A primary purpose of the LSR is to provide habitat for late-successional forest habitat dependant species such as the northern spotted owl. The northern spotted owl is listed as a “threatened” species under the Endangered Species Act. The Matrix is the portion of the National Forest that the Northwest Forest Plan allows to be managed for early successional habitat and commodity production, as well as provided connectivity and structural elements important to late-successional species. The Gotchen planning area is to the east of the Cascades in an area that had a mosaic of pine savannah and closed forest, at the time of European settlement. Today, the area is more uniformly forested and has supported up to six nesting pair of spotted owls. Although a century of fire suppression and selective harvest has led to the conditions that are now attractive to spotted owls, these practices contributed to development of an unstable landscape that is vulnerable to defoliation and mortality from insects, diseases, and high intensity fires. The attributes that make the area good late successional habitat are the same attributes that make the area vulnerable to budworm, root diseases, and ultimately, stand replacement fires.

Several issues associated the potential treatments have been identified to date: (1) Mardon skipper butterfly: which is currently listed by the State of Washington as an endangered species, and is a candidate species for federal listing under the Endangered Species Act. Aerial application of the pesticide Btk to suppress spruce budworm would kill all lepidopteron (moths and butterflies) that came in contact with the insecticide, including the mardon skipper. (2) Smoke management: The Gotchen area is on the south slope of Mt. Adams, immediately adjacent to the Mt. Adams Wilderness Area. This area is a Class I Airshed where, under the Clean Air Act, there is a need to keep the air clean and pristine. Prescribed burning would generate smoke and has the potential to drift into the Wilderness area and degrade the air quality. (3) Gotchen Roadless Area: Portions of the Gotchen Roadless Area lie within the planning area. It is possible that Silvicultural treatment could be proposed within the Roadless Area.

Several scoping notices have been sent out locally over the past year indicating the District's intent to plan and implement actions in the Gotchen landscape to address the forest health and risk concerns. Continued scoping and public participation efforts will be used by the interdisciplinary planning team to identify new issues, develop alternatives in response to the issues, and determine the level of analysis needed to disclose potential biological, physical, economic and social impacts associated with the project. The specific need and format for meetings and workshops will be determined by the comments received from this notice, and responses by individuals and organizations. This Notice and subsequent scoping notices will satisfy the requirements under 36 CFR 800.2(d) for seeking the views of the public on the potential effects of an undertaking on historic properties. A web site will be established in the near future on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest World Wide Web to enable interested parties to access project information directly. The Forest Service is seeking information, comments, and assistance from other agencies, organizations or individuals who may be interested in or affected by the proposed project.

Comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposed action and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR parts 215 or 217. Additionally, pursuant to 4 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that, under the FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding the request for confidentiality, and where the request is denied, the agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address within a specified number of days.

The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public review in February 2002. EPA will publish a notice of availability of the draft EIS in the Federal Register . The comment period will be 45 days from the date the EPA publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register .

The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft EISs must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC , 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft EIS stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final EIS may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final EIS. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft EIS should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft EIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

The final EIS is anticipated to be completed by July, 2002. In the final EIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to substantive comments received during the comment period on the draft EIS. Gregory L. Cox, Mount Adams District Ranger, is the Responsible Official. He will decide, which, if any, of the proposed project alternatives will be implemented. His decision and reasons for the decision will be documented in the Record of Decision, which will be subject to Forest Service Appeal Regulations (36 CFR part 215).

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 (“Department”) regulations are 19 CFR part 351 (April 2001).

On February 4, 2000, the Department published an antidumping order on creatine monohydrate from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Creatine Monohydrate from the People's Republic of China , 65 FR 5583 (February 4, 2000). On February 14, 2001, the Department published in the Federal Register an Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review , 66 FR 10269 (February 14, 2001).

On February 23, 2001, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), a manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Blue Science International Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (“Blue Science”), requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of this order. On March 22, 2001, we published a notice of initiation of this review. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocations in Part , 66 FR 16037 (March 22, 2001). The period of this review (“POR”) is July 30, 1999 through January 31, 2001.

On March 27, 2001, we issued a questionnaire to Blue Science. We issued a supplemental questionnaire on July 19, 2001. We received responses to the original and supplemental questionnaires on May 24 and August 24, 2001, respectively.

Imports covered by this review are creatine monohydrate, which is commonly referred to as “creatine.” The chemical name for creatine monohydrate is N-(aminoiminomethyl)-N-methylgycine monohydrate. The Chemical Abstracts Service (“CAS”) registry number for this product is 6020-87-7. Creatine monohydrate in its pure form is a white, tasteless, odorless powder, that is a naturally occurring metabolite found in muscle tissue. Creatine monohydrate is provided for in subheading 2925.20.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheading and the CAS registry number are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive.

It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of the merchandise subject to review in nonmarket economy (“NME”) countries a single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to exports. To establish whether an exporter is sufficiently independent of government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes the exporter in light of the criteria established in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) ( “Sparklers” ), as amplified in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China , 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1944) ( “Silicon Carbide” ).

Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure absence of government control over export activities includes: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See Sparklers , 56 FR at 20589.

A de facto analysis of absence of government control over exports is based on four factors—whether the respondent: (1) Sets its own export prices independent of the government and other exporters; (2) retains the proceeds from its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and (4) has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. See Silicon Carbide , 59 FR at 22587; see also Sparklers , 56 FR at 20589.

In the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate from the People's Republic of China 64 FR 71104 (December 20, 1999) (“ LTFV Investigation ”), we determined that there was de jure and de facto absence of government control of each company's export activities and determined that each company warranted a company-specific dumping margin. For the POR, Blue Science responded to the Department's request for information regarding separate rates. We have found that the evidence on the record is consistent with the final determination in the LTFV Investigation and Blue Science continues to demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to its exports, in accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide.

For U.S. sales made by Blue Science, we calculated an export price, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States prior to importation into the United States and the facts did not otherwise warrant use of constructed value export price.

For these sales, we calculated export price based on the price to unaffiliated purchasers.

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine the normal value (“NV”) using a factors-of-production methodology if: (1) the merchandise is exported from an NME country; and (2) the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value (“CV”) under section 773(a) of the Act.

The Department has treated the PRC as an NME country in all previous antidumping cases. Furthermore, available information does not permit the calculation of NV using home market prices, third country prices, or CV under section 773(a) of the Act. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. The party in this proceeding has not contested such treatment in this review. Therefore, we treated the PRC as an NME country for purposes of this review and calculated NV by valuing the factors of production in a surrogate country.

Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value the NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or more market economy countries that: (1) are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME, and (2) are significant producers of comparable merchandise. The Department has determined that India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and the Philippines are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of overall economic development ( see Memorandum from Jeff May, Director, Office of Policy, to Susan Kuhbach, Senior Director, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 1, July 30, 2001). According to the available information on the record, we have determined that India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. Although we have no information to indicate that India produces creatine, it does produce other products within the same customs heading, and it produces other fine chemicals with nutritional characteristics. Accordingly, we have calculated NV using Indian values for the PRC producer's factors of production. We have obtained and relied upon publicly available information wherever possible.

In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on factors of production reported by the companies in the PRC which produced creatine for Blue Science during the POR. To calculate NV, the reported unit factor quantities were multiplied by publicly available Indian values.

In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices to make them delivered prices. For the distances reported, we added to Indian CIF surrogate values a surrogate freight cost using the reported distances from the PRC port to the PRC factory, or from the domestic supplier to the factory. This adjustment is in accordance with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's (“CAFC”) decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States , 117 F. 3d 1401, 1807-1908 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For those values not contemporaneous with the POR and quoted in a foreign currency, we adjusted for inflation using wholesale price indices published in the International Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics.

Many of the inputs in the production of creatine are considered business proprietary data by the respondent. Due to the proprietary nature of this data, we are unable to discuss many of the inputs in this preliminary results notice. For a complete analysis of surrogate values, see the memorandum from the Team to the file (“Factors of Production Memorandum”), dated October 31, 2001.

We valued labor using the method described in 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).

Consistent with our approach in Manganese Metal from the People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 66 FR 15076 (March 15, 2001) (“ Manganese Metal ”), we calculated our surrogate value for electricity based on electricity rate data from the Energy Data Directory & Yearbook , (1999/2000) published by Tata Energy Research Institute. We based the value of diesel on prices reported by the International Energy Agency (“IEA”), 1st quarter 2000.

We based our calculation of factory overhead, SG&A, and profit on the financial statements of Sanderson Industries, Ltd. (“Sanderson”), an Indian chemical producer. The products produced by Sanderson appear to be manufactured using bulk chemical processes, similar to the processes used by the PRC creatine producers. These were the same values used in the LTFV Investigation.

To value truck freight rates, we used a 2000 rate from a quote from an Indian trucking company.

For packing materials we used import values from the Monthly Foreign Trade Statistics of India; Volume II Imports.

We preliminarily find the weighted average dumping margin for Blue Science for the period July 30, 1999, through January 31, 2001 to be 8.13 percent.

Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held approximately 44 days after the date of publication of this notice, or the first working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, which must be limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of publication. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities. The Department will issue a notice of final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise. Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative review, if any importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are above de minimis ( i.e. , at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by applying the assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise. For assessment purposes, we calculate importer-specific assessment rates for the subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping duties due for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing the amount by the total entered value of the sales to that importer.

To calculate the cash-deposit rate for the company included in this administrative review, we divided the total dumping margins for the company by the total net value of the company's sales during the review period.

Furthermore, the following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of creatine entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Blue Science will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for a company previously found to be entitled to a separate rate and for which no review was requested, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the most recent review of that company; (3) the cash deposit rate for all other PRC exporters will be 153.70 percent, the PRC-wide rate established in the LTFV investigation ; and (4) the cash deposit rate for a non-PRC exporter of subject merchandise from the PRC will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These cash requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

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

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

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (2001).

On August 19, 1993 the Department published the antidumping duty order on cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Romania. See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania , 58 FR 44167 (August 19, 1993). On August 1, 2001, the Department published a notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order for the period August 1, 2000 through July 31, 2001. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review , 66 FR 39729 (August 1, 2001). On August 31, 2001, Sidex, a producer of the subject merchandise, requested that the Department conduct an administrative review for the period August 1, 2000 through July 31, 2001. There were no other requests for review. On October 1, 2001, the Department published a notice of initiation of antidumping duty administrative review of cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Romania, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i). See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part , 66 FR 49924 (October 1, 2001). On October 10, 2001, Sidex withdrew its request for review.

