respond to the survey within 25 days of the end of the quarter in which the data are being requested. Letters and/or telephone calls encouraging participation will be directed to respondents that have not responded by the designated time. The QFR has also begun limited optional use of a computer readable medium as a substitute for the completed form; i.e., the Computerized Self-Administered Questionnaire (CSAQ). The CSAQ can be completed and filed electronically via the internet, or by returning a diskette for electronic data capture. The CSAQ contains interactive edits and balancing features making it possible for the respondent to submit fewer data errors resulting in improved data. The number of respondents having optional use of the CSAQ will increase until full implementation which is expected by the fourth quarter 2002 report period. Use of the CSAQ will allow for easier and more timely filing of the QFR report and provide a reduction in respondent cost.

OMB Number: 0607-0432.

Form Numbers: QFR-101 (Sent quarterly to Manufacturing, Mining, and Wholesale Trade corporations with assets of $50 million or more at time of sampling), QFR-102 (Sent quarterly to Retail Trade corporations with assets of $50 million or more at time of sampling), QFR-101A (Sent quarterly to Manufacturing corporations with assets of less than $50 million at time of sampling), and QFR-103 (Sent at the beginning of sampling selection and at 2-year intervals if the corporation is included in the sample for more than eight quarters).

Type of Review: Regular Review.

Affected Public: Manufacturing corporations with assets of $250 thousand or more and Mining, and Wholesale and Retail Trade corporations with assets of $50 million or more.

Estimated Number of Respondents: Form QFR-101—3,388 per quarter, 13,552 annually. Form QFR-102—497 per quarter, 1,988 annually. Form QFR-101A—4,340 per quarter, 17,360 annually. Form QFR-103—1,225 per quarter, 4,900 annually.

Estimated Time Per Response: The average for all respondents is about 2.1 hours. For companies completing form QFR 101 or QFR-102, the range is from less than 1 to 10 hours, averaging 3.75 hours. For companies completing form QFR-101A, the range is less than 1 hour to 3 hours, averaging 1.2 hours. For companies completing form QFR-103, the range is from 1 to 4 hours, averaging 2.4 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 78,000.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $1,450,000.

Respondents' Obligation: Mandatory.

Legal Authority: Title 13 United States Code, Sections 91 and 224.

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

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

The agenda for the meeting on April 26, which will begin at 9 a.m. and adjourn at 5:15 p.m., is as follows:

• Introductory Remarks by the Acting Director, Census Bureau, and the Principal Associate Director for Programs, Census Bureau

• Census Bureau Responses to Committee Recommendations

• Next Generation Information Products for Posting on the Census Bureau Web Site at <www.census.gov>

• Census 2000 Adjustment Decision

• Survey of the Advisory Committees

• E-Business Supplement to the Annual Survey of Manufactures

• Expanding the Census Bureau Data Dissemination Network

• Insights Gained from Analysis of State Unemployment Data by Longitudinal Employer Household Dynamics Staff

• Evaluations of the Census 2000 Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation Survey

• Experimental Measures of Poverty: A Progress Report

• Evaluating Census 2000 Products

• Customer Service Week

The agenda for the meeting on April 27, which will begin at 9 a.m. and adjourn at 12:30 p.m., is as follows:

• Chief Economist Update

• 2010 Planning Update

• Develop Recommendations and Address Special Interest Activities

• Closing Session

The meeting is open to the public, and a brief period is set aside, during the closing session, for public comment and questions. Those persons with extensive questions or statements must submit them in writing to the Census Bureau Committee Liaison Officer. Individuals wishing additional information or minutes regarding this meeting may contact the Officer as well. Her address and phone number are identified under this notice's FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should also be directed to the Census Bureau Committee Liaison Officer.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“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 the regulations at 19 C.F.R. part 351 (1999).

The review of “certain cold-rolled carbon steel flat products” covers cold-rolled (cold-reduced) carbon steel flat-rolled products, of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 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 Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTS”) under item numbers 7209.15.0000, 7209.16.0030, 7209.16.0060, 7209.16.0090, 7209.17.0030, 7209.17.0060, 7209.17.0090, 7209.18.1530, 7209.18.1560, 7209.18.2550, 7209.18.6000, 7209.25.0000, 7209.26.0000, 7209.27.0000, 7209.28.0000, 7209.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.23.1500, 7211.23.2000, 7211.23.3000, 7211.23.4500, 7211.23.6030, 7211.23.6060, 7211.23.6085, 7211.29.2030, 7211.29.2090, 7211.29.4500, 7211.29.6030, 7211.29.6080, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7215.50.0015, 7215.50.0060, 7215.50.0090, 7215.90.5000, 7217.10.1000, 7217.10.2000, 7217.10.3000, 7217.10.7000, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090. Included in this 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 beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this review is certain shadow mask steel, i.e., aluminum-killed, cold-rolled steel coil that is open-coil annealed, has a carbon content of less than 0.002 percent, is of 0.003 to 0.012 inch in thickness, 15 to 30 inches in width, and has an ultra flat, isotropic surface.

The review of “certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products” covers 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 HTS 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 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 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.

These HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes. The written descriptions remain dispositive.

On January 16, 2001, the Department published the final results of its administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on certain cold-rolled and corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Korea, for the period August 1, 1998 through July 31, 1999. See Certain Cold-rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 66 FR 3540 (hereinafter “Final Results”). The reviews covered shipments of subject merchandise by Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. (“Dongbu”), Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (“Union”), and Pohang Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. (“POSCO”). (POSCO and the companies collapsed with POSCO (Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS”) and Pohang Steel Industries Co., Ltd. (“PSI”), are collectively referred to as “the POSCO Group.”)

On January 22, 2001, Union submitted clerical error allegations with respect to its margin calculations, and Petitioners submitted clerical error allegations with respect to POSCO's margin calculations. On January 23, 2001, POSCO submitted clerical error allegations with respect to its margin calculations. On January 29, 2001, Petitioners and POSCO submitted comments on each other's respective allegations. The allegations and comments were filed in a timely fashion.

Comment 1: Union alleges that the Department committed a clerical error, when, in implementing the fungibility principle adopted in the Final Results, it failed to employ a methodology which eliminates the double-counting of imputed credit expenses. Union proposes to the Department a methodology that it says is correct and consistent with the Department's statements in the Final Results. Union argues that the first step in the Department's calculation of the U.S. Indirect Selling Expense (“ISEs”) interest factor should be to identify the amount of actual interest expense allocated to Cold-Rolled (“CR”) and Corrosion-Resistant (“CORE”) as shown in Union's calculations. Only after identifying the amount of interest expense allocated can the Department perform an “apples-to-apples” calculation and deduct the amount of imputed credit expenses calculated for CR and CORE to determine if there is any basis to “add any remainder to the pool of ISEs.” Union claims that with its proposed methodology, the Department would find that Union's ISE for CR and CORE consist solely of non-financial ISEs.

Petitioners state this clerical error allegation argues the merit of an alternative methodology for calculating Union's imputed credit expenses, and that Union concedes that its argument is methodological, not ministerial. Petitioners conclude that as the alleged error is not ministerial, but methodological, Union's allegation with respect to the Department's methodology must be rejected.

Department's position: After reviewing both parties' comments, we have determined that the above mentioned points raised by Union do not meet the definition of ministerial error under section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f). The Department's decision of whether to calculate imputed credit expenses for all merchandise when correcting for double counting is not a mistake of “addition or subtraction or other arithmetic function” or “other similar types of unintentional error” within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.224(f). Instead, this allegation suggests a distinct methodology for correcting this double-counting. See Final Results, 66 FR at 3541 and accompanying Issues and Decision Memo at Comment 1.

Comment 2: Union argues that the Department erred in its calculation of Union's U.S. indirect selling expense (“ISE”) factor. Specifically, the Department failed to eliminate the double-counting of actual interest expenses and imputed credit expenses in its calculation by first subtracting imputed credit from net interest expenses and then adding imputed credit back to net interest expenses rather then adding the indirect selling expenses to the remaining interest expenses.

Petitioners agreed with Union that the Department made a clerical error in its calculations of Union's U.S. ISEs. The Department erroneously both subtracted from and added U.S. imputed credit expenses to the financial expense component of DKA's indirect selling expenses and thus failed to account for any double-counting of credit. Petitioners stated that in order to correct this error, the Department should correct its definitions of “interest factor” and “ISE Factor” such that non-financial ISEs are included in the ISEs calculations. Non-financial ISEs are presently omitted from the Department's calculations.

Department's Position: We reviewed the allegation and response and we agree with Union and Petitioners that there is an unintentional error in our calculation of Union's U.S. ISE Factor. Specifically, when the Department attempted to eliminate the double counting of imputed credit expenses in its calculation, it did not intend to both add and subtract U.S. imputed credit expense in the calculation. See Final Results, 66 FR at 3541 and accompanying Issues and Decision Memo at Comment 1. Accordingly, we recalculated the interest factor by deducting the imputed credit expense from the interest factor. We then recalculated the U.S. indirect selling expenses by using the corrected interest factor. We have corrected both our ISE calculations and the implementing programming language. See, the Memorandum from Marlene Hewitt to Edward Yang, dated February 16, 2001.

Comment 3: Union alleges that the Department erred by applying its VAT correction factor to local sales when calculating home market credit expenses. Specifically, Union argues that the Department should not have applied the VAT correction factor to local sales because the credit expense for local sales was calculated on a shipment by shipment basis. Instead, Union points out that it is the Department's practice to only apply the VAT correction factor to home market credit expenses reported using the receivables turnover methodology.

Petitioners stated that they agree with Union that the Department made a clerical error by applying its VAT correction factor for home market credit expenses to Union's local sales.