The Department's regulations provide that the Department will rescind an administrative review “if a party that requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review.” See 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). Sidex's withdrawal of their request for review was within the 90-day time limit. As a result of the withdrawal of the request for review and because the Department received no other requests for review, the Department is rescinding the administrative review for the period August 1, 2000 through July 31, 2001, and will issue appropriate assessment instructions to the U.S. Customs Service.

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

This determination is issued and published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4) and sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.

On October 20, 2000, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the Federal Register a notice of “Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on extruded rubber thread from Malaysia (65 FR 63057).

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on October 27, 2000, the petitioner, North American Rubber Thread, requested an administrative review of the antidumping order covering the period October 1, 1999, through September 30, 2000, for the following producers and exporters of extruded rubber thread: Filati Lastex Sdn. Bhd. (Filati), Heveafil Sdn. Bhd./Filmax Sdn. Bhd. (Heveafil), and Rubberflex Sdn. Bhd. (Rubberflex).

On November 22, 2000, the Department initiated an administrative review for Filati, Heveafil, and Rubberflex (65 FR 71299). The Department also issued questionnaires to each of these companies in November.

In March 2001, we received responses from Filati, Heveafil, and Rubberflex.

In May and June 2001, we issued supplemental questionnaires to Filati, Heveafil, and Rubberflex. We received responses to these supplemental questionnaires in July and August 2001.

In August 2001, we conducted verification of Filati's U.S. branch, Filati Lastex Elastofibre (Filati USA).

The product covered by this review is extruded rubber thread. Extruded rubber thread is defined as vulcanized rubber thread obtained by extrusion of stable or concentrated natural rubber latex of any cross sectional shape, measuring from 0.18 mm, which is 0.007 inch or 140 gauge, to 1.42 mm, which is 0.056 inch or 18 gauge, in diameter. Extruded rubber thread is currently classifiable under subheading 4007.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of this review is dispositive.

The period of review (POR) is October 1, 1999, through September 30, 2000.

To determine whether sales of extruded rubber thread from Malaysia to the United States were made at less than normal value (NV), we compared the constructed export price (CEP) to the NV for all three respondents, as specified in the “Export Price and Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below. We also compared the export price (EP) to the NV for Rubberflex, as specified in those sections.

When making comparisons in accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products sold in the home market as described in the “Scope of the Review” section of this notice, above, that were in the ordinary course of trade for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade ( i.e., sales within the contemporaneous window which passed the cost test), we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade, based on the characteristics listed in sections B and C of our antidumping questionnaire, or constructed value (CV), as appropriate.

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

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

Filati, Heveafil, and Rubberflex claimed that they made home market sales at only one level of trade ( i.e., sales to original equipment manufacturers). Because each of these respondents performed the same selling activities for sales to all customers in the home market, we determined that all home market sales by each of these companies were at the same level of trade.

The respondents made CEP sales during the POR. In order to determine whether NV was established at a level of trade which constituted a more advanced stage of distribution than the level of trade of the CEP for these companies, we compared the selling functions performed for home market sales with those performed with respect to the CEP transaction, which excludes economic activities occurring in the United States. We found that all of the respondents performed essentially the same selling functions in their sales offices in Malaysia for both home market and U.S. sales. Therefore, the respondents' sales in Malaysia were not at a more advanced stage of marketing and distribution than the constructed U.S. level of trade, which represents a F.O.B. foreign port price after the deduction of expenses associated with U.S. selling activities. Because we find that no difference in level of trade exists between markets, we have not granted a CEP offset to Filati, Heveafil, or Rubberflex.

In addition, Rubberflex made EP sales during the POR. We compared the selling functions performed for its home market and EP transactions in order to determine whether a level of trade adjustment is warranted. We found that Rubberflex performed essentially the same selling functions for its U.S. and home market sales and that, therefore, no level of trade adjustment is warranted for it.

For further discussion, see the Concurrence Memorandum dated October 31, 2001.

For Filati and Heveafil, we based the U.S. price on CEP where sales to the unaffiliated purchaser took place after importation into the United States, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. We also based U.S. price on CEP for Filati and Heveafil where the merchandise was shipped directly to certain unaffiliated customers because we found that title passed from the U.S. affiliates of the respondents to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer after importation by the U.S. affiliate into the United States.

For Rubberflex, we based the U.S. price on EP, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, when the subject merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and we based the U.S. price on CEP where sales to the unaffiliated purchaser took place after importation into the United States, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act.

We calculated CEP based on the starting price to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we added an amount for uncollected import duties in Malaysia. We made deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for discounts. 1 In addition, where appropriate, we made deductions for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs duty, U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. warehousing expenses, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

We made additional deductions from CEP, where appropriate, for commissions, credit expenses, and U.S. indirect selling expenses, including U.S. inventory carrying costs, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act. For those U.S. sales for which Filati did not report a date of payment, we have used the signature date of these preliminary results ( i.e., October 31, 2001) as the date of payment and calculated credit expenses accordingly.

Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the starting price by an amount for profit to arrive at CEP. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit rate using the expenses incurred by Filati and its affiliate on their sales of the subject merchandise in the United States and the foreign like product in the home market and the profit associated with those sales.

We calculated CEP based on the starting price to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we added an amount for uncollected import duties in Malaysia. We made deductions for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs duty, U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. warehousing expenses, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. We disallowed the revenue earned on the sale of a building as an offset to warehousing expenses and recalculated warehousing expenses accordingly.

We made additional deductions to CEP, where appropriate, for credit expenses and U.S. indirect selling expenses, including U.S. inventory carrying costs, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act. We disallowed the full amount of revenue earned on the sale of a building as an offset to indirect selling expenses. Rather, we recalculated these expenses to allow an offset only in the amount of the gain on the building.

Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the starting price by an amount for profit to arrive at CEP. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit rate using the expenses incurred by Heveafil and its affiliate on their sales of the subject merchandise in the United States and the foreign like product in the home market and the profit associated with those sales.

We based EP or CEP, as appropriate, on the starting price to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. We made deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs duty, and U.S. inland freight in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. In addition, we made deductions from the starting price for Malaysian export taxes in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(B) of the Act.

We made additional deductions to CEP, where appropriate, for credit expenses and U.S. indirect selling expenses, including U.S. inventory carrying costs and U.S. warehousing expenses related to returned merchandise, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act. For those U.S. sales for which Rubberflex did not report a date of payment, we have used the signature date of these preliminary results ( i.e., October 31, 2001) as the date of payment and calculated credit expenses accordingly.

Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the starting price by an amount for profit to arrive at CEP. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit rate using the expenses incurred by Rubberflex and its affiliate on their sales of the subject merchandise in the United States and the foreign like product in the home market and the profit associated with those sales.

In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV ( i.e., the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared the volume of each respondent's home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Based on this comparison, we determined that each respondent had a viable home market during the POR. Consequently, we based NV on home market sales.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Filati, Heveafil, and Rubberflex had made home market sales at prices below their costs of production (COPs) in this review because the Department had disregarded sales below the COP for these companies in the most recent administrative review. See Extruded Rubber Thread From Malaysia; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 65 FR 6140, 6143 (Feb. 8, 2000). As a result, the Department initiated an investigation to determine whether the respondents made home market sales during the POR at prices below their respective COPs.

We calculated the COP based on the sum of each respondent's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for SG&A and packing costs, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act.

We compared the COP figures to home market prices of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to home market prices, less any applicable movement charges, discounts, rebates, and packing costs.

In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were made: (1) in substantial quantities within an extended period of time; and (2) at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. See section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

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

We found that, for certain models of extruded rubber thread, more than 20 percent of each respondent's home market sales within an extended period of time were at prices less than COP. Further, the prices did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore disregarded the below-cost sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. For those U.S. sales of extruded rubber thread for which there were no comparable home market sales in the ordinary course of trade, we compared EP or CEP, as appropriate, to CV, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act.

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

Company-specific calculations are discussed below.

Where NV was based on home market sales, we based NV on the starting price to unaffiliated customers. For all price-to-price comparisons, we made deductions from the starting price for rebates, where appropriate. We also made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, we also made deductions for home market credit expenses and bank charges. For those home market sales for which Filati did not report a date of payment, we have used the signature date of these preliminary results ( i.e., October 31, 2001) as the date of payment and calculated credit expenses accordingly. Where applicable, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), we offset any commission paid on a U.S. sale by reducing the NV by the amount of home market indirect selling expenses, up to the amount of the U.S. commission.

In addition, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411.

For CV-to-CEP comparisons, we made an adjustment, where appropriate, for differences in credit expenses, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) and 773(a)(8) of the Act. Where applicable, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), we offset any commission paid on a U.S. sale by reducing the NV by the amount of home market indirect selling expenses, up to the amount of the U.S. commission.

In all instances, NV for Heveafil was based on home market sales. Accordingly, we based NV on the starting price to unaffiliated customers. We made deductions for foreign inland freight and foreign inland insurance, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, we also made deductions for home market credit expenses.

In addition, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(c)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411.

In all instances, NV for Rubberflex was based on home market sales. Accordingly, we based NV on the starting price to unaffiliated customers. For all price-to-price comparisons, we made deductions from the starting price for discounts, 2 where appropriate. We also made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight expenses, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Rubberflex failed to report foreign inland freight expenses on certain sales delivered using its own trucks. Because Rubberflex failed to provide the requested information, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, as facts available, we have used the lowest third party inland freight expense reported in the home market for the freight expense on these transactions.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for differences in credit expenses.

In addition, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411.

We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Section 773A of the Act directs the Department to use a daily exchange rate in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars unless the daily rate involves a fluctuation. It is the Department's practice to find that a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate differs from the benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. The benchmark is defined as the moving average of rates for the past 40 business days. When we determine a fluctuation to have existed, we substitute the benchmark for the daily rate, in accordance with established practice.

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the following margins exist for the period October 1, 1999, through September 30, 2000:

The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice. Interested parties may request a hearing within 30 days of the publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held seven days after the date rebuttal briefs are filed. Interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Department will publish a notice of the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such case briefs, within 120 days of the publication of these preliminary results.

Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We calculate importer-specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those sales, where available. Where the entered value is not available, we calculate a quantity-based assessment rate. These rates will be assessed uniformly on all entries of particular importers made during the POR. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct the Customs Service to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties all entries for any importer for whom the assessment rate is de minimis ( i.e ., less than 0.50 percent of entered value). The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.

Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of extruded rubber thread from Malaysia entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for Filati, Heveafil, and Rubberflex will be the rates established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106, the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the 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 15.16 percent, the all others rate established in the LTFV investigation.

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

This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This administrative review and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

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

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), the Department received a timely request from petitioner, Paint Applicator Division of the American Brush Manufacturers Association (Paint Applicator Division), that we conduct an administrative review of the sales of Hebei Founder Import & Export Company (Founder) and Hunan Provincial Native Products Import & Export Corp. (Hunan). On March 22, 2001, the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on natural bristle paintbrushes and paintbrush heads for the period of review (POR) of February 1, 2000 through January 31, 2001 for Founder and Hunan. On September 6, 2001, the Department rescinded the administrative review with respect to Founder because it did not sell, ship, or enter the subject merchandise during the POR. See Natural Bristle Paintbrushes and Brush Heads from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 66 FR 47450 (September 12, 2001).

Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department may extend the deadline for completion of the preliminary results of a review if it determines that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results within the statutory time limit of 245 days from the date on which the review was initiated. The Department has determined that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of this review for Hunan within the time limits mandated by section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and section 351.213(h)(1) of the Department's regulations because certain complex issues need to be examined, including the terms of Hunan's business relationship with its supplier and whether Hunan's single sale during the POR was a sample sale.

Therefore, in accordance with these sections, the Department is extending the time limits for the preliminary results by 120 days, until no later than February 28, 2002. The final results continue to be due 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results.

This will be the first meeting of the Ecosystems Planning Committee (formerly three committees: the Ecosystems Management Committee, the Comprehensive Management Committee, and the Habitat Committee). The purpose of this meeting is to review the committee’s work plan for the coming year and initiate discussions on 2003 priorities for the Council’s Quota Set-aside Program.

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

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Joanna Davis at the Mid-Atlantic Council Office (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The Oversight Committee and Advisory Panel will discuss the 2001 Small Mesh Multispecies Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report. They will also discuss Whiting Monitoring Committee Recommendations. They will identify issues and develop a scoping document for Amendment 14 (whiting) to the Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The agenda will also include discussion of a timeline, a schedule for scoping and future Committee meetings, as well as a timeline for the development of Amendment.

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

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 days prior to the meeting dates.

Title: Futures Volume, Open Interest, Price, Deliveries and Exchange of Futures for Physicals (OMB Control No. 3038-0012). This is a request for extension of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: Commission Regulation 16.01 requires the U.S. futures exchanges to publish daily information on the items listed in the title of the collection. The information required by this rule is in the public interest and is necessary for market surveillance. This rule is promulgated pursuant to the Commission's rulemaking authority contained in sections 5 and 5a of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 USC 7 and 7a(2000).

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the CFTC's regulations were published on December 30, 1981. See 46 FR 63035 (Dec. 30, 1981). The Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on September 27, 2001 (66 FR 49355).

Burden statement: The respondent burden for this collection is estimated to average .5 hours per response. These estimates include the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities : 12.

Estimated number of responses: 2,640.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 1,320 hours.

Frequency of collection: On occasion.

Send comments regarding the burden estimated or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the addresses listed below. Please refer to OMB Control No. 3038-0012 in any correspondence.

Gary J. Martinaitis, Division of Economic Analysis, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for CFTC, 725 17th Street, Washington, DC 20503.

Title: Gross Margining of Omnibus Accounts (OMB Control No. 3038-0026). This is a request for extension of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: Commission Regulation 1.58 requires futures commission merchants to carry omnibus accounts on a gross, rather than a net, basis. This rule is promulgated pursuant to the Commission's rulemaking authority contained in Sections 5 and 5a of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 7 and 7a (2000).

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the CFTC's regulations were published on December 30, 1981, See 46 FR 63035 (Dec. 30, 1981). The Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on October 5, 2001 (66 FR 51025).

Burden statement: The respondent burden for this collection is estimated to average .08 hours per response. These estimates include the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: 225.

Estimated number of responses: 3,900.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 300 hours.

Frequency of collection: On occasion.

Send comments regarding the burden estimated or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the addresses listed below. Please refer to OMB Control No. 3038-0026 in any correspondence.

  and

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

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

Any person interested in submitting written data, views, or arguments on the proposed terms and conditions, or with respect to other materials submitted by the CSCE should send such comments to Jean A. Webb, Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 115 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581 by the specified date.

The text of the Complaint appears below.

In the matter of; Daisy Manufacturing Company, Inc., doing business as Daisy Outdoor Products CPSC Docket No.: 02-2; 400 West Stribling Drive, Rogers, Arkansas 72756, Respondent.

1. This is an administrative proceeding pursuant to section 15 of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (“FHSA”), 15 U.S.C. 1274, and section 15 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (“CPSA”), 15 U.S.C. 2064, for public notification and remedial action to protect the public from substantial risks of injury and substantial product hazards created by Respondent Daisy Manufacturing Company, Inc.'s Powerline Airguns.

2. This proceeding is governed by the Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings before the Consumer Product Safety Commission, 16 CFR part 1025.

3. This proceeding is instituted pursuant to the authority contained in sections 15(c), (d) and (f) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(c), (d) and (f), and sections 15(c)(1), (2) and (e) of the FHSA, 15 U.S.C. 1274(c)(1), (2) and (e).

4. Complaint Counsel is the staff of the Legal Division of the Office of Compliance (hereinafter referred to as “Complaint Counsel”) of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (hereinafter referred to as “The Commission”), an independent regulatory commission established by section 4 of the CPSA. 15 U.S.C. 2053.

5. Respondent Daisy Manufacturing Company, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Daisy”) is a Delaware Corporation, with its principal place of business located at 400 West Stribling Drive, Rogers, Arkansas.

6. Daisy “manufactures” Powerline Airguns and is, therefore, a “manufacturer” of consumer products as that term is defined in the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(4).

7. The Daisy Powerline Airgun is a pneumatic powered or carbon dioxide (“CO 2 ”) charged gun designed to shoot BBs or pellets at a rate over 350 feet per second (fps). From September, 1972 to January, 2001, Daisy manufactured approximately 4,925,353 model 880 Powerline Airguns including the following models and product numbers: 880, 881, 882, 1880, 1881, 9072, 9082, 9083, 9093, 9393, 9382, 3305, 3480, 3933, 1455, and 5150. Daisy continues to manufacture the model 880 Powerline Airgun.

8. From 1984 through January, 2001, Daisy manufactured approximately 2,353,798 model 856 Powerline Airguns including the following models and product numbers: 860, 856, 2856, 7856 and 990. Daisy continues to manufacture the model 856 Powerline Airgun. (All models recited in paragraphs 7 and 8 above are hereinafter referred to as “Daisy Powerline Airguns.”)

9. The retail cost of the Daisy Powerline Airgun currently being sold varies from approximately $39.95 to $67.95.

10. Daisy has and continues to produce and distribute the Powerline Airguns in United States commerce for sale to a consumer for use in or around a permanent or temporary household or residence, in recreation or otherwise or for the personal use, consumption or enjoyment of a consumer in or around a permanent or temporary household or residence, in recreation or otherwise. These airguns are, therefore, “consumer products” that are “distributed in commerce.” 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1) and (11).

11. Paragraphs 1 through 10 are hereby realleged, and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.

12. A user can load 50 to 100 BBs through a loading door on the Daisy Powerline Airguns, and into the magazine reservoir. The consumer may then pull a bolt handle toward the rear to cock the gun, and close a pump valve. When the muzzle is raised, at least 45° above the horizon, and the gun is not titled towards either side, BBs move from the magazine, via gravity, onto a feed ramp, and to a loading port. This allows a magnetic bolt tip to pick up a BB from the feed ramp. The user can then close the bolt by pushing the handle forward, and chamber the BB into the rifle.

On the pneumatic versions of these airguns, the user provides power to the Daisy Powerline Airguns by pumping the forearm lever on the gun. This pumping process builds air pressure and determines the speed and power with which the projectile is ultimately expelled from the airgun. On the CO 2 cartridge versions of the gun, the consumer can insert a replaceable CO 2 cartridge which provides all the power needed to expel the projectile.

13. The Daisy Powerline Airguns have a rifle barrel, which is concentrically supported and surrounded by an outer barrel casing. These airguns have a “virtual magazine”, whose borders consist of the receiver halves, a casing surrounding the cylindrical pump that holds the projectile propellant, the outer barrel casing, and the inner rifle barrel's forward support tab. The Daisy design permits BBs to move freely around the inside of the magazine area.

14. During normal use of the Daisy Powerline Airguns, BBs may become lodged within the “virtual magazine” of the gun. A consumer using the gun may fire the gun repeatedly or shake the gun and receive no visual or audible indication that the airgun is still loaded.

15. Although Daisy made some changes to the Powerline Airguns to try to lessen the likelihood that BBs will lodge in the gun, BBs can still lodge inside of them. The Daisy Powerline Airguns design, and manufacturing variances, prevent BBs from loading into the firing chamber and lead consumers to believe the airgun is empty, are, therefore, defective within the meaning of section 15 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064, and section 15 of FHSA, 15 U.S.C. 1274.

16. Because these Daisy airguns can lodge BBs or fail to feed BBs into the firing chamber under normal conditions of use, consumers may be unaware when a BB loads unless they look into the loading port. Daisy made design decisions that impair the ability of the user to ascertain whether a BB is loaded. Daisy manufactures BBs that are silver in color. The Powerline Airgun's feed ramp is made of a zinc material. Due to the color similarity, a user operating the airgun rapidly may not be able to discern the presence of a BB even if he is looking directly into the loading port. Further, Daisy designed the airgun so a user can install an optional riflescope on top of the receiver halves and over the loading port. The placement of the riflescope can obscure the user's ability to see a BB in the loading port.

17. Daisy's design relies unduly on consumers to see a BB in the loading port and then interferes with that ability in reasonably foreseeable circumstances. This design constitutes a defect under section 15 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064, and section 15 of the FHSA, 15 U.S.C. 1274.

18. Daisy's Powerline Airguns use a safety mechanism that does not automatically engage when the airgun is loaded and ready to fire. An automatic safety design would prevent against accidental discharge.

19. The failure to incorporate an automatic safety into the Daisy Powerline Airgun constitutes a design defect under section 15 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064, and section 15 of the FHSA, 15 U.S.C. 1274.

20. All of the approximately 7,279,151 Daisy Powerline Airguns, and the Powerline Airguns currently being sold, contain the defects alleged in paragraphs 11 through 19 above.