Department's Position: We agree with Union and Petitioners that the Department inadvertently applied its correction factor for calculating home market credit expenses to local sales. We have corrected the program to distinguish between local sales and home market sales that reported credit expense using the receivables-turnover method and applied the home credit expense only to home market sales that were reported using the receivables-turnover method. See, the Memorandum from Marlene Hewitt to Edward Yang, dated February 16, 2001.

Comment 1: POSCO alleges that the Department committed a clerical error when, in implementing the fungibility principle adopted in the Final Results, (66 FR at 3541), it failed to allocate the U.S. affiliate's interest expenses to all activities (sales and investment) of the U.S. affiliate. Specifically, POSCO argues that the Department allocated the total interest expenses to the total sales, whereas the affiliate also has significant investment activities i.e. a joint venture. POSCO concludes that the Department should recalculate interest expense also considering the investment activities of affiliates.

Petitioners argue that the asserted “ministerial error” raised by POSCO is not the type of unintentional error listed in section 735(e) of the Act or 19 CFR 351.224(f) of the regulations. POSCO does not point to any incorrect operations of addition, subtraction, or any other arithmetic function. Instead, the issue POSCO raises deals with what methodology best allocates POSAM's U.S. interest expenses to subject merchandise. According to Petitioners, the Department's decision, which correctly assigned the financial indirect selling expenses of POSAM to the sales revenues that are absorbing those costs is not an unintentional ministerial error, but is instead an intentional methodological decision which the Department took after weighing POSCO's extensive briefing on this topic.

Department's Position: After reviewing POSCO's and Petitioners comments, we have determined that the above mentioned points raised by POSCO do not meet the definition of ministerial error under section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f). The Department's decision of whether to allocate interest expense to the activities of the joint venture is not a mistake of “addition or subtraction or other arithmetic function” or “other similar types of unintentional error” within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.224(f). Instead, this allegation suggests a distinct methodology for including interest expenses incurred by U.S. affiliates in the pool of U.S. ISEs. For a full discussion of the Department's methodological choice see the Final Results 66 FR at 3541 and its accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.

Comment 2: POSCO alleges that the Department committed a clerical error by failing to correct for double-counting of imputed credit expenses and inventory financing expenses. Specifically, when the Department adjusted interest expenses to avoid double-counting, it subtracted only those imputed credit expenses associated with subject merchandise and failed to subtract imputed credit expenses associated with non-subject merchandise. In addition, POSCO argues that under the fungibility principle that the Department adopted for its Final Result, (66 FR at 3541 and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1), all debt and equity finance all assets. Thus, the interest expense is by definition attributable, in part, to financing U.S. inventories. However, the Department's calculations erroneously failed to eliminate this portion of expense from the total interest expense.

Petitioners argue that the Department's decision not to deduct imputed credit expenses for non-subject merchandise was an intentional methodological decision, not a ministerial error. POSCO points to no arithmetic error or clerical error to support a ministerial error allegation. Instead, Petitioners assert that the issue POSCO raises deals with what methodology best accounts for imputed credit expenses on non-subject merchandise in U.S. interest expenses in order to avoid double-counting. POSCO's argument that the Department must deduct imputed credit expenses on non-subject merchandise from U.S. interest expense in order to avoid double-counting is wrong. According to Petitioners, the Department's margin calculations do not deduct imputed or actual credit expenses related to non-subject merchandise from U.S. price as suggested by POSCO. The Department should refuse to consider POSCO's second alleged “ministerial error” claim.

Department's Position: After reviewing POSCO's comments, we have determined that the above mentioned points raised by POSCO do not meet the definition of ministerial error in section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f). The Department's decision that no portion of U.S. interest expenses should be segregated and attributed to non-subject merchandise sales is not a mistake of “addition or subtraction or other arithmetic function” or “other similar types of unintentional error” within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.224(f). See Final Results, 66 FR at 3541 and accompanying Issues and Decision Memo at Comment 1.

Comment 3: Petitioners allege that the Department committed a clerical error when it attempted to offset total interest with interest income in the U.S. ISE calculations. Specifically, Petitioners argue that the Department used the total interest income as an offset, whereas it should have limited the offset to short-term interest income, as it is the Department's longstanding policy to allow an offset only for interest income that is short-term in nature.

POSCO argues that the Department correctly and appropriately relied on net interest expense as the starting point for calculating the interest expense component of POSCO's U.S. indirect selling expense. As indicated in the Decision Memorandum, the Department's calculation of U.S. indirect selling expenses includes all “money”, i.e. interest expense and interest income, of the U.S. affiliate. The Department's calculations thus correctly execute the Department's intent to include total interest expense and total interest income in the calculation of U.S. ISEs. Petitioners allegation of a clerical error should be rejected by the Department.

Department's Position: After reviewing Petitioners' and POSCO's comments, we have determined that the above mentioned points raised by Petitioners do not meet the definition of ministerial error under section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f). Our treatment of the interest income, used to offset the interest expense included in POSCO's U.S. indirect selling expenses, is not a mistake of “addition or subtraction or other arithmetic function” or “other similar types of unintentional error” within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.224(f).

Comment 4: Petitioners argue that the Department erred in making an adjustment to home market credit expenses in the corrosion-resistant margin calculations. Specifically, the adjusting factor was mis-typed at one point in the program.

Department's Position: We agree with Petitioners that the Department created a ministerial error in making this adjustment to home market credit in the corrosion-resistant margin program. The adjusting factor was incorrect. The Department has corrected the program accordingly.

Comment 5: Petitioners argue that the Department erred in creating two additional U.S. tolerance weights used in the cold-rolled margin program by naming them “CRTOLERM” rather than “CRTOLERS.”

Department's Position: We agree with Petitioners. The Department intended to name the tolerance weights “CRTOLERS”. We have corrected the program accordingly.

The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service (“Customs”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b), we have calculated exporter/importer-specific assessment rates. With respect to both export price and constructed export price sales, we divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for each importer. We will direct Customs to assess the resulting percentage margins against the entered Customs values for the subject merchandise on each of that importer's entries under the relevant order during the review period.

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of amended final results of administrative reviews for all shipments of cold-rolled and corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above except that, for firms whose weighted-average margins are less than 0.5 percent and therefore de minimis, the Department shall require no deposit of estimated antidumping duties; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less than fair value (“LTFV”) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 14.44 percent (for certain cold-rolled carbon steel flat products) or 17.70 percent (for certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products). These rates are the “all others” rates from the LTFV investigations. See Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea, 58 FR 44159 (August 19, 1993).

These deposit requirements 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)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary 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. Effective January 20, 2001, Bernard T. Carreau is fulfilling the duties of Assistant Secretary of Import Administration.

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

On September 7, 2000, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on grain-oriented electrical steel from Italy. See Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel From Italy: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 54215 (“Preliminary Results”). The period of administrative review (“POR”) is August 1, 1998, through July 31, 1999. This review covers one manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States. We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results. On November 15, 2000, we received case briefs from Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A. and Acciai Speciali Terni USA, Inc. (collectively, “AST”), the sole respondent in this case, and from Allegheny Ludlum Corp., AK Steel, the Butler Armco Independent Union, the United Steelworkers of America, and the Zanesville Armco Independent Union (hereinafter the “petitioners”). Both parties filed rebuttal briefs on November 27, 2000. At AST's request, a public hearing was held on January 29, 2001. The Department issued to AST an additional supplemental questionnaire dealing with in-bond transaction issues on February 13, 2001. AST responded to this questionnaire on February 20, 2001, and petitioners commented on this AST response on February 22, 2001. AST and petitioners filed additional submissions pertaining to in-bond transactions on February 26, 2001 and February 27, 2001, respectively. The Department has conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act.

The product covered by this review is grain-oriented silicon electrical steel, which is a flat-rolled alloy steel product containing by weight at least 0.6 percent of silicon, not more than 0.08 percent of carbon, not more than 1.0 percent of aluminum, and no other element in an amount that would give the steel the characteristics of another alloy steel, of a thickness of no more than 0.560 millimeters, in coils of any width, or in straight lengths which are of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) under item numbers 7225.30.7000, 7225.40.7000, 7225.50.8085, 7225.99.0090, 7226.11.1000, 7226.11.9030, 7226.11.9060, 7226.91.7000, 7226.91.8000, 7226.92.5000, 7226.92.7050, 7226.92.8050, 7226.99.0000, 7228.30.8050, and 7229.90.1000. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written descriptions of the scope of these proceedings are 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”) from Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Enforcement Group III, 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 Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in room B-099 of the Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. 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 in the margin calculations. These changes are discussed in the relevant section of the Decision Memorandum.

We determine that a margin of zero percent exists for sales of subject merchandise by AST for the period August 1, 1998 through July 31, 1999. The Department shall instruct the U.S. Customs Service to liquidate all appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. The Department will also instruct Customs to release any cash deposits or bonds posted. If applicable, the Department will further instruct Customs to refund with interest any cash deposits on entries made from August 1, 1998 through July 31, 1999.

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of grain-oriented electrical steel from Italy, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a) of the Act: (1) for AST, the Department shall require no deposit of estimated antidumping duties; (2) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 60.79 percent, the “all others” rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.

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

This 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 terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

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

On December 1, 1999, the Department initiated (64 FR 67247), and the Commission instituted (64 FR 67318), sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders and the countervailing duty order on GOES from Italy and Japan pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. As a result of these reviews, the Department found that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and notified the Commission of the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail were the orders revoked.1 In addition, the Department found that revocation of the countervailing duty order would likely lead to continuation of a countervailable subsidy and notified the Commission of the net subsidy likely to prevail, as well as the nature of the subsidy.2

On March 1, 2001, the Commission determined, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the antidumping duty orders and the countervailing duty order on GOES from Italy and Japan would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.3

The scope of these orders includes GOES, which is a flat-rolled alloy steel product containing by weight at least 0.6 percent of silicon, not more than 0.08 percent of carbon, not more than 1.0 percent of aluminum, and no other element in an amount that would give the steel the characteristics of another alloy steel, of a thickness of no more than 0.56 millimeters, in coils of any width, or in straight lengths which are of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) under item numbers 7225.10.0030, 7226.10.1030, 7226.10.5015, and 7226.10.5056. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written descriptions of the scope of these orders are dispositive.

As a result of the determinations by the Department and the Commission that revocation of the antidumping duty orders and the countervailing duty order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or countervailable subsidies, 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 orders and the countervailing duty order on GOES from Italy and Japan. 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)(A) 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 of Commerce's (the Department's) regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (April 1999).

On September 7, 2000, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on gray portland cement and clinker from Mexico. Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Gray Portland Cement and Clinker From Mexico, 65 FR 54220 (September 7, 2000) (preliminary results). On January 5, 2001, and January 31, 2001, the Department published notices of extension of final results. Gray Portland Cement and Clinker From Mexico; Notice of Extension of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 1078 (January 5, 2001) and 66 FR 8384 (January 31, 2001). As discussed in detail in the preliminary results of review, we have collapsed CEMEX and CDC for this review and calculated a single weighted-average margin for these companies.

We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act.

The products covered by this review include gray portland cement and clinker. Gray portland cement is a hydraulic cement and the primary component of concrete. Clinker, an intermediate material product produced when manufacturing cement, has no use other than being ground into finished cement. Gray portland cement is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item number 2523.29 and cement clinker is currently classifiable under HTS item number 2523.10. Gray portland cement has also been entered under HTS item number 2523.90 as “other hydraulic cements.” The HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The Department's written description remains dispositive as to the scope of the product coverage.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by interested parties to this administrative review are addressed in the “Decision Memorandum for the Final Results” (Decision Memorandum) from Richard W. Moreland, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to Bernard T. Carreau, Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD Enforcement II, dated March 5, 2001, which is hereby adopted into this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Department Building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Based on our analysis of comments received, we have reclassified certain reported export price sales as constructed export price sales and made certain changes in the margin calculations. We have also corrected certain programming and clerical errors in our preliminary results, where applicable. These changes as well as any alleged programming or clerical errors with which we do not agree are discussed in the relevant sections of the Decision Memorandum.

We determine that the following weighted-average margin exists for the collapsed parties, CEMEX and CDC, for the period August 1, 1998, through July 31, 1999:

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b), we have calculated an exporter/importer-specific assessment value. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.

The following deposit requirements shall be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of gray portland cement and clinker from Mexico, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for CEMEX/CDC will be 39.34 percent; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this or any previous reviews or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 61.85 percent, which was the “all others” rate in the LTFV investigation. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Mexico, 55 FR 29244 ( July 18, 1990).

The deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

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

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

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

Chapter 19 of the North American Free-Trade Agreement (“Agreement”) establishes a mechanism to replace domestic judicial review of final determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with review by independent binational panels. When a Request for Panel Review is filed, a panel is established to act in place of national courts to review expeditiously the final determination to determine whether it conforms with the antidumping or countervailing duty law of the country that made the determination.

Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, which came into force on January 1, 1994, the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada and the Government of Mexico established Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews (“Rules”). These Rules were published in the Federal Register on February 23, 1994 (59 FR 8686).

A first request for Panel Review was filed with the United States Section of the NAFTA Secretariat, pursuant to Article 1904 of the Agreement, on February 23, 2001, requesting panel review of the final determination described above.

The Rules provide that:

(a) A Party or interested person may challenge the final determination in whole or in part by filing a Complaint in accordance with Rule 39 within 30 days after the filing of the first request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Complaint is March 26, 2001);

(b) A Party, investigating authority or interested person that does not file a Complaint but that intends to appear in support of any reviewable portion of the final determination may participate in the panel review by filing a Notice of Appearance in accordance with Rule 40 within 45 days after the filing of the first request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Notice of Appearance is April 9, 2001); and

(c) The panel review shall be limited to the allegations of error of fact or law, including the jurisdiction of the investigating authority, that are set out in the Complaints filed in the panel review and the procedural and substantive defenses raised in the panel review.

The Advisory Committee to the U.S. Section to ICCAT will meet in open session to discuss: (1) 2000 ICCAT meeting results and U.S. implementation of ICCAT decisions, (2) NMFS and ICCAT research and monitoring activities, (3) recent work of the Food and Agriculture Organization, (4) Advisory Committee operational issues, (5) consultation regarding the identification of countries that are diminishing the effectiveness of ICCAT, (6) the results of the meetings of the Committee’s Species Working Groups, and (7) other matters relating to the international management of ICCAT species. The public will have access to the open sessions of the meeting, but there will be no opportunity for public comment.

The Advisory Committee will go into executive session during the afternoon of April 9 and the morning of April 10 to discuss sensitive information, including upcoming intersessional meetings of ICCAT. These sessions are not open to the public. Sessions of the Advisory Committee’s Species Working Groups will not be open to the public, but the results of the working group discussions will be reported in open session on April 10.

The meeting locations are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Rachel Husted at (301) 713-2276 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

On December 5, 2000, notice was published in the Federal Register (65 FR 75924) that a request for a public display permit to import one adult female killer whale (Orcinus orca) had been submitted by the above-named organization. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), and the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216).

You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information about the meeting.

Under the Medicare program, eligible beneficiaries may receive covered services in an ambulatory surgical center (ASC) provided certain requirements are met. Section 1832(a)(2)(F)(i) of the Social Security Act (the Act) includes the requirements that an ASC have an agreement in effect with the Secretary and meet health, safety, and other standards specified by the Secretary in regulations. Regulations concerning supplier agreements are at 42 CFR part 489 and those pertaining to activities relating to the survey and certification of facilities are at 42 CFR part 488. Our regulations at 42 CFR 416 specify the conditions that an ASC must meet in order to participate in the Medicare program, the scope of covered services, and the conditions for Medicare payment for facility services.

Generally, in order to enter into an agreement, an ASC must first be certified by a State survey agency as complying with the conditions or requirements set forth in part 416 of our regulations. Then, the ASC is subject to regular surveys by a State survey agency to determine whether it continues to meet these requirements. There is an alternative, however, to surveys by State agencies.

Section 1865(b)(1) of the Act provides that if the Secretary finds that accreditation of a provider entity by a national accreditation body demonstrates that all of the applicable conditions and requirements are met or exceeded, the Secretary shall deem those provider entities as meeting the applicable Medicare requirements. Section 1865(b)(2) of the Act further requires that the Secretary's findings consider the applying accreditation organization's requirements for accreditation, its survey procedures, its ability to provide adequate resources for conducting required surveys and ability to supply information for use in enforcement activities, its monitoring procedures for provider entities found out of compliance with the conditions or requirements, and its ability to provide the Secretary with necessary data for validation. Section 1865(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that the Secretary publish within 60 days of receipt of a completed application, a notice identifying the national accreditation body making the request, describing the nature of the request, and providing at least a 30-day public comment period. In addition, the Secretary has 210 days from the receipt of the request to publish a finding of approval or denial of the application.

Providers of health care services participate in Medicare and Medicaid programs pursuant to provider agreements with HCFA (for Medicare) and State Medicaid agencies (for Medicaid). Generally, in order to enter into a provider agreement, an entity must first be certified by a State survey agency as complying with the conditions or standards set forth in Federal law and regulations. Providers are subject to regular surveys by State survey agencies to determine whether the provider continues to meet these requirements.

A provider deemed through accreditation is one that has voluntarily applied for and been accredited by a national accreditation program that HCFA has determined applies and enforces standards that meet or exceed the applicable Medicare conditions or requirements. Section 1865(b) of the Act essentially permits these deemed providers of services to be exempt from routine surveys by State survey agencies to determine compliance with Medicare requirements. If the Secretary finds that the accreditation of the provider by the national accreditation body demonstrates that all the Medicare conditions and standards are met or exceeded, then the Secretary would “deem” the requirements to be met by the provider entity.

A national accrediting organization may request the Secretary to recognize its program. The Secretary then examines the national accreditation organization's accreditation requirements to determine if they meet or exceed the Medicare conditions as HCFA would have applied them. If the Secretary recognizes an accreditation organization in this manner, any provider accredited by the national accrediting body's HCFA approved program for that service will be “deemed” to meet the Medicare conditions of coverage. To date, three such organizations have been recognized to have deeming authority for their ambulatory surgical programs: the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Organizations, the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care, and the American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgery Facilities, Inc.

The purpose of this notice is to notify the public of the request of American Osteopathic Association (AOA) for approval of its request that the Secretary find its accreditation program for ambulatory surgical centers meet or exceed the Medicare conditions. This notice also solicits public comments on the ability of this organization to develop and apply standards to ASCs which meet or exceed the Medicare conditions for coverage. Our regulations concerning approval of accrediting organizations are at 42 CFR 488.4, 488.6, and 488.8.

The regulations specifying the Medicare conditions for coverage for ambulatory surgical centers are located in 42 CFR part 416. These conditions implement section 1832(a)(2)(F)(i) of the Act, which provides for Medicare Part B coverage of facility services furnished in connection with surgical procedures specified by the Secretary under section 1833(i)(1)(a) of the Act.

Under section 1865(b)(2) of the Act and our regulations at § 488.8 (Federal review of accreditation organizations) our review and evaluation of a national accreditation organization will be conducted in accordance with, but not necessarily limited to, the following factors:

• The equivalency of an accreditation organization's requirements for an entity to our comparable requirements for the entity.

• The organization's survey process to determine the following:

• The composition of the survey team, surveyor qualifications, and the ability of the organization to provide continuing surveyor training.

• The comparability of its processes to that of State agencies, including survey frequency, and the ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited facilities.