21. Most of the consumers using these airguns will be children or young adults. It is likely that these consumers will operate the gun rapidly and not continue to check the loading port to determine whether any BBs are feeding into the chamber when they believe the airgun is no longer loaded. It is also reasonably foreseeable consumers, during use, will be less careful with a gun they believe is not loaded. A BB that had previously been lodged and misfed can then be loaded, and fired from the airgun. Under these circumstances, BBs are likely to be fired at and strike the consumer or another person in the vicinity.

22. It is likely consumers will carry and handle the Daisy Powerline Airguns when they are cocked and loaded. Since these airguns do not have an automatic safety, it is likely the gun will be discharged during handling in the direction of the user or anther person in the vicinity.

23. At close range, BBs fired from these airguns can penetrate tissue and bone, damaging internal organs, such as the brain, heart, liver, spleen, stomach, bowel and colon. The Commission has learned of at least 15 death and 171 serious injuries, including brain damage and permanent paralysis, caused by the defects in the Daisy Powerline Airguns. Most of these injuries were to children under the age of 18.

24. The defects in the Daisy Powerline Airgun create a substantial risk of injury, and the airguns create a substantial product hazard within the meaning of section 15(a)(2) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(a)(2).

25. Paragraphs 1 through 24 are hereby realleged, and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.

26. The Daisy Powerline Airguns were marketed for, and intended for the use of, children. Although Daisy marketed the airguns initially with no age recommendation, it later labeled them for users 14 and older and eventually 16 and older. A substantial number of the airguns are intended for use by children.

27. Given the pattern of the defects alleged above, the number of Powerline Airguns distributed in commerce, and the likelihood of further serious injury and death, especially to children, these airguns present a substantial risk of injury to children. Sections 15(c)(1) and (c)(2) of the FHSA, 15 U.S.C. 1274(c)(1) and (c)(2).

Wherefore, in the public interest, Complaint counsel requests that the Commission:

A. Determine that Respondent Daisy's Powerline Airgun presents a “substantial product hazard” within the meaning of section 15(a)(2) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2064(a)(2).

B. Determine that Respondent Daisy's Powerline Airgun presents a “substantial risk of injury to children” within the meaning of sections 15(c)(1) and (c)((2) of the FHSA, 15 U.S.C. 1274(c)(1) and (c)(2).

C. Determine that public notification under section 15(c) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(c), and section 15(c)(1) is required to protect the public adequately from the substantial product hazard and substantial risk of injury to children presented by the Powerline Airgun. We also want to prevent future distribution and order that the Respondents:

(1) Give prompt public notice that the Daisy Powerline Airgun presents a serious injury and death hazard to consumers and of the remedies available to remove the risk of injury and death;

(2) Mail such notice to each person who is or has been a distributor or retailer of the Daisy Powerline Airgun;

(3) Mail such notice to every person to whom Respondents know the Daisy Powerline Airgun were delivered or sold; and

(4) Include in the notice required by (1), (2) and (3) above a complete description of the hazard presented, a warning to stop using the Daisy Powerline Airgun immediately; and clear instructions to inform consumers how to avail themselves of any remedy ordered by the Commission.

D. Determine that action under section 15(d) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(d), and section 15(c)(2) of the FHSA, 15 U.S.C. 1274(c)(2) is in the public interest and order Respondents:

(1) To cease distribution of all Daisy Powerline Airguns until such time as all defects in the airguns are eliminated and the risk of injury reduced in a manner satisfactory to the Commission.

(2) With respect to Daisy Powerline Airguns already manufactured and distributed in commerce, Daisy must

(a) Elect to repair all the Powerline Airguns so they will not create a serious injury and death hazard; replace all the Powerline Airguns with a like or equivalent product which will not create a serious injury or death hazard; or refund to consumers the purchase price of the Powerline Airgun;

(3) Make no charge to consumers and reimburse them for any foreseeable expenses incurred in availing themselves of any remedy provided under any order issued in this matter;

(4) Reimburse distributors and dealers for expenses in connection with carrying out any Commission Order issued in this matter;

(5) Submit a plan satisfactory to the Commission, within ten calendar (10) days of service of the final Order, directing that actions specified in paragraphs D(2) through D(4) above be taken in a timely manner;

(6) Submit monthly reports documenting progress of the corrective action program;

(7) For a period of five (5) years after entry of a Final Order in this matter, keep records of its actions taken to comply with paragraphs D(2) through D(4) above, and supply these records upon request to the Commission for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the Final Order.

e. Daisy shall notify the Commission at least 60 days prior to any change in their business (such as incorporation, dissolution, assignment, sale or petition for bankruptcy) that results in, or is intended to result in, the emergence of successor ownership, the creation or dissolution of subsidiaries, going out of business, or any other change that might affect compliance obligations under a Final Order issued by the Commission.

F. Daisy shall take such other and further actions as the Commission deems necessary to protect the public health and safety and to comply with the CPSA and FHSA.

Current: MTMC has no moratorium.

Proposed: MTMC will impose a temporary moratorium on accepting new applications for qualification beginning 10 days from the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . MTMC may reduce the moratorium to a lesser period based on the time it takes to complete transition from the manual to the electronic applicaiton process. Once the moratorium is lifted future applicants must qualify under the new qualification procedures.

The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq ., does not apply because no information requirements or records keeping responsibilities are imposed on offerors, contractors, or members of the public.

This change is related to public contracts and is designed to streamline and strengthen the DOD personal property carrier qualification program. This change is not considered rule making within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5, U.S.C. 601-612.

MTMC's proposal to incorporate common commercial business practices and take advantage of efficiencies gained from the use of technology will streamline and strengthen the carrier qualification process for the first time in 10 years. Once changes have been adopted, the new requirements will supersede the current How To Do Business Book. The updated “book” will be available for your use on the internet on the MTMC home page at www.mtmc.army.mil.

1. Qualification procedures.

Current: Manual and time consuming submission of documentation to MTMC.

Proposed: All current Program participants and those who have applied for qualification prior to the publication of this notice in the Federal Register must apply or re-apply for qualification approval (also known as re-qualification) under the new streamlined requirements and submit their application electronically for two forms and electronic/fax for two specific forms.

2. New procedures for future applicants.

Current: Utilizes “How to do Business Book”

Proposed: Once published, carriers must comply with the new procedures in the revised “How to do Business Book”.

3. Submission of Forms.

Current: Submission of a qualification package is a manual process with a minimum of 13 forms.

Proposed: MTMC will require only 2 electronic forms and 2 forms that either contain electronic signatures or are faxed facsimile signatures. All forms will be available on the MTMC web site. These forms include the Electronic Tender of Service Signature Sheet, the List of Countries and Codes of Service form, performance bond, and certificate of cargo liability insurance as part of the approval process. The performance bond and certificate of cargo liability require signatures and must be sent electronically or faxed.

1. Application for re-qualification.

Current: Manual applications are reviewed on a first come first served basis.

Proposed: Required electronic re-qualification applications must be submitted during the period 1 Feb.-1 Mar. 02. The submission date is determined by the electronic date on the electronic tender of service signature sheet received in MTMC's database. After completing the electronic tender of service signature sheet and the List of countries and codes of service the computer will send back a response that we have received the documentation. It will be the carrier's responsibility to ensure any faxed documentation has been submitted to MTMC by the required deadline. Late submissions will not be accepted. Electronic applications will be reviewed on a first come first served basis. During the transition period while applications for re-qualification are being processed, previously approved carrier applicants may continue to do business with DOD pending completion of the re-qualification process. Before filing rates for the IS02/DS02 cycles, carriers should review the final Federal Register notice in Jan 02 to make sure they meet the new qualification requirements. Upon MTMC's review of applicant's submission, if carriers do not meet the qualification requirements, their rates will be administratively removed from the system. Carriers failing to successfully complete the required re-qualification process during the submission period will be allowed to continue to participate in the current winter cycle but will be ineligible for traffic in succeeding cycles. Future applicants must qualify under the new qualification procedures.

2. Financial Ratios.

Current: Carriers must certify financial statements meets a 1:1 quick ratio or better.

Proposed: All participants must meet and maintain a 1:1 Quick ratio or better, a 1:1 Current ratio or better, and a 2:1 Debt to Equity ratio or less. The following definitions are provided for clarification purposes only. If there are further questions, carriers should consult with their own accountants for clarification and how to best present financial data.

The quick ratio measures the ability of a business to meet their current bills. Quick ratio is cash plus receivable/current liabilities. This is similar to current ratio with the exception that inventory and prepaids are subtracted from the total current assets prior to making the computation. These items are deleted prior to computing the ratio because inventory and prepaids are not easily converted to cash to pay debts. Future if a company needs to liquidate inventory or prepaids to pay bills, they are in liquidation process and not really a going concern.

Current ratio is company's current assets/current liabilities. Current assets are defined as cash, receivables, inventories, and prepaid items (insurance, deposits, etc). Current liabilities are what you owe within the coming 12 month period. Included as current liabilities are normal accounts payable and next 12 months of payments on company loans/note payable.

Debt to equity is total liabilities divided by company's equity. Another way of stating this is that equity is the company's worth and debt to equity measures debt to worth. For example if your car costs $15,000 but your loan is $10,000 your equity in the car is $5,000 and your debt to equity ratio is 2 to 1. Thus for every dollar of equity you owe two dollars. (2 × 5,000 equals your debt of $10,000).

3. Financial documentation.

Current: Submit hard copy of financial statements at time of application.

Proposed: Upon request, carriers will provide MTMC financial statements accompanied by either an audit report or review memorandum prepared by their auditors. Financial statements must be prepared according to generally accepted accounting principles using the accrual basis, including balance sheets and profit/loss statements. Financial statements must include all documents referenced in any footnotes or in any audit or review memorandums. No pro forma statements will be accepted in lieu of actual financial statements. We may also elect to request copies of your company income tax returns for the past three years. MTMC reserves the right to obtain services from an independent third party source to conduct financial risk analysis of carrier's financials. This analysis will compare the company analyzed with appropriate industry norms. This information may be used in a carrier review board action to assist in the determination of financial risk to the government. The financial statements must document the business operations of the single business entity or organization that seeks to qualify to do business with the DOD. Combined or consolidated statements that include the finances of other companies will not be accepted. Letters of guarantee from a parent company will not be accepted.

4. Cargo Liability Insurance Minimum.

Current: Minimums are $10,800 per shipment and $150,000 amount per aggregate at any one place and time (per incident).

Proposed: Cargo liability insurance will be equal to $22,500 per shipment and $315,000 per incident. Carriers must have their insurance company provide directly to MTMC current cargo liability insurance certificates by electronic means or fax. These levels must be maintained throughout DOD approval.

5. Performance Bond.

Current: International carriers must provide a performance bond in the face amount of either $100,000 or 2.5% of their DOD international revenue for the previous year, whichever, is greater. There is no current bond requirement in the Domestic program.

Proposed: Carriers must have their surety company provide a signed copy of their performance bond directly to MTMC electronically or by fax. A performance bond will be required in both the international and domestic program. However, there are differences in the requirements. The value of each cycle's International Program continuous performance bond must be equal to $100,000 or 2.5% percent of the projected international revenue based on previous year cycle data, whichever is greater. The International bond requirement will change from an annual submission to a semi-annual submission, upon request from MTMC. Note: For the purpose of re-qualification, all current International participants will be notified individually, if an increase in their performance bond is required.

The value of the continuous Domestic bond will be equal to $50,000 or 2.5% percent of the value of revenue received from DOD personal property domestic traffic in the previous complete calendar year, whichever is greater.

The purpose of this performance bond requirement is to ensure that the DOD is compensated for reprocurement costs caused by the carrier's failure to perform agreed services.

6. Carrier experience requirement.

Current: There is no minimum.

Proposed: Both International and Domestic carriers must have a minimum of 5 years commercial and/or government experience to be considered for DOD approval, using the date on your operating authority, or if deregulated the date on your Articles of Incorporation.

7. Safety Rating.

Current: Carrier's Safety Rating is not reviewed.

Proposed: MTMC will reserve the right to obtain and use a carrier's Department of Transportation Safety Rating for verification of authority and any reported safety infractions, which may be used in Carrier Review Boards.

8. Change of Ownership.

Current: Carrier submits new qualification package.

Proposed: MTMC approval of changes in ownership of previously approved carriers is required. MTMC approval will be based on a review of the sales agreement and other items similar to that set out in the Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 42.12. The new asset owner (transferee) must assume ALL obligations under the agreement as if they were the original party. The transferor guarantees performance by the transferee. All three parties (Government, transferor, and transferee) will sign a novation agreement.

1. For all Domestic Program applicants and participants, MTMC proposes to continue to require all affiliates of other Domestic and International Program applicants and participants to declare (common financial and/or administrative control) their affiliations. Affiliates means associated business concerns or individuals if directly or indirectly, (a) either one controls or can control the other or (b) a third party controls or can control both. For all International Program applicants and participants, MTMC proposes to continue to require all affiliates of the other Domestic and International Program applicants and participants to both declare their affiliations to MTMC, and to refrain from competing in the same personal property code of service/channel (code/channel) combinations served by any of their affiliates. If MTMC adjusts the codes of service and/or channels at any time in the future, this rule will continue for the new or altered codes and/or channels without further notice, and Program participants will be required to adjust their service and update their documentation with MTMC.

2. MTMC intends to enforce these enhanced qualification requirements by reviewing information about commercial participant performance and finances obtained from a variety of sources including information provided directly to MTMC, public databases, and commercial sources. The latter may include commercial performance databases, members of the personal property industry, and members of the general public. If a Program participant violates Program requirements, it will be administratively placed in a nonuse status pending resolution of the violation using the procedures contained in MTMC Regulations 15-1. When carrier declarations do not appear to be consistent with known factors or circumstances, they will be identified for further investigation and possible referral to the U.S. Justice Department for action.

3. MTMC proposes to require that all Program applicants and participants accept the cost of complying with these more stringent requirements as part of their cost of doing business. We further anticipate that adoption of the new qualification procedures and standards will result in many offsetting tangible and intangible benefits to military service members and their families, the personal property industry, to DOD, the military services, U.S. Transportation Command, and MTMC as organizations. Military service members will benefit from having their personal property moved in an efficient manner by carriers that possess the necessary means of doing business and that do not go out of business and/or hold shipments hostage. Personal property agents will benefit from knowing that a DOD approved carrier is financially stable and has the means to pay its bills in a timely manner. DOD organizations will benefit from dealing with healthy carriers that do not suffer catastrophic business failures that require extensive and expensive transportation reprocurement efforts.

MTMC envisions the adoption of more stringent qualification requirements as part of a continuing process in which MTMC moves from price-based procurement of transportation services to a best value, or quality plus price, approach.

The revised qualification process, procedures, regulations and How To Do Business Book will be superseded by the new streamlined requirements. MTMC will publish all Program requirements in its Website “How to Do Business with the DOD”, and the Federal Register as appropriate.

MTMC has previously received many informal comments, primarily from commercial personal property transportation providers supporting the idea of eliminating financially and operationally risky carriers from the Program. We agree in general terms with these comments for both legal and operational reasons. We now propose to change carrier qualification requirement in the DOD Personal Property Program to implement this military/industry consensus.

The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., does not apply because no information requirements or records keeping responsibilities are imposed on offerors, contractors, or members of the public.

This change is related to public contracts and is designed to streamline and strengthen the DOD personal property carrier qualification program. This change is not considered rule making within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5, U.S.C. 601-612.

The instant invention provides compositions containing as active agents paromomycin in combination with gentamicin. When given in combination, the compositions appear much more effective than when given alone. Furthermore, the compositions of the invention were found to be effective against several species of Leishmania that were not effectively inhibited by the prior art compositions.

This invention relates to the use of dihydrolipoic acid and alpha-lipoic acid to treat and prevent retinal damage arising from physical forces such as laser beams and to compositions containing phenyl nitrones and dihydrolipoic acids or alpha-lipoic acid as neuroprotective agents. The protective effect is believed to be due to the metabolites ability to protect neurons by a direct antioxidant effect, recycling of antioxidant vitamins E and C by redox, enhancement of glutathione, creation of at least 8 species of free radicals, and enhancement of intracellular ATP. Such may be useful in glaucoma, temporal arteritis, macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy, proliferative retinopathy, retinitis pigmentosa, and as an adjunctive prophylactic therapy prior to or following cataract surgery.

A neuroprotectant composition wherein the active ingredient is pGLU-GLU-PRO-NH2 or a combination of pGLU_GLU-PRO-NH2 (EEP) and N-tert-Butyl-α-(2sulfophenyl)nitrone (SPBN) or other nitrone. A method of treating and preventing diseases and injuries of the brain, spinal cord and retina is also presented by administering the endogenous tripeptide EEP to a subject as a neuroprotectant or by administering EEP in combination with SPBN or other nitrone.

The administration of α-lipoic acid (α-LA) and dihydrolipoic acid (DHL) both as a preventive measure before exposure to conditions which may cause damage, such as rapid changes in atmospheric pressure, and as a means of preventing or ameliorating damage arising from such injury provides benefits not currently available. The active agents may be administered systematically or to the injured tissue. For example, when there is spinal cord injury, the active agents may be administered intrathecally.

Section 4314(c)(1) through (5) of Title 5, U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations, one or more Senior Executive Service performance review boards. The boards shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of senior executives' performance by supervisors and make recommendations to the appointing authority or rating official relative to the performance of these executives.

The members of the Performance Review Board for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are:

The National Assessment Governing Board is established under section 412 of the National Education Statistics Act of 1994 (Title IV of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994) (Pub. L. 103-382).

The Board is established to formulate policy guidelines for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The Board is responsible for selecting subject areas to be assessed, developing assessment objectives, identifying appropriate achievement goals for each grade and subject tested, and establishing standards and procedures for interstate and national comparisons.

On November 16, 2001 the full Board will convene in open session from 8:30 a.m.-10:00 a.m. The Board will approve the agenda; hear a report from the Executive Director of the National Assessment Governing Board; receive updates on the NAEP Program and on reauthorization; and on the “No Child Left Behind” initiative. From 10:00 a.m. to 12:15 p.m., the Board's standing committees will meet in open session.

The Assessment Development Committee (ADC) will meet in open session on Friday, November 16, 2001 from 10:00 a.m.-12:15 p.m. The Committee will review final recommendations on the Mathematics Framework and Specifications for the 2004 NAEP Math Assessment; review the draft NAEP Reading Framework; and receive a briefing on the Economics Framework and Specifications project for the NAEP 2005 Economics Assessment.

The Committee on Standards, Design, and Methodology will meet on Friday, November 16, 2001 from 10 a.m.-12:15 p.m. to discuss technical issues in potential changes to Long Term Trend Assessments; receive a summary analyses of combined state and national NAEP data; discuss proposed statistical standards for inference and comparisons; receive a summary analyses of the grade 12 score decline in NAEP; and receive a status report on the 2001 geography achievement level anchoring study.

The Reporting and Dissemination Committee will meet on Friday, November 16, 2001 from 10 a.m.-12:15 p.m. to discuss the NAEP 2000 Science Release; the schedule for release of future NAEP reports; and annual reporting of reading and mathematics.

The Committee will receive an update on racial/ethnic categories in NAEP data collection and reporting, and discuss the Board's role in the review of background questions and criteria for review. The Committee will review background questions for the NAEP 2002 reading and writing assessments; the NAEP 2002 field test; and the long term trend assessments.

The full Board will reconvene on November 16, 2001 from 12:30 p.m.-5 p.m. to discuss measuring achievement gaps, to receive an update and discuss the NAEP 2002 Reading Revisit; hear a status report from the Ad Hoc Committee on Confirming State Results; hear recommendations and discuss the NAEP 2004 Mathematics Framework; and receive ethics training upon which the November 16, 2001 session of the Board meeting will adjourn.

On November 17, 2001, the Board will meet from 8:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. to receive a demonstration of the Interactive NAEP Data Tool. The Board will then hear and take action on Committee reports from 9:30 a.m. to 12 p.m., whereupon the meeting will adjourn.

Summaries of the activities of the closed sessions and related matters, which are informative to the public and consistent with the policy of section 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), will be available to the public within 14 days of the meeting. Records are kept of all Board proceedings and are available for public inspection at the U.S. Department of Education, National Assessment Governing Board, Suite #825, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Washington, DC, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

Council members are chosen to assure a well-balanced representation from all sections of the country, all segments of the coal industry, including large and small companies, and commercial and residential consumers. The Council also has diverse members who represent interests outside the coal industry, including environmental interests, labor, research, and academia. Membership and representation of all interests will continue to be determined in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and implementing regulations.