• The organization's procedures for monitoring providers or suppliers found by the organization to be out of compliance with program requirements. These monitoring procedures are used only when the organization identifies noncompliance. If noncompliance is identified through validation reviews, the survey agency monitors corrections as specified at § 488.7(d).

• The ability of the organization to report deficiencies to the surveyed facilities and respond to the facility's plan of correction in a timely manner.

• The ability of the organization to provide us with electronic data in ASCII comparable code, and reports necessary for effective validation and assessment of the organization's survey process.

• The adequacy of staff and other resources, and its financial viability.

• The organization's ability to provide adequate funding for performing required surveys.

• The organization's policies with respect to whether surveys are announced or unannounced.

• The accreditation organization's agreement to provide us with a copy of the most current accreditation survey together with any other information related to the survey as we may require (including corrective action plans).

Upon completion of our evaluation, including evaluation of comments received as a result of this notice, we will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the result of our evaluation.

Because of the large number of comments we normally receive on Federal Register documents published for comment, we are not able to acknowledge or respond to them individually. We will consider all comments we receive by the date and time specified in the DATES section of this preamble and will respond to them in a forthcoming rulemaking document.

In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this notice was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

A CRADA is the anticipated joint agreement to be entered into by NICHD and a collaborator pursuant to the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 (15 U.S.C. 3710 a), as amended. A CRADA is an agreement designed to enable certain collaborations between Government laboratories and non-Government laboratories. It is not a grant, and is not a contract for the procurement of goods/services. THE NICHD IS PROHIBITED FROM TRANSFERRING FUNDS TO A CRADA COLLABORATOR. Under a CRADA, the NICHD can offer the selected collaborator access to facilities, staff, materials, and expertise. The collaborator may contribute facilities, staff, materials, expertise, and funding to the collaboration. A CRADA collaborator may elect an option to an exclusive or non-exclusive license to Government intellectual patent rights arising under the CRADA, and may qualify as a co-inventor of new technology developed under the CRADA. As between two or more sufficient, overlapping research proposals (where the overlap cannot be cured), the NICHD, as specified in 15 U.S.C. 3710a(c)(4), will give special consideration to small businesses, and will give preference to business units located in the U.S. that agree to manufacture CRADA products in the U.S.

The CRADA will employ a MATER null mouse line to examine the role of MATER in maintaining oocyte quality so as to support healthy early embryonic development. The project goal is to determine if abnormalities in the amount or quality of oocyte MATER content play a role in some cases of human infertility that is generally ascribed to “poor egg quality” or a failure of early embryonic development. A strategy should be developed to measure MATER's biologic activity, to determine the MATER content of human oocytes, and to detect MATER gene mutations. Preimplantation mouse oocytes and embryos may be used for protein analysis and profiling. Basic science expertise as applied to oocyte function in animal models and in the clinical setting will be required.

The described methods are the subject of a U.S. provisional patent application filed October 18, 2000 by the Public Health Service on behalf of the Federal Government. Furthermore, the initial report and characterization of the invention is described in: Tong et al., Mamm. Genome 11:281-287, 2000. Commercialization of new CRADA technology may require obtaining an appropriate PHS license.

The collaborator in this endeavor is expected to commit scientific personnel commensurate with the level of research activities defined by the CRADA Research Plan. It is anticipated that PHS laboratories and/or those of the collaborator will be utilized, as appropriate, for the research activities as defined by the Research Plan. NICHD anticipates, in addition, that the Collaborator, as appropriate, will provide funding for the project.

Party Contributions: The NICHD anticipates that its role may include, but not be limited to, the following:

(1) Plan research studies, interpret research results, and, as appropriate, jointly publish the conclusions with the collaborator;

(2) Provide collaborator with access to existing NICHD research data (both already collected and yet to be collected);

(3) Provide staff, expertise, and materials for the development and testing of promising products;

(4) Provide work space and equipment for testing of any prototype compositions developed.

The NICHD anticipates that the role of the successful collaborator will include the following:

(1) Provide significant intellectual, scientific, and technical expertise in the development and manufacture of relevant products;

(2) Plan research studies, interpret research results, and, as appropriate, jointly publish the conclusions; and

(3) Provide NICHD a supply of necessary materials, access to necessary proprietary technology and/or data, and as necessary for the project, staff and funding in support of the research goals.

Other contributions may be necessary for particular proposals.

Selection Criteria: Proposals submitted for consideration should address, as best as possible and to the extent relevant to the proposal, each of the following:

(1) Expertise:

A. Scientific advisors and staff with a demonstrated record of research success related to diagnostic and therapeutic interventions associated with human fertility.

(i) The technical expertise of the Collaborator's Principal Investigator and laboratory group in the technology described above,

(2) Reliability as a research partner:

A. Willingness to commit best effort and to provide adequate and sustained resources and/or funding, as appropriate, to support the CRADA studies, and

B. Development of this technology, as outlined in the CRADA Collaborator's proposal, and

C. Ability to develop and produce products in a timely manner, as applicable (for example, as demonstrated by a history of meeting benchmarks in licenses), and

D. Commitment to supporting the advancement of scientific research, as evidenced by a willingness to jointly publish research results in a prompt manner, and

E. Willingness to be bound by DHHS and PHS policies regarding:

(i) The public distribution of unmodified genetic sequences and research tools,

(ii) The care and handling of animals, and

(iii) Testing in human subjects.

(3) Physical Resources:

A. An established headquarters, with office space and basic office equipment, and

B. Access to the organization during business hours by telephone, facsimile, courier, U.S. Post, e-mail, the World-Wide-Web, and, as appropriate, other evolving information technologies, and

C. Sufficient financial and material resources to support, at a minimum, the anticipated activities of the CRADA to meet the needs of NICHD under the proposal.

The collaborator is encouraged to propose, in the written research statement, related applications and technologies other than those specifically described herein.

This document reflects the Service's findings on the conditions under which the Service could conclude that a proposed watercraft access facility is unlikely to cause a “take” of manatees, as defined in the Endangered Species Act § 3(18) and 50 CFR 17.3, as well as the measures that an individual seeking permission to build a watercraft access facility could incorporate into the design of a project in order to reduce the likelihood of incidental take to a level of not likely to occur. These conditions and measures were developed using the best scientific and commercial data available. Because section 7 consultation also requires the Service to make determinations on the effect of a Federal action based on the best scientific and commercial data available, the Service will use the guidelines described in this document to fulfill its section 7 consultation responsibilities during the time this guidance is available for public comment. These guidelines may change as information is received through the public comment process, if new or more detailed information is brought to the attention of the Service.

The West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) was first provided Federal protection in 1967 through its listing as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966. The manatee continued to be listed as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). Additional Federal protection was provided through the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972.

Watercraft-related manatee mortality and increasing mortality trends have been documented since collection of manatee mortality data began in 1974. The addition of new watercraft into Florida's waters has the potential to adversely affect manatees. The Service is presently preparing MMPA regulations regarding the circumstances under which the incidental take of manatees associated with watercraft access facilities may be authorized. The principle purpose of this guidance document is to provide assistance in determining appropriate measures for eliminating any project-related adverse effects from watercraft collisions to manatees, and to guide the Service in evaluating requests for letters of concurrence, requests for initiation of consultation, and during formal consultation to identify measures which eliminate the risk of incidental take of manatees. More specifically, one purpose of this guidance document is to set forth the conditions under which the Service could make a determination that incidental take, as a result of watercraft collisions, is unlikely to occur so that particular project could proceed prior to the issuance of MMPA rules. Watercraft access facilities are defined as marinas, ramps, launches, slips, docks, dry storage facilities, moorings, and similar structures.

Under section 7 of the ESA and its implementing regulations, if a Federal action agency determines that a project is not likely to adversely affect a listed species, the action agency must obtain the Service's written concurrence regarding that determination [see 50 CFR 402.14(b)]. If a Federal action agency makes an initial determination that a proposed project is likely to adversely affect manatees, the action agency must request the Service to initiate formal consultation unless the Service and the action agency subsequently agree during informal consultation that the project is not likely to have any adverse effects on manatees. Once formal consultation is initiated, except as provided for in 50 CFR 402.14(l), the Service must render a biological opinion on whether the Federal action is likely to jeopardize any listed species or is likely to adversely modify designated critical habitat. In addition, the Service must anticipate any incidental take that may occur as a result of the action. If the Service does not anticipate that the action will result in incidental take, then the Service must make a clear statement to that effect in the biological opinion. If the Service does anticipate that incidental take may occur as a result of the action, it must determine whether that incidental take is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. If not, then the Service must exempt such incidental take, provided the incidental take is otherwise lawful. Because all marine mammals are also protected by the MMPA, the Service cannot exempt incidental take for manatees under ESA, unless incidental take regulations are promulgated under MMPA. For the Service to promulgate incidental take regulations under the MMPA, an entity must request that the Service prepare incidental take regulations under the MMPA. For such projects which the Service determines will not result in jeopardy or adverse modification of critical habitat, yet in the Service's opinion is likely to result in the incidental take of manatees, the Service intends to exercise its authority under the ESA to issue biological opinions that make clear that the project may contribute to incidental take of manatees, and incidental take may not be exempted in the absence of MMPA incidental take regulations.

Direct effects of watercraft access facilities on manatees and essential features of manatee habitat (such as seagrasses), including those arising from the location, design, and construction of facilities, and dredging and filling, will be addressed at the time of the Service's review of the permit application and are not the focus of this interim strategy. In analyzing such effects, including those on seagrasses and other important features of manatee habitat, we will analyze the extent to which such effects are addressed by local Manatee Protection Plans, State review, and other protective conservation measures, such as standard construction precautions to protect manatees during construction. Standard construction conditions have been used throughout the range of the manatee for more than a decade and have proven to reduce the effects to manatees within the facility footprint.