The renewal of the Council has been determined essential to the conduct of the Department's business and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the Department of Energy by law. The Council will continue to operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and implementing regulations.

Council members are chosen to assure a well-balanced representation from all sections of the country, all segments of the petroleum industry, and from large and small companies. The Council also has diverse members who represent interest outside the petroleum industry, including representatives from environmental, labor, research, academia, and State utility regulatory commissions. Membership and representation of all interests will continue to be determined in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and implementing regulations.

The renewal of the Council has been determined essential to the conduct of the Department's business and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the Department of Energy by law. The Council will operate in accordance with the Federal Advisory Act and implementing regulations.

DOE announces its Advance Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS for Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship at the WVDP and the Center. DOE has prepared this Advance Notice of Intent in accordance with the Department's regulations for implementing NEPA [10 CFR 1021.311(b)], which state that DOE may publish an Advance Notice of Intent to provide an early opportunity to inform interested parties of a pending EIS or to solicit early public comments.

DOE intends to prepare this EIS jointly with NYSERDA, although either agency may, at any point, determine the need to proceed independently in support of their independent missions. In preparing this Advance Notice of Intent, DOE anticipates that the Department would be the lead Federal agency for purposes of compliance with NEPA, while NYSERDA would be the lead State agency for purposes of compliance with SEQRA. DOE also anticipates that NRC would participate as a cooperating agency under NEPA and that NYSDEC would be an involved agency under SEQRA.

DOE invites the public to provide early assistance in identifying significant environmental issues and alternatives to be analyzed in the forthcoming Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship EIS. DOE and NYSERDA will consider public comments and other relevant information as the agencies jointly develop a Notice of Intent for publication in the Federal Register and a notice for publication in the New York State Environmental Notice Bulletin. DOE and NYSERDA expect the Notice of Intent to contain a preliminary range of reasonable alternatives proposed for analysis as agreed to by DOE and NYSERDA. Further, DOE and NYSERDA expect to publish the Notice of Intent within approximately a year of publishing this advance notice. Although a public scoping meeting will not be held until the public scoping process required by NEPA has been initiated, DOE and NYSERDA would give equal weight to written comments submitted in response to this Advance Notice of Intent and comments received during the public scoping process.

The Center consists of a 3,345-acre reservation in rural western New York that is the location of the only NRC-licensed commercial spent nuclear fuel reprocessing facilities to have ever operated in the United States. NYSERDA holds title to the Center on behalf of the people of the State of New York. Pursuant to the WVDP Act, DOE and NYSERDA entered into a Cooperative Agreement effective October 1, 1980, that specifies the responsibilities and conditions agreed upon by each for the purpose of carrying out the WVDP. Under the agreement, NYSERDA has made available to DOE, without transfer of title, an approximately 200-acre portion of the Center, known as the “Project Premises,” which includes a formerly operated spent nuclear fuel reprocessing plant, spent nuclear fuel receiving and storage area, liquid high-level waste (HLW) storage tanks, a liquid low-level waste treatment facility with associated lagoons, and a radioactive waste disposal area licensed by the NRC. Adjacent to and in the vicinity of the Project Premises is an area referred to as the State Licensed Disposal Area, for which NYSERDA has responsibility.

The WVDP Act authorizes NRC to prescribe decommissioning criteria for the WVDP. At this time, DOE anticipates that the NRC would resume regulatory oversight of the Center, with the exception of the State Licensed Disposal Area, following DOE's completion of the WVDP.

Section 2(a)(1-5) of the WVDP Act articulates the five actions required of DOE. Actions 1 and 2 address HLW solidification and development of appropriate containers for the solidified wastes. Action 3 requires DOE to transport the solidified HLW to a Federal geologic repository for permanent disposal. Action 4 requires DOE to dispose of low-level and transuranic wastes generated by HLW solidification and in connection with the WVDP. Action 5 requires DOE to decontaminate and decommission the tanks, facilities, material, and hardware used in the solidification of HLW and in connection with the WVDP.

Actions 1 and 2 were the focus of a 1982 Final EIS (DOE/EIS-0081) and Record of Decision (47 FR 40705, September 15, 1982) on HLW solidification. The 1996 Cleanup and Closure Draft EIS examined the remaining actions, 3, 4, and 5. Considering the comments received on the 1996 Cleanup and Closure Draft EIS, ongoing discussions between the joint lead agencies (DOE and NYSERDA), and discussions with NRC, DOE now intends to conduct the NEPA process for actions 3, 4, and 5 in two separate EISs. Accordingly, DOE announced its intent to prepare a Decontamination and Waste Management EIS on March 26, 2001 (66 FR 16447), which will only address DOE's decision-making with respect to managing Project wastes and decontaminating Project facilities as stipulated in actions 3 and 4 and decontamination activities for Project facilities stipulated in action 5. DOE will need to conduct these activities regardless of future decommissioning and/or long-term stewardship decisions.

DOE expects the Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship EIS announced herein to address DOE's remaining activities under the WVDP Act as stipulated in action 5, any waste management activities under action 4 that could arise as a result of decommissioning activities, and NYSERDA's activities relative to decommissioning or long-term stewardship of land and facilities under its purview. DOE believes that the activities identified for the Decontamination and Waste Management EIS and for the Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship EIS are separate and distinct and are thus appropriate for analysis in two EISs, consistent with NEPA and its implementing regulations.

DOE needs to determine the manner that facilities for which the Department is responsible under the WVDP Act are decommissioned, in accordance with the criteria yet to be prescribed by the NRC. NYSERDA needs to develop a strategy for decommissioning or long-term stewardship for land and facilities under its purview. To this end, DOE and NYSERDA would determine what, if any, material or structures would remain on the site and what, if any, institutional controls would be required, in accordance with their respective agency responsibilities.

DOE anticipates, at this time, that its alternatives to be proposed for analysis in the Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship EIS would range from complete removal of Project waste and facilities to in-place closure of Project facilities, including a No Action Alternative as required by NEPA, and that NYSERDA would propose a similar range of decommissioning and/or long- term stewardship alternatives to those proposed by DOE, for the facilities and areas for which NYSERDA is responsible. Additional alternatives may also be presented after consultation with NRC, NYSERDA and the public. However, DOE and NYSERDA expect the potential alternatives to be sufficiently consistent in concept with those identified in the1996 Draft Cleanup and Closure EIS to allow the use of technical information presented therein, supplemented as needed.

NRC has indicated that it intends to publish a draft policy statement on prescribing decommissioning criteria for the WVDP for public comment and subsequently issue a final statement that would include its response to comments. Based upon ongoing discussions with the Commission, DOE and NYSERDA intend at this time to apply the NRC's License Termination Rule (10 CFR 20.1401 et seq. ) as draft decommissioning criteria in assessing the health and environmental impacts of decommissioning the WVDP facilities, pending NRC issuance of its final Policy Statement on decommissioning criteria for the WVDP. If the final decommissioning criteria are issued before completion of the EIS, the results in the EIS will reflect any changes in criteria.

In 1997, the NRC published the Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities (NUREG-1496) to support its decision-making on establishing explicit radiological criteria for decommissioning various types of facilities, including nuclear power plants, non-power reactors, fuel fabrication plants, uranium hexaflouride production plants, and independent spent fuel storage installations. This EIS analyzed courses of action that NRC would take in establishing radiological criteria for decommissioning and the cost and environmental impacts associated with those alternatives. Based on this analysis, the NRC promulgated its Final License Termination Rule (62 FR 39086, July 21, 1997). Although this EIS did not evaluate a reference spent fuel reprocessing facility, DOE and NYSERDA intend to use those aspects of NRC's EIS that may have specific relevance to the West Valley site.

Further, DOE and NYSERDA also intend to evaluate other available NRC NEPA documents to identify elements that would be applicable to decommissioning activities at the WVDP and the Center. NRC issued the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities (NUREG-0586) in 1988 to assist it in reevaluating its regulatory requirements for decommissioning of nuclear facilities. In this EIS, the NRC evaluated the areas of decommissioning alternatives, financial assurance, planning, and residual radioactivity levels. This EIS was prepared to support the General Requirements for Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Final Rule (53 FR 24018, June 27, 1988) and analyzed a number of reference licensed facilities, including the Barnwell spent fuel reprocessing design, which was never demonstrated. The Barnwell facility, unlike the West Valley reprocessing facility, was designed for short-term liquid HLW storage and subsequent near-term HLW vitrification. The NRC is currently supplementing this EIS (65 FR 25395, May 1, 2000) to evaluate certain decommissioning alternatives for power reactor facilities in more detail.

For the 1996 Draft WVDP Cleanup and Closure EIS, DOE developed or modified a variety of analytical tools specifically for that document. DOE has continued to refine many of these analytical tools as a result of public comments received on the 1996 Draft Cleanup and Closure EIS and ongoing interactions with stakeholders and regulatory agencies such as the NRC. DOE intends to apply these improved analytical tools to the preparation of the Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship EIS. To address significant issues such as erosion, for example, DOE has continued to develop a site-specific erosion model, with ongoing advice from NRC, and integrated that model into a revised performance assessment methodology, incorporating the use of sensitivity and uncertainty analyses.

There are also some additional areas where new information will be obtained specifically for the Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship EIS. This work includes updated site characterization and census data and the performance of a seismic reflection survey in the vicinity of the WVDP. This seismic reflection survey, to be performed in consultation with academic, government, and industry participants, will contribute to knowledge about the regional structural geology as it may relate to the WVDP and the Center.

Additional information that has become available since publication of the 1996 Draft Cleanup and Closure EIS includes DOE's Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (WM PEIS, DOE/EIS-0200-F) and its associated Records of Decision. The WM PEIS analyzed on a national scale the centralization, regionalization, or decentralization of managing HLW, transuranic waste, low-level radioactive waste, mixed radioactive low-level waste (containing hazardous constituents), and non-wastewater hazardous waste. The Decommissioning and/or Long-Term EIS will incorporate, as appropriate, analyses from the WM PEIS so as to analyze site-specific activities necessary to implement the pertinent parts of the Records of Decision that apply to West Valley. The Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship EIS will also incorporate, as needed, information made available as a result of the Decontamination and Waste Management EIS.

DOE has tentatively identified the following issues for analysis in the Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship EIS. The list is presented to facilitate early comment on the scope of the EIS. It is not intended to be all-inclusive nor to predetermine the alternatives to be analyzed or their potential impacts.

• Potential impacts to the general population and on-site workers from radiological and non-radiological releases from decommissioning and/or long-term stewardship activities.

• Potential environmental impacts, including air and water quality impacts, caused by decommissioning and/or long-term stewardship activities.

• Potential transportation impacts from shipments of radioactive, hazardous, or mixed waste generated during decommissioning activities.

• Potential impacts from postulated accidents.

• Potential disproportionately high and adverse effects on low-income and minority populations (environmental justice).

• Potential Native American concerns.

• Irretrievable and irreversible commitment of resources.

• Short-term and long-term land use impacts.

• Decommissioning criteria for the WVDP.

• Compliance with Federal, State, and local requirements.

• The influence of, and potential interactions of, any wastes remaining at the Center after decommissioning.

• Unavoidable adverse impacts.

• Issues associated with decommissioning and long-term site stewardship, including regulatory and engineering considerations.

• Long-term site stability, including erosion and seismicity.

NYSDEC and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency entered into an Administrative Order on Consent with DOE and NYSERDA in March 1992, pursuant to section 3008(h) of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The purpose of the Order is to protect human health and the environment from releases of hazardous waste and/or hazardous constituents. DOE and NYSERDA expect to continue ongoing work with NYSDEC and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to integrate the requirements of the Order with the EIS process. DOE anticipates that NYSDEC therefore would participate in the Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship EIS to the extent required to address its regulatory responsibilities for the WVDP and the Center, including the State Licensed Disposal Area, as an involved agency under SEQRA.

This Advance Notice of Intent does not serve as a substitute for the Notice of Intent that would initiate the public scoping process for the Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship EIS. After that Notice of Intent is published, DOE and NYSERDA expect to conduct the public scoping process in accordance with NEPA, the Council on Environmental Quality NEPA implementing regulations (40 CFR 1500—1508), the DOE's implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021), and with New York's SEQRA and its implementing regulations (6 NYCRR 617). The scoping process will include a public meeting and a public comment period on the scope of the EIS.

Documents referenced in this Advance Notice of Intent and related information are available at the following locations.

Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are all outer continental shelf sources except those located in the Gulf of Mexico west of 87.5 degrees longitude (near the border of Florida and Alabama). For sources located within 25 miles of States' seaward boundaries, the requirements are the same as those that would be applicable if the source were located in the corresponding onshore area (COA). In States affected by this rule, State boundaries extend three miles from the coastline, except off the coast of the Florida Panhandle, where that State's boundary extends three leagues (about nine miles) from the coastline.

Title: Outer Continental Shelf Air Regulations, EPA ICR Number 1601.04 and OMB Control Number 2060.0250, expiration date: September 30, 2001.

Abstract: Sources located beyond 25 miles of States' boundaries are subject to Federal requirements (implemented and enforced solely by EPA) for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Standards (NESHAPS), the Federal operating permit program, and the enhanced compliance and monitoring regulations. Before any agency, department, or instrumentality of the Federal government engages in, supports in any way, provides financial assistance for, licenses, permits, approves any activity, that agency has the affirmative responsibility to ensure that such action conforms to the State implementation plan (SIP) for the attainment and maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. ) requires that all Federal actions conform with the SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Depending on the type of action, the Federal entities either collect the information themselves, hire consultants to collect the information or require applicants/sponsors of the Federal action to provide the information.

The type and quantity of information required will depend on the circumstances surrounding the action. First, the entity must make an applicability determination. If the source is located within 25 miles of the States' seaward boundaries as established in the regulations, the requirements are the same as those that would be applicable if the source were located in the COA. State and local air pollution control agencies are usually requested to provide information concerning regulation of offshore sources and are provided opportunities to comment on the proposed determinations. The public is also provided an opportunity to comment on the proposed determinations.

The EPA would like to solicit comments to:

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

(ii) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

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

The estimated industry respondent burden for total labor hours and costs associated with one-time/periodic activities are estimated to be 50,227 hours and $2,344,786, respectively. Total labor hours and costs associated with annual activities are estimated to be 48,924 hours and $2,256,547, respectively. Total industry respondent costs annualized over the 3-year time period are estimated to be $1,864,428 per year.

The estimated State and local agency burden for total labor hours and costs associated with one-time/periodic activities are estimated to be 1,868 hours and $66,704, respectively. Total labor hours and costs associated with annual activities for that time period are estimated to be 10,458 hours and $373,376, respectively. Total costs annualized over the 3-year time period are estimated to be $166,400 per year.

The estimated EPA burden for total labor hours and costs associated with one-time-only activities are estimated to be 9,038 hours and $322,657, respectively. Total labor hours and costs associated with annual activities are estimated to be 3,304 hours and $117,953, respectively. Total costs annualized over the 3-year time period are estimated to be $185,954 per year.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Title: General Conformity of Federal Actions to State Implementation Plans, OMB Control Number 2060-0279, EPA ICR Number 1637.05, expiration date December 31, 2001. This is a request for extension of a currently approved collection.

Before any agency, department, or instrumentality of the Federal government engages in, supports in any way, provides financial assistance for, licenses, permits, approves any activity, that agency has the affirmative responsibility to ensure that such action conforms to the State implementation plan (SIP) for the attainment and maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The EPA's implementing regulations require Federal entities to make a conformity determination for all actions which impact areas designated as nonattainment or maintenance for the NAAQS and which will result in total direct and indirect emissions in excess of de minimis levels. The Federal entities must collect information on the SIP requirements and the pollution sources to make the conformity determination. Depending on the type of action, the Federal entities either collect the information themselves, hire consultants to collect the information or require applicants/sponsors of the Federal action to provide the information.

The type and quantity of information required will depend on the circumstances surrounding the action. First, the entity must make an applicability determination. If the net total direct and indirect emissions do not exceed de minimis levels established in the regulations or if the action meets certain criteria for an exemption, a conformity determination is not required. Actions requiring conformity determinations vary from straightforward, requiring minimal information, to complex, requiring significant amounts of information. The Federal entity must determine the type and quantity of information on a case-by-case basis. State and local air pollution control agencies are usually requested to provide information to the Federal entities making a conformity determination and are provided opportunities to comment on the proposed determinations. The public is also provided an opportunity to comment on the proposed determinations.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. ) requires that all Federal actions conform with the SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. The Federal Register document required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on April 27, 2001 (66 FR 21136); Two comment letters were received.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and record keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15-20 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Non-Federal-( Private Industry, State and Local Government).

Estimated Number of Respondents: Estimate 733 Total Actions/Determinations.

Frequency of Response: Estimate Non-Federal perform approximately 733 straightforward & complex determinations per year ( Note: only number of annual hours were given in comment letter, number and type of determinations not indicated; therefore, this number is subject to change if other detailed information becomes available).

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 10,246.

Estimated Total Annualized Capital, O&M Cost Burden: None.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the addresses listed above. Please refer to EPA ICR No. 1637.05 and OMB Control No. 2060-0279 in any correspondence.

As described in previous Federal Register (FR) notices, 1 the Parties to the Protocol agreed during the Fourth Meeting in Copenhagen in 1992 on the criteria to be used for allowing “essential use” exemptions from the phaseout of production and importation of controlled substances. Decision IV/25 of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties details the specific criteria and review process for granting essential use exemptions.

Paragraph 1(a) of Decision IV/25 states that “ * * * a use of a controlled substance should qualify as “essential” only if: (i) it is necessary for the health, safety or is critical for the functioning of society (encompassing cultural and intellectual aspects); and (ii) there are no available technically and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health”. In addition, the Parties agreed “that production and consumption, if any, of a controlled substance, for essential uses should be permitted only if: (i) all economically feasible steps have been taken to minimize the essential use and any associated emission of the controlled substance; and (ii) the controlled substance is not available in sufficient quantity and quality from the existing stocks of banked or recycled controlled substances * * *” Decision XII/2 taken at the twelfth meeting of the Parties states that any CFC MDI product approved after December 31, 2000 is non-essential unless the product meets the criteria in Decision IV/25 paragraph 1(a).

The first step in obtaining essential use allowances is for the user to consider whether the use of the controlled substance meets the criteria of Decisions IV/25 and XII/2. The user should then notify EPA of the candidate use and provide information for U.S. government agencies and the Protocol Parties to evaluate that use according to the criteria under the Protocol. Upon receipt of the essential use exemption application, EPA reviews the information provided and works with other interested Federal agencies to determine whether it meets the essential use criteria and warrants being nominated by the United States for an exemption. In the case of multiple exemption requests for a single use such as for MDIs, EPA aggregates exemption requests received from individual entities into a single U.S. request. An important part of the EPA review of requests for CFCs for MDIs is to determine that the aggregate request for a particular future year adequately reflects the total market need for CFC MDIs and expected availability of CFC substitutes by that point in time. If the sum of individual requests does not account for such factors, the U.S. government may adjust the aggregate request to better reflect true market needs.

Nominations submitted to the Ozone Secretariat by the U.S. and other Parties are forwarded to the UNEP Technical and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) and its Technical Options Committees (TOCs), which review the submissions and make recommendations to the Parties for essential use exemptions. Those recommendations are then considered by the Parties at their annual meeting for final decision. If the Parties declare a specified use of a controlled substance as essential, and issue the necessary exemption from the production and consumption phaseout, EPA may propose regulatory changes to reflect the decisions by the Parties, but only to the extent such action is consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). Applicants should be aware that essential use exemptions granted to the U.S. for the year 2002 under the Protocol were limited to chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) for metered dose inhalers (MDIs) to treat asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and methyl chloroform for use in manufacturing solid rocket motors.

The timing of this process is such that in any given year the Parties review nominations for essential use exemptions from the production and consumption phaseout intended for the following year and subsequent years. This means that, if nominated, applications submitted in response to today's notice for an exemption in 2003 and 2004 will be considered by the Parties in 2002 for final action.

The quantities of controlled ODSs that are requested in response to this notice, if approved by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in 2002, will then be allocated as essential-use allowances (EUAs) to the specific U.S. companies through notice and comment rulemaking. EUAs for the year 2003 will be allocated to U.S. companies at the end of 2002, and EUAs for the year 2004 will be allocated at the end of 2003.

With Decision X/19 the Parties approved an unlimited, global essential use exemption for the production and consumption of high purity class I ODSs for essential laboratory and analytical uses through the year 2005. More recently, with Decision XI/15, the Parties eliminated three laboratory methods from the global exemption by declaring them to be non-essential beginning January 1, 2002. These methods are: testing of oil and grease and total petroleum hydrocarbons in water, testing of road-paving materials, and forensic finger printing. EPA will be proposing a regulation to implement Decision XI/15 in the near future.