This interim strategy is not designed as a means to allow projects to circumvent formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA, which is required whenever a project is likely to adversely affect a federally-listed species or its critical habitat. We recognize that, in some cases, the incorporation of conservation measures into project designs will not reduce the potential for indirect effects to an unlikely to occur level. For example, conservation measures as described in this document may not be enough to reduce incidental take of manatees to an unlikely to occur level in a case where a new watercraft access project is proposed in an area that supports large concentrations of manatees which is already experiencing high watercraft-related manatee injury and mortality. However, we believe that in some cases, because of conditions in a particular area and because of conservation measures incorporated into a project's design, the Service will be able to determine that incidental take is not likely to occur.

The Service believes that increased manatee speed zone enforcement is the primary conservation measure through which proposed projects could reduce the incidental take associated with watercraft collisions to an unlikely to occur level. We believe that in some areas additional law enforcement can be increased to a level which would ensure that an increase in watercraft traffic from a proposed facility will not likely result in incidental take of manatees due to watercraft collisions. Additionally, this increase in law enforcement would provide added benefits to the manatees by ensuring that those watercraft already on the water would also obey the speed zones currently in place. In some situations and locations, other conservation measures besides increased law enforcement may possibly be employed to address the indirect effects of watercraft access projects on manatees. Such other methods could include designating manatee speed zones, improving the signage of existing speed zones, providing law enforcement equipment, or other measures committed to in an agreement or plan that the Federal action agency and the Service believe reduces the potential for incidental take from increased watercraft traffic to an unlikely to occur level. In order for the Service to determine that any such measure is sufficient to reduce the likelihood of incidental take associated with the project, the Service must first find that: (1) Adequate speed zones exist in the areas reasonably anticipated to have increased watercraft traffic as a result of the project; (2) signage in these areas is adequate to ensure that boaters are aware of the speed zones; (3) speed zone enforcement in these areas is, or with project conservation measures will be, sufficient to prevent watercraft collisions from occurring as a result of the project; and (4) these measures must be in place prior to project implementation.

We believe that the conditions and conservation measures addressed in this interim strategy are essential to ensuring that new watercraft access projects do not result in additional watercraft-related mortality or injury to manatees. However, they are only part of the total recovery needs of the manatee. Numerous conservation activities are ongoing to recover the manatee, such as implementation of the recovery plan and any subsequent modifications, development of incidental take regulations under the MMPA, review of federally-designated manatee sanctuaries and refuges, adjustment of speed zone locations, assessment of deregulation of power plants as warm water refugia, and assessment of the effectiveness of law enforcement and public awareness efforts in decreasing or eliminating watercraft-related manatee mortality.

None of these activities alone can address the multiple actions necessary to recover the species. This interim strategy is a very important component of the overall recovery effort, but is designed to be in place only during the time prior to implementation of comprehensive incidental take regulations promulgated under the MMPA. Recovery of the manatee in Florida depends on numerous factors. We recognize that many of these factors (e.g., red tide events) are difficult, if not impossible, to control. Other factors related to recovery will take many partners and years to address. Watercraft mortality is the most significant factor that we can effectively address at this time to aid in manatee recovery.

Recent research indicates that improving adult survival is the most effective way to ensure the long-term survival of the manatee. Since the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (formerly the Florida Department of Environmental Protection) began a carcass recovery program in 1974, about one-third of the documented manatee mortality has been human-related, and watercraft-related mortalities account for about 80 percent of this total. In Florida in 1999, there were 268 documented manatee deaths of which 82 were watercraft-related, the highest number of watercraft-related mortalities recorded for a single year. In addition, a high proportion of the existing manatee population is scarred from one or more collisions with watercraft.

With more than 830,000 vessels registered by the State of Florida and an estimated 400,000 out-of-state vessels, more than one million watercraft use Florida's waterways annually, and the popularity of watercraft recreation continues to grow. While every new watercraft access facility may not directly equate to a watercraft added to the water, cumulatively, the addition of watercraft access points results in increased watercraft use and, in some cases, changes in watercraft travel patterns and modification of manatee behavior.

Watercraft speed zones were established in some coastal Florida counties with high manatee-watercraft collision rates to slow watercraft to reduce collisions. When manatees detect the presence of an oncoming watercraft, they dive and/or swim rapidly to try to get out of its path. Their ability to effectively elude the oncoming watercraft is largely determined by the speed of the approaching watercraft. Given ample time, manatees are able to avoid lethal or injurious encounters with watercraft. Therefore, slow-moving watercraft are less of a threat to manatees.

To date, several compliance studies have been conducted to measure the extent to which boaters comply with manatee protection zones (Gorzelany 1996, Gorzelany 1998, Kinnaird 1983, Morris 1994, Tyson 1999). These studies were conducted in Brevard, Lee, and Sarasota counties and demonstrated compliance rates ranging from 50.9 percent to 78.65 percent within the study areas. Three of the studies concluded that the presence of law enforcement officers on the water during the sampling period increased levels of compliance. The fourth researcher concluded that low levels of enforcement, few citations issued, and poor signage were responsible for poor compliance (Morris 1994). Gorzelany (1996) demonstrated that areas with a frequent enforcement presence had the highest level of boater compliance. Tyson (1999) concluded that compliance was best when law enforcement officers were on the water and that consistent law enforcement presence will result in consistent compliance.

In many areas, watercraft operator compliance with speed zones is currently inadequate to prevent manatee injuries and deaths. Compliance may be inadequate due to insufficient signs in the speed zone or insufficient enforcement of the speed within the zone. In other areas, speed zones have not yet been established. From 1997 through 1999, Service law enforcement operations resulted in more than 1,348 watercraft speed zone citations over 18 weekends, demonstrating the need for increased speed zone awareness and compliance. With regard to some projects, we believe that increased enforcement in the area likely to be affected by watercraft associated with the project should reduce to an unlikely to occur level any potential manatee incidental take that would result from speed zone violations by boaters using that facility. We also believe that, in some areas, means other than increasing law enforcement hours on the water may be sufficient to reduce to an unlikely to occur level any potential incidental take of manatees due to collisions with watercraft. For example, when speed zones are adopted and are adequately enforced, other factors such as the lack of specific equipment, training, etc., may impede law enforcement efforts and efficiency to the extent that there is still a high potential for manatee incidental take resulting from the increased watercraft traffic associated with the project.

This interim strategy applies to any new watercraft access activity that could result in adverse effects on manatees. Specific manatee conservation measures proposed as part of a project must be found to reduce to an unlikely to occur level any adverse effects associated with increased access. Specific conservation measures proposed for any project must be based on a biological evaluation submitted by the applicant or the action agency. This biological evaluation must include a description of the proposed action; a description of manatee habitat and any manatee critical habitat affected by the proposed action; a thorough analysis of the effects of the proposed action on manatees, manatee habitat, and manatee critical habitat. From this biological evaluation, individuals, local governments, State agencies, and Federal agencies can develop acceptable manatee conservation measures(s). Once the measures have been developed, the Service can review and provide additional advice as necessary to ensure that the proposed project will reduce the potential for watercraft collisions to an unlikely to occur level. The action agency will provide a copy of these guidelines to the applicant for use in designing their proposed action to comply with the provisions of the ESA. The action agency will provide a letter to the Service with a complete project description, including any conservation measures, and request that the Service review the proposed action for compliance with the ESA. The specific conservation measures necessary in any given situation will vary.

Because necessary conservation measures will vary according to mortality risk in the area of the proposed project, the Service delineated relative risk areas throughout Florida. We assessed regional manatee populations, manatee ecology, and historic watercraft-related manatee mortality to determine relative risk of watercraft-related manatee losses, and identified eight risk regions. We examined manatee mortality data from 1974 through 2000, including five-year mortality increments and watercraft-related mortality trends, to determine high, medium and low risk areas (Table 1).

We defined high risk areas as those averaging one or more watercraft-related manatee mortalities per year during the past ten years; medium risk areas averaged less than one, but more than zero, watercraft-related manatee mortality per year; and low risk (the remainder of the manatee's range in the southeastern U.S.) had no documented watercraft-related mortality.

The Service believes that watercraft access developments in high risk areas should incorporate measures for increased enforcement of watercraft speed zones designated for manatee protection. Generally, the increased enforcement should be in the form of providing for increased hours of enforcement officer presence on the water. For example, an applicant could provide for enforcement hours if there are adequate speed zones with the appropriate signage. In some limited cases, where the Service finds, based on the best scientific and commercial data available, that factors other than hours on the water limit the effectiveness of enforcement agencies, alternate means of increasing enforcement might be acceptable as conservation measures. Such alternatives might include providing to a law enforcement entity equipment that is needed to increase manatee law enforcement efforts (e.g., watercraft, signs), or providing to law enforcement officials training which includes manatee biology, management, laws, regulations, techniques, and problem solving. As an example, an applicant could, in cooperation with the appropriate entities, identify the locations of manatee speed zones and have them posted with the appropriate signage, if the level of law enforcement is adequate. Applicants have the option to provide these conservation measures through an agreement with a law enforcement entity or through contributions to a conservation fund. In some cases in high risk areas, an applicant may choose to also include an education or outreach component as a conservation measure, in addition to increased enforcement, but education will not be sufficient to replace enforcement as a conservation measure.

In some medium risk counties, manatee mortality trends have been increasing and the Service believes that increasing enforcement hours on the water will be the most appropriate conservation measure. In other medium risk counties where mortality is low and is not increasing, law enforcement may be increased and/or alternate conservation measures may be used as deemed appropriate, based on the best scientific and commercial data available, to reduce incidental take to an unlikely to occur level.

For all projects in high and medium risk counties, the Service will evaluate the specific conditions in the area expected to be affected by the project as well as the conservation measures incorporated into the project's design, in determining whether the project is likely to contribute to incidental take due to watercraft collisions. The basic prerequisites to determining that incidental take from watercraft collisions is unlikely to occur as a result of any particular project are that: (1) Adequate speed zones exist in the areas reasonably anticipated to have increased watercraft traffic as a result of the project; (2) signage in these areas is adequate to ensure that boaters are aware of the speed zones; (3) speed zone enforcement in these areas is, or with project conservation measures will be, sufficient to prevent watercraft collisions from occurring as a result of the project; and (4) these measures must be in place or will be in place prior to project implementation. If, for whatever reason, any of these conditions are not, or cannot be, satisfied in a particular area, then the Service cannot conclude that a project is not likely to adversely affect manatees. The Service will advise the Federal agency and applicants as to the conservation measures which the Service deems appropriate based on the relative risks of manatee mortalities and injuries in the particular area where the project is located.

With respect to single family docks as an interim measure only, the Service, based on the best scientific and commercial data available, may find that a financial contribution from any applicant to an organization or entity that participates in and/or funds manatee conservation actions is consistent with the principles in these guidelines. In unusual situations—such as where the Federal agency advises the Service that many project applications for single family docks are pending in an area of particular importance to manatees, or in an area that is already experiencing very high mortality—the Service may conclude that a financial contribution is not sufficient to render a watercraft access facility for these types of permit applications unlikely to contribute to the incidental take of manatees.

In order to effectively address adverse effects to manatees, the Service believes that conservation measures should be built into the project description and be implemented within the area which the Service believes, based on the best scientific and commercial data available, is likely to be affected by the proposed watercraft access project. Currently, the Service has not identified a specific distance from the project as the area likely to be affected. This is because site-specific circumstances, such as watercraft traffic patterns and manatee travel patterns will dictate the affected area from watercraft in each case. Incorporation of conservation measures into a project design can be accomplished by having a signed agreement with an entity that has the authority to provide law enforcement, providing funds for law enforcement to an entity that has manatee conservation as a goal, or identifying and implementing an activity that would accomplish the goal of this guidance, i.e., ensuring that the conditions in an area are such that the project does not contribute to the incidental take of manatees through watercraft collisions. In any of these cases, the action agency and/or applicants may develop site-specific enforcement plans, including entering into enforcement agreements, facilitating enforcement events, or contracting that activity through a conservation fund entity. Agents involved in enforcement actions must be authorized to enforce all local, State, and Federal laws, including speed zone restrictions, necessary for the protection of manatees.

For commercial watercraft access projects and multi-family facilities, contributions should be made and on-the-water enforcement ensured prior to new watercraft being added to the aquatic environment. These enforcement activities will be directed at the appropriate location to ensure that the impacts of the project are not likely to adversely affect the manatee by increasing the risk of mortalities and injuries through watercraft collisions. Generally, these types of complex projects require more time to resolve resource conflicts and to finalize construction than simpler projects such as single family docks. Permit applicants for commercial and multi-family watercraft access projects may also have access to expertise to complete individual agreements with law enforcement entities. Therefore, enforcement efforts around larger facilities may be more readily accomplished and monitored prior to the time construction is finalized and new watercraft are added to manatee habitat.

If a project is implemented in a manner that is not consistent with the project as consulted on, because conservation measures are not adopted and implemented as proposed, the action agency will reinitiate consultation, in accordance with the Service's Consultation Handbook, to ascertain whether additional conservation measures should be incorporated into the project. Furthermore, failure to implement a project as reviewed and approved by the action agency and the Service, to avoid any incidental take resulting from the project, may subject the permittee to liability pursuant to the underlying statutes. Based on conversations with the Corps, it is the Service's understanding that the Corps will suspend or revoke permits where applicants have implemented projects in a manner that is inconsistent with the project as consulted on with the Service.

If an applicant elects to establish an agreement or contract directly with an entity that can provide law enforcement, the agreement or contract must be completed before the Service makes a final determination on the proposed project. The entity that provides the law enforcement personnel must be able to provide personnel certified to enforce all local, State, and Federal laws, including speed zone restrictions, necessary for the protection of manatees. Specific details included in the agreement or contract must be based on a biological evaluation which includes a description of the proposed action, manatee habitat, and manatee critical habitat affected by the proposed action; a thorough analysis of effects of the proposed action on manatees, manatee habitat, and manatee critical habitat; and a detailed and thorough description of the proposed manatee conservation measure(s). The agreement or contract must describe how the funding/in-kind resources will be utilized by the law enforcement entity (e.g., how much the funding/in-kind resources will increase the hours of Marine Patrol Unit operation, the amount of fuel and maintenance of Marine Patrol Units to be supplied, the amount and type of equipment to be supplied) and describe and justify the specific geographic area within which the increased law enforcement will be applied. The agreement or contract must be completed before the Service makes a final determination on the proposed project to ensure that incidental take of the manatee is unlikely to occur after project implementation.

Such an agreement or contract must also specify applicant reporting requirements to the Federal action agency and/or the Service. Specific reporting details must be included in the agreement or contract. Such details must include, but are not limited to: the number of officers provided, the number of officer hours spent on the water enforcing manatee speed zones, the number of on-the-water public contacts (e.g., citations, warnings) made by law enforcement staff, the number of hours and type of training that officers received on law enforcement related to manatees, the types of equipments and material purchased, the amount of funds expended for material and equipment, the amount of administrative overhead required to implement this agreement/contract, the number of manatees observed by enforcement officers inside and outside of designated speed zones, the number of near misses of manatee-watercraft collisions observed, and the ten-year annual average number of watercraft-related manatee mortalities within one-half mile of the boundaries of the area patrolled by the increased law enforcement prior to and after implementation of increased law enforcement.

Permit applicants for single family watercraft access projects generally do not have the knowledge or resources to complete individual agreements with law enforcement entities. In addition, the amount of funds contributed for one access point or even several small projects together is not conducive to implementing an effective enforcement program. The primary purpose of establishing a manatee conservation fund with a conservation organization is to provide single family applicants for watercraft access projects an efficient and effective means to reduce the impacts of their watercraft access facility on manatees.

While the resources to track an individual single family contribution to a specific law enforcement effort may exceed the cost of on-the-water enforcement, pooling such contributions will be more effective. The aggregation of many small contributions into one fund provides the ability to implement viable and effective enforcement programs in the area of impacts from single family watercraft access projects that could not be accomplished individually. However, application of the increased enforcement prior to completion of a given single family watercraft access project may not be assured in every case. The overall goal of the placement of these enforcement activities made possible by the pooled funds is to direct the activities in appropriate locations that ensure that the impacts of the projects are not likely to cause incidental take of manatees. Additionally, concentrated law enforcement events (e.g., weekend task forces) may provide one means to target areas with high rates of permit applications for single family watercraft access projects to ensure on-the-water enforcement is focused, to the maximum extent practicable, prior to the addition of watercraft to manatee habitat.

In order to contribute funds to a conservation organization, permit applicants for watercraft access projects other than single family applicants must meet the following prerequisites ensuring that incidental take from watercraft collisions is unlikely to occur as a result of their particular project: (1) Adequate speed zones exist in the areas reasonably anticipated to have increased watercraft traffic as a result of the project; (2) signage in these areas is adequate to ensure that boaters are aware of the speed zones; (3) speed zone enforcement in these areas is, or with project conservation measures will be, sufficient to prevent watercraft collisions from occurring as a result of the project; and (4) these measures must be in place or will be in place prior to project implementation. Again, if for whatever reason any of these conditions are not or cannot be satisfied in a particular area, then the Service cannot conclude that a project is not likely to adversely affect manatees.

The Service is working with the State, counties, local governments and conservation organizations to establish programs for use by permit applicants.

If an applicant elects to provide a conservation contribution as a conservation measure, the applicant must include in the proposed contribution any additional fees required to administratively manage the funds by the entity. The contribution of funds must be transferred to the conservation entity prior to the Service's final determination on the proposed project. The agreement/contract between the entity that receives the funds from the applicant and the entity to which the funds are transferred for enforcement purposes must include information explaining how the funding will be used (e.g., how much the funding will increase the hours of enforcement on the water, or how much fuel or maintenance of watercraft will be supplied by the funding, or the amount and type of equipment to be supplied) and describe the area within which the funds will be used. The agreement/contract must also include the reporting requirements identified in the previous section.

Again, based on the best scientific and commercial data available and as an interim measure only, the Service may find that a financial contribution from any applicant to an organization or entity that participates in and/or funds manatee conservation actions is consistent with the principles in these guidelines.

Of the 14 Florida counties totally within high risk manatee areas, four counties currently have either no speed zones or only site-specific speed zones. Additionally, the Service considers many of the existing speed zones in portions of these 14 counties to be insufficient or inadequately enforced for the Service to concur with a determination that the project will not adversely affect manatees by contributing to incidental take through watercraft collisions. Within these counties, where speed zones are currently lacking or inadequate, it must be shown that appropriate speed zones are in place in the areas anticipated to be affected by the project, speed zone signage is adequate throughout these areas, and that adequate levels of speed zone enforcement will occur throughout these areas before the Service can determine that a proposed watercraft access facility is unlikely to cause incidental take of manatees.

These types of determinations will need to be made on a case-by-case basis based on the specific circumstances and conservation needs present in the area. If it is determined that the existing speed zones are not adequate to reduce incidental take to an unlikely to occur level or that the speed zones will not be adequately enforced even with conservation measures incorporated into the project design, the Service would not be able to conclude that the project is not likely to contribute to the incidental take of manatees through watercraft collisions.