Through this notice, EPA requests applications for essential use exemptions for all class I substances, except methyl bromide, for calendar years 2003 and 2004. This is the last opportunity to submit new or revised applications for 2003. Companies will have an opportunity to submit supplemental or amended applications for 2004 next year. All requests for exemptions submitted to EPA must present information as prescribed in the updated version of the TEAP “Handbook on Essential Use Nominations” (Handbook) published in June 2001. The handbook is available electronically on the web at www.teap.org, or at www.epa.gov/ozone.

In brief, the TEAP Handbook states that applicants must present information on:

• role of use in society;

• alternatives to use;

• steps to minimize use;

• steps to minimize emissions;

• recycling and stockpiling;

• quantity of controlled substances requested; and

• approval date and indications (for MDIs)

In submitting request for EUAs, EPA requires that applicants requesting EUAs for multiple pharmaceutical companies (e.g., International Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium), make clear the amount of CFCs requested for each member company. Also, all essential use applications for CFCs must provide a breakdown of the quantity of CFCs necessary for each MDI product to be produced. This detailed information will allow EPA and FDA to make informed decisions on the amount of CFC to be nominated by the U.S. government for the years 2003 and 2004.

There are some companies that hold New Drug Applications for CFC MDIs but whose MDI products are manufactured by another company (the contract filler). Beginning with this application cycle, all NDA holders for CFC MDI products produced in the U.S. must submit a complete application for essential use allowances either on their own or in conjunction with their contract filler. In the case where a contract filler produces a portion of an NDA holder's CFC MDIs, the contract filler and the NDA holder must determine the total amount of CFCs necessary to produce the NDA holder's entire product line of CFC MDIs. The NDA holder should provide an estimate of how the CFCs would be split between the contract filler and the NDA holder in the allocation year. This estimate will be used only as a basis for determining the nomination amount, and may be adjusted prior to allocation of EUAs. Since the U.S. government cannot forward incomplete or inadequate nominations to the Ozone Secretariat, it is important for applicants to provide all information requested in the Handbook, including the information specified in the supplemental research and development form (page 45).

The accounting framework matrix in the Handbook titled “Table IV: Reporting Accounting Framework for Essential Uses Other Than Laboratory and Analytical” requests data for the year 2001 on the amount of ODS exempted for an essential use, the amount acquired by production, the amount acquired by import, the amount on hand at the start of the year, the amount available for use in 2001, the amount used for the essential use, the quantity contained in exported products, the amount destroyed, and the amount on hand at the end of 2001. Because the data necessary to complete Table IV will not be available until after January 1, 2002, companies should not include this chart with their EUA applications in response to this notice. EPA plans to send letters to each essential use applicant requesting the information in Table IV in the first 2 weeks of January 2002. Companies will have only fourteen days in which to respond since EPA must compile companies' responses to complete the U.S. CFC Accounting Framework for submission to the Parties to the Montreal Protocol by the end of January.

EPA anticipates that the 2002 review by the Parties of MDI essential use requests will focus extensively on research efforts underway to develop alternatives to CFC MDIs, on education programs to inform patients and health care providers of the CFC phaseout and the transition to alternatives, and on steps taken to minimize CFC use and emissions including efforts to recapture or reprocess the controlled substance. Accordingly, applicants are strongly advised to present detailed information on these points, including the scope and cost of such efforts and the medical and patient organizations involved in the work.

Applicants should submit their exemption requests to EPA as noted in the Addresses section at the beginning of today's notice.

NACEPT is a federal advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92463. NACEPT provides advice and recommendations to the Administrator and other EPA officials on a broad range of domestic and international environmental policy issues.

Under the NACEPT framework, EPA is undertaking an examination of fundamental issues related to the future of the Superfund program. These issues cover a broad spectrum of topics important to Superfund including, but not limited to: the role and scope of the National Priorities List (NPL); how to address contaminated sediment, mining, and other “mega” sites; the role of states in Superfund; non-NPL cleanups; and measuring program progress. An important piece of the Subcommittee's dialogue will entail looking at Superfund in the context of other federal and state waste programs. This component of the group's deliberations will focus on how the Nation's waste programs can work together in a more effective and unified fashion, so that citizens can be assured that federal, state, and local governments are working cooperatively to make sites safe for their intended uses. The Superfund Subcommittee will deliberate on these and other Superfund-related issues and make policy recommendations to the EPA Administrator and other EPA officials.

EPA is soliciting qualified candidates who want to be considered for appointment to the Superfund Subcommittee. Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified persons for membership to the Subcommittee. Nominees should be qualified by education, training, or experience to participate in and contribute to a dialogue about the future direction of the Superfund program.

To ensure the Subcommittee represents a full spectrum of stakeholder views regarding Superfund policies, EPA seeks representation of the following groups: public policy analysts, academia, community groups, environmental justice groups, environmental and public interest organizations, state government, local government, tribal governments, industry, and scientists/engineers (e.g., toxicologists, ecologists, risk assessors, etc.). The EPA Administrator determines the Subcommittee's composition. Members will serve approximately an eighteen-month term.

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to manufacturers (including importers), processors, and users of products that contain living microorganisms subject to jurisdiction under TSCA, especially if that entity knows that its products contain or may contain Bcc. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Electronically . You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select “Laws and Regulations,” “Regulations and Proposed Rules,” and then look up the entry for this document under the “ Federal Register —Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPPTS-211046A. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the TSCA Nonconfidential Information Center, North East Mall Rm. B-607, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC. The Center is open from noon to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Center is (202) 260-7099.

Section 21 of TSCA allows citizens to petition EPA to initiate a proceeding for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule under TSCA section 4, 5(a)(2), or 6, or an order under TSCA section 5(e) or 6(b)(2). A TSCA section 21 petition must set forth facts which the petitioner believes establish the need for the action requested. EPA is required to grant or deny the petition within 90 days of its receipt. If EPA grants the petition, the Agency must promptly commence an appropriate proceeding. If EPA denies the petition, the Agency must publish its reasons for the denial in the Federal Register . Within 60 days of denial or no action, petitioners may commence a civil action in a U.S. district court to compel initiation of the requested rulemaking. When reviewing a petition for a new rule, as in this case, the court must provide an opportunity for de novo review of the petition. Pursuant to TSCA section 21(b)(4)(B)(ii), “if the petitioner demonstrates to the satisfaction of the court by a preponderance of evidence that ... there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the issuance of such [TSCA section 6(a)(1)(A) rule] is necessary to protect health or the environment against an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment” the court can order EPA to initiate the requested action.

On August 2, 2001, EPA received a petition under TSCA section 21 from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. The petition requests that EPA initiate rulemaking under TSCA section 6(a)(1)(A) to prohibit the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, and improper disposal of Bcc, a group of naturally occurring microorganisms in order to “address the significant threat that these microorganisms pose to individuals with CF and other diseases that compromise the immune system.”

The petitioners submitted extensive information on the potential hazard Bcc microorganisms may present to CF patients. EPA agrees that Bcc microorganisms, when encountered in sufficient numbers through an appropriate route of exposure by a member of a sensitive population, such as a CF patient, have the potential to cause a severe infection, resulting in significantly increased rates of mortality. The petition claims that Bcc is likely used in products and services that involve drain cleaning, bioremediation, biomonitoring of hazardous wastes, biomass conversion, production of specialty chemicals, oil recovery, wastewater treatment, bio-mining, and desulfurization of oil and coal. The petition claims to document these potential uses. However, the petition contains no evidence that Bcc is currently used in existing commercial industrial products to which a sensitive individual might be exposed.

In order to gauge the scope of commercial use of Bcc, EPA conducted a survey of over 100 firms, associations, and researchers. In sum, EPA was able to discover no evidence that Bcc is contained in a commercial product currently available for use in the United States. The only potential TSCA uses of Bcc for which information is available are field demonstration studies of Bcc in the biodegradation of chlorinated solvents in groundwater. (See Commercial Uses of Burkholderia Cepacia Complex, USEPA, October 2001.) Specifically, one company has injected a strain of Bcc into aquifers in New Jersey to demonstrate its ability to degrade trichloroethylene and a consulting firm carried out a pilot study in Wichita, KS, to verify the effectiveness and overall feasibility of using Burkholderia Cepacia PR1 301 to degrade chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons. However, none of these strains is currently available in an existing commercial industrial product.

No companies indicated that Bcc was currently used for the degradation of grease (typically in drain cleaners) or for turf management (typically in thatch reduction), although researchers and firms cautioned that even the companies that produce such products may be unaware of the specific presence of Bcc.

One respondent indicated that lipases harvested from Bcc are used in the production of specialty chemicals. One company's web site, lists seven lipases derived from Bcc species available for sale under their brand names. However, when this company was contacted, it indicated that it purchases the lipases from an overseas firm, and does not work with Bcc microorganisms; no more information was available.

Many respondents indicated a knowledge of Bcc and its possible applications, but very few had any knowledge that it was actually being used. Some contacts indicated that Bcc's known potential for opportunistic pathogenicity had led them to discount it for use in their products. Thus, the information available to EPA indicates that there is no current commercial use of Bcc in the United States, although demonstration studies of its effectiveness in degrading chlorinated solvents in groundwater have been reported.

At this time EPA is unable to identify any existing commercial use of products containing Bcc, other than demonstration studies. Based on this information, EPA finds that issuing a ban of Bcc under TSCA 6(a)(1)(A) is not the appropriate mechanism under TSCA to prevent an unreasonable risk of injury to health. However, based on EPA's review of Bcc's commercial status, and in light of the seriousness of the potential hazard presented to CF patients, EPA intends to initiate a rulemaking to issue a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) under TSCA section 5(a)(2). As the only identified commercial uses of Bcc are demonstration studies, the SNUR when issued, would require manufacturers, importers, and processors of Bcc to notify EPA at least 90 days before any use of Bcc, other than such demonstration studies, occurs. The notice would provide EPA with an opportunity to evaluate the intended new use and associated activities and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs.

EPA received no comments in response to the Federal Register notice published September 5, 2001 (66 FR 46459) (FRL-6800-5) announcing EPA's receipt of this TSCA section 21 petition.

In 1993, under the authority of section 6217(g) of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments, EPA issued Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. That guidance document details management measures appropriate for the control of five categories of nonpoint sources of pollution in the coastal zone: agriculture, forestry, urban areas, marinas and recreational boating, and hydromodification. The document also includes management measures for wetlands, riparian areas