Of the 15 counties with medium risk areas only, nine have county-wide (Nassau and St. Lucie) or site-specific (Flagler, Hernando, Lake, Levy, Pinellas, Putnam, and Seminole) speed zones. The remaining six medium risk counties (Dixie, Glades, Hendry, Pasco, Taylor, and Wakulla) have no enforceable speed zones. As with high risk counties, the Service will make case-by-case determinations as to whether a project is likely to contribute to the incidental take of manatees through watercraft collisions, in light of manatee mortality history and trends in the area, as well as any conservation measures incorporated into the project's design. In those areas where speed reduction is necessary yet no speed zones currently exist and/or speed zones will not be sufficiently enforced to render watercraft collisions in the affected area unlikely to occur (despite any conservation measures incorporated into the project's design), we believe that we would not be able to concur with a determination that the project is not likely to result in the incidental take of manatees through watercraft collisions.

Since projects in low risk counties have no history of any watercraft-related manatee mortality, the Service will likely find that proposed projects in these areas are unlikely to contribute to the incidental take of manatees through watercraft collisions. As with any proposed project in manatee habitat, however, the Service will assess, on a case-by-case basis, whether any project is likely to result in incidental take through watercraft collisions or have any adverse effects on the species.

As stressed previously, in order to conclude that any project in high or medium risk counties will not contribute to incidental take of manatees through watercraft collisions, the Service must assess whether adequate speed zones in the affected areas exist and whether these speed zones are being, or will be (prior to project impacts), sufficiently enforced so that the project is unlikely to contribute to the incidental take of manatees through watercraft collisions. In making these determinations, the Service will rely on the best scientific and commercial data available (including, for example, manatee mortality data for a particular area, information regarding boater compliance with speed zones in the area, the anticipated beneficial effect of any conservation measures incorporated into a project's design, including the degree to which those measures are anticipated to increase speed zone enforcement in the area, etc.).

While recognizing the necessity for site-specific, case-by-case determinations, we are interested in reviewing alternative methods for assessing the adequacy of speed zone enforcement in manatee habitat, i.e., how the Service should analyze whether speed zone enforcement in a particular area is, or will be (in light of any conservation measures incorporated into a project) sufficient to ensure that the incidental take of manatees through watercraft collisions do not occur as a result of new watercraft access projects in an area. Accordingly, we invite comments regarding such methods as well as any other features of this guidance document.

Application of this guidance will result in increased speed zone enforcement. These enforcement efforts will be directed to the areas where new access facilities are developed to assure that potential incidental take associated with the new watercraft access facility is unlikely to occur and thus incidental take exemption is not needed. This increased enforcement will emphasize laws and regulations that relate to manatee incidental take, whereas current enforcement activities are comprised of a broad suite of enforcement duties (e.g., fishing violations, no wake zone violations, safety violations) only some of which affect the incidental take of manatees. In addition to ensuring that the likelihood of incidental take related to new watercraft access is reduced to an unlikely to occur level, added enforcement in these areas will also serve to decrease the likelihood of incidental take from pre-existing watercraft activity.

We believe that law enforcement will control watercraft operator behavior to reduce effects to an unlikely to occur level until such time as the long-term strategy is finalized for manatee conservation. Proposing the guidance within this document as an interim strategy, the Service believes that up to ten years may be required to finalize this long-term conservation strategy. Therefore, we have established this ten-year guidance document as operating procedures until such time that the long-term conservation strategy for manatee conservation is implemented, such as the development of incidental take regulations under MMPA or the establishment of federally-designated manatee sanctuaries and refuges or the implementation of a statewide boater registration fee to support increased law enforcement. We conducted the following analysis to determine the level of increased law enforcement necessary in high and medium risk areas to ensure that watercraft access projects will effectively decrease to an unlikely to occur level the likelihood of incidental take associated with that project.

We calculated a recommended level of increased enforcement per watercraft access point in high-risk counties. Currently, Florida has a statewide average of one Florida Marine Patrol enforcement officer per 1,356 registered watercraft. The total number of work hours in a year given a 40-hour work week is 2,080. Dividing this total number of work hours by 1,356 registered watercraft yields a current average of 1.5 hours of enforcement per registered watercraft per year. Because trends in watercraft-related manatee mortality continue to rise statewide, we believe that a conservation law enforcement level that exceeds this current average per registered watercraft, that is strategically applied to increase enforcement of manatee laws and regulations, and that extends over a ten-year period, is necessary to ensure that incidental take, due to additional watercraft gaining access through the project, will be unlikely to occur. The annual change in watercraft-related manatee mortality between 1990-1999 averaged more than nine percent. Therefore, in order for the project to not likely adversely affect and not likely cause the incidental take of manatees, we find that additional enforcement must be provided at a level of the current statewide average plus ten percent (1.65 hours) per watercraft provided access per year for ten years. For applicants establishing an agreement directly with a law enforcement entity, the agreement must indicate the total number of enforcement hours (number of watercraft access points x 1.65 hours) for the ten-year period necessary to ensure that incidental take is unlikely to occur.

For single family applicants contributing funds to a conservation entity, the contribution amount must be sufficient to provide 1.65 hours of enforcement per year for the ten-year period necessary to ensure that incidental take is unlikely to occur. Again, based on the best scientific and commercial data available and as an interim measure only, the Service may find that a financial contribution from any applicant to an organization or entity that participates in and/or funds manatee conservation actions is consistent with the principles in these guidelines.

The current ratio of one law enforcement officer per 1,356 registered watercraft is a statewide average and not a site-specific ratio. Applying this ten percent increase in law enforcement above the current statewide average will result in an enforcement increase by a ratio of one officer per 1,261 watercraft, a 110 percent increase over the current level of State law enforcement, within the area likely to be affected by the watercraft access facility, assuming that State law enforcement levels remain the same. At this time, the Service does not have any information to indicate that such law enforcement level will increase or decrease.

Nonetheless, as stressed previously, in order to conclude that any project in high or medium risk counties will not contribute to incidental take of manatees through watercraft collisions, the Service must assess whether adequate speed zones in the affected areas exist and whether these speed zones are being, or will be (prior to project impacts), sufficiently enforced so that the project is unlikely to contribute to the incidental take of manatees through watercraft collisions.

We are considering alternate methods of determining the appropriate level of increased law enforcement necessary per watercraft access. One such method would involve calculating a relative risk ratio for discrete geographic areas such as counties. Such a ratio might be calculated based on the number of manatees that summer or winter in the area, the number of registered watercraft in the area, and the average annual mortality in the area. By calculating such a risk ratio, we could determine the law enforcement level to be recommended in current high mortality areas relative to law the enforcement levels in areas where mortality is currently low. We currently do not have manatee abundance data for each county that would allow us to calculate such a risk ratio. We also are unaware of data that would allow us to account for the effect of watercraft registered in other states and brought into Florida waters. We invite your comments on the use of the current statewide average enforcement ratio plus ten percent, and on the potential use of relative risk areas in determining the appropriate level of increased enforcement necessary per watercraft access. We also invite suggestions on any other equitable method of determining an appropriate law enforcement level.

Based upon comments received, we may choose to modify the guidance on the appropriate level of increased enforcement necessary per watercraft access. Nonetheless, this document reflects the level of law enforcement the Service currently finds to be adequate based on the best scientific and commercial data available to reduce incidental take of manatees to the point that it is unlikely to occur with respect to new watercraft access facilities. We will continue to monitor manatee mortality in these high risk areas to ascertain if the recommended law enforcement level of 1.65 hours of enforcement per watercraft access per year is sufficient or necessary to ensure that incidental take is unlikely to occur as a result of the increased access from that facility. We will amend this guidance in the future if this level of law enforcement improves or is insufficient. Factors that may influence the law enforcement level may include: Watercraft-related mortality numbers and trends; manatee population trends; law enforcement events, amount and extent of speed zones; and designation of sanctuaries. The Service will ensure that any change to the recommended law enforcement level is based on the most current scientific information available.

If the proposed conservation measure in a high mortality risk county involves providing equipment or training to law enforcement officers, the amount of equipment or training to be provided must be equal in conservation value to 1.65 hours of enforcement per watercraft that is provided access per year over a ten-year period.

Medium risk areas, based on manatee mortality data, experience approximately ten percent of the total manatee mortality that is measured in high risk areas. Given the reduced degree of risk associated with medium risk areas, ten percent of the high risk area law enforcement effort is needed to reduce indirect effects to the point that the facility is unlikely to cause incidental take of manatees or adversely effect critical habitat. Based on this percentage, a project should incorporate, for each watercraft that is provided access, 0.16 hour of enforcement per year over a ten-year period. This ten percent change applies equally to funds contributed to a conservation entity, i.e., the contribution amount from single family applicants must be sufficient to provide 0.16 hour of enforcement per year for the ten-year period necessary to ensure that incidental take is unlikely to occur.

If it is determined that means other than increasing law enforcement hours on the water may be an appropriate conservation measure in a medium risk county, the alternate means should be comparable in value to 0.16 hours of enforcement per year over the ten-year period.

Low risk areas represent the extended summer, or warm season, manatee range. In low risk areas, there is no documented watercraft-related mortality and, at this time, we believe that the potential for incidental take from watercraft is unlikely to occur. Thus, we do not believe that in these areas conservation measures included as part of a proposed watercraft access facility will be necessary to come to a not likely to adversely affect determination. However, any project that would incorporate such conservation efforts would contribute to overall manatee recovery and such incorporation of measures is encouraged.

The effectiveness of this guidance will be evaluated on a continuing basis by comparing watercraft-related manatee mortality data in areas where law enforcement has been increased to previous rates of mortality. Although review of program implementation and evaluation of manatee mortality and injury are continuous processes, the manatee mortality risk areas will be assessed at one-year intervals after implementation of this guidance. If the Service determines at any time that this interim strategy is not meeting its intended objectives, then it will be altered, suspended, or revoked until corrections can be made to rectify the situation. Monitoring implementation and effectiveness will determine the need to continue, to extend the scope of, to change elements of, and/or to add new components to the guidance. The Service will have a lead position that will be responsible for monitoring and accounting in coordination with the Manatee Recovery Team and all facilities that implement this guidance. Records and databases maintained by the Service can be reviewed by the public upon request. Table One of the Guidance, which reflects the high, medium, and low risk areas, will be revised based annually on current mortality data.

Enforcement continues to be validated as an effective means of conserving the manatee by reduction in adult mortality. However, a larger program than that provided by this interim strategy is necessary to address existing watercraft-related mortality. Such a program has not been developed and we are currently working with various entities to accomplish this goal through an incidental take regulation under the MMPA. Concurrently, we are working with all partners to ensure speed zone placement and enforcement is both appropriate and adequate.

We encourage the State of Florida, Corps of Engineers, or other Federal, tribal, local, and private entities to seek incidental take authorization for their activities that are likely to cause the incidental take of manatees as defined under the ESA and MMPA, instead of addressing access developments one by one through the use of this interim strategy. Incidental take may be authorized under the MMPA if the Service finds that incidental take associated with the requester's activity, after taking into account all measures committed to by the requester to reduce the affect of the activity, will have a negligible impact on manatees. Incidental take can be exempted under the ESA only upon completion of authorization under the MMPA. The MMPA incidental take regulation process requires compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and public comment and review. The result of this rulemaking process would be to address incidental take under the MMPA and the ESA in the process of recovering the manatee. The final Manatee Recovery Plan is expected to support both the interim strategy and this long term rulemaking process and provide additional guidance if deemed appropriate by the Service and the Manatee Recovery Team.

We are seeking information, views, and opinions from the public related to this interim strategy, the supporting analyses, and proposed implementation. We will consider all comments received by the date specified above.

Arrowrock Dam and Reservoir, completed in 1915, were constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). The dam is located on the main stem Boise River about 17 river miles upstream from the city of Boise. Anderson Ranch Dam and Reservoir, located on the South Fork Boise River and generally east of Arrowrock Dam, were completed by Reclamation in 1950. Lucky Peak Dam and Lake, located to the southwest and about 11 river miles downstream of Arrowrock Dam, were completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) in 1957. Reclamation and the Corps operate the three storage dams in a coordinated method for irrigation water supply (Reclamation markets the water supply in Lucky Peak Lake for irrigation), flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife.

Reclamation began considering modification of Arrowrock Dam outlet works in 1982; some conceptual designs for replacement of some of the Ensign valves were developed in 1983. Over several years, various possible designs were identified and evaluated, and in 1987 a conceptual design using clamshell gates was developed. Increasing maintenance problems resulted in the current effort to identify and evaluate solutions to the maintenance problems associated with the now 85-year old Ensign valves. The scope of this study was limited to valve replacement to retain and improve operational flexibility of Arrowrock Dam and Reservoir. Environmental effects of the action and No Action alternatives were analyzed for the stream reaches and reservoirs upstream and downstream from Arrowrock Dam and Reservoir. Potential environmental effects are generally limited to those associated with construction and the reservoir drawdowns necessary for maintenance and replacement of the lower outlets. One of the major concerns is about impacts to bull trout which are found in Arrowrock Reservoir and upstream; bull trout were listed as a threatened species in June, 1998.

Reclamation's scoping process included numerous meetings with state and Federal agencies, local groups, and interested individuals. Notices of intent to prepare an EIS and to hold public scoping meetings were published and two public scoping meetings were held on November 20, 1998. Public comments received during scoping were considered in the development of alternatives. Following release of the Draft EIS, two Public Hearings were held on December 12, 2000. Based upon comments received concerning water quality and impacts to bull trout during the Draft EIS review period, the preferred alternative was modified by reducing the probability of use of the sluice gates to15%.

The Final EIS is available for viewing on the internet at: http://www.pn.usbr.gov/project/arrowrock/arrowrock.shtml

Background.—The final phase of this investigation is being scheduled as a result of an affirmative preliminary determination by the Department of Commerce that imports of certain ammonium nitrate from Ukraine are being sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 733 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b). The investigation was requested in a petition filed on October 13, 2000, by the Committee For Fair Ammonium Nitrate Trade (“COFANT”) whose members include Air Products & Chemicals, Inc., Allentown, PA; Mississippi Chemical Corp., Yazoo City, MS; El Dorado Chemical Co., Oklahoma City, OK; La Roche Industries, Inc., Atlanta, GA; and Nitram, Inc., Tampa, FL.

Participation in the investigation and public service list.—Persons, including industrial users of the subject merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the final phase of this investigation as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11 of the Commission's rules, no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. A party that filed a notice of appearance during the preliminary phase of the investigation need not file an additional notice of appearance during this final phase. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigation.

Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list.—Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in the final phase of this investigation available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the investigation, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. § 1677(9), who are parties to the investigation. A party granted access to BPI in the preliminary phase of the investigation need not reapply for such access. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

Staff report.—The prehearing staff report in the final phase of this investigation will be placed in the nonpublic record on June 12, 2001, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.22 of the Commission's rules.

Hearing.—The Commission will hold a hearing in connection with the final phase of this investigation beginning at 9:30 a.m. on June 26, 2001, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before June 18, 2001. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should attend a prehearing conference to be held at 9:30 a.m. on June 21, 2001, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 207.24 of the Commission's rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony in camera no later than 7 days prior to the date of the hearing.

Written submissions.—Each party who is an interested party shall submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of section 207.23 of the Commission's rules; the deadline for filing is June 19, 2001. Parties may also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, as provided in section 207.24 of the Commission's rules, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of section 207.25 of the Commission's rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is July 3, 2001; witness testimony must be filed no later than three days before the hearing. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the investigation may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the investigation on or before July 3, 2001. On July 18, 2001, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before July 20, 2001, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with section 207.30 of the Commission's rules. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means.

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigation must be served on all other parties to the investigation (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

Background.—This investigation is being instituted in response to a petition filed on March 6, 2001, by Rezolex, Ltd., Co., Las Cruces, NM.

Participation in the investigation and public service list.—Persons (other than petitioners) wishing to participate in the investigation as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in sections 201.11 and 207.10 of the Commission's rules, not later than seven days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Industrial users and (if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level) representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to this investigation upon the expiration of the period for filing entries of appearance.

Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list.—Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in this investigation available to authorized applicants representing interested parties (as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)) who are parties to the investigation under the APO issued in the investigation, provided that the application is made not later than seven days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

Conference.—The Commission's Director of Operations has scheduled a conference in connection with this investigation for 9:30 a.m. on March 26, 2001, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC. Parties wishing to participate in the conference should contact Larry Reavis (202-205-3185) not later than March 22, 2001, to arrange for their appearance. Parties in support of the imposition of antidumping duties in this investigation and parties in opposition to the imposition of such duties will each be collectively allocated one hour within which to make an oral presentation at the conference. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the conference.

Written submissions.—As provided in sections 201.8 and 207.15 of the Commission's rules, any person may submit to the Commission on or before March 30, 2001, a written brief containing information and arguments pertinent to the subject matter of the investigation. Parties may file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the conference no later than three days before the conference. If briefs or written testimony contain BPI, they must conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means.

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigation must be served on all other parties to the investigation (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

The Commission instituted this investigation on October 11, 2000, based on a complaint filed by PCTEL, Inc. (“PCTEL”) of Milpitas, California. The complaint named Smart Link Ltd. of Netanya, Israel and Smart Link Technologies, Inc. of Watertown, Massachusetts (collectively “Smart Link”) and ESS Technology, Inc. (“ESS”) of Fremont, California as respondents. The complaint alleged that Smart Link and ESS had violated section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 by importing into the United States, selling for importation, and/or selling within the United States after importation certain HSP modems, software and hardware components thereof, and products containing the same by reason of infringement of claims 1-2 of U.S. Letters Patent 5,787,305, claims 1-4, 7-8, and 11-15 of U.S. Letters Patent 5,931,950, claims 1, 2, 10, and 15-17 of U.S. Letters Patent 4,841,561, and claims 1, 6-7, 10-12, and 15-19 of U.S. Letters Patent 5,940,459 (“the ‘459 patent”).

On February 5, 2001, the complainant PCTEL filed a motion for partial termination of this investigation as to its claims of infringement of the ‘459 patent. On February 15, 2001, the Commission investigative attorney filed a response supporting the motion. On February 16, 2001, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 16) granting the motion. No petitions for review of the ID were filed.

The authority for the Commission's action is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in section 210.42 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42).

Copies of the public versions of the subject IDs, and all other nonconfidential documents filed in connection with this investigation, are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000.

On September 10, 1997, the Service published a notice in the Federal Register at 62 FR 47692 establishing the DACOIM in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2 (1972), and 41 CFR 101-6.1001-6.1035 (1992). The DACOIM was established to provide recommendations to the New York District Director on ways to improve the response and reaction to customers in the local jurisdiction, and to increase cooperative opportunities by serving as a community base for anchoring outreach activities and education, in order to strengthen the relationship between the Service and all members of the community. Since September 10, 1997, the Service held 11 DACOIM meetings.

Since the DACOIM charter will expire on May 13, 2001, the purpose of the final three meetings will be to continue to conduct general business, review subcommittee reports, and facilitate public participation, as well as facilitating the closure of the DACOIM committee. The DACOIM meetings will be chaired by Jack Byrnes, Section Chief, New York District, Immigration and Naturalization Service.

The DACOIM meetings are open to the public, but advance notice of attendance is requested to ensure adequate seating. Persons planning to attend should notify the contact person at least two (2) days prior to each meeting. Members of the public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting for consideration by the DACOIM. Written statements should be sent to Christian A. Rodriguez, Designated Federal Officer, Immigration and Naturalization Service, 26 Federal Plaza, Room 14-100, New York, New York 10278, telephone: (212) 264-0736. Written statements will be considered for presentation at the meetings if they are received by:

Minutes of the meetings will be available upon request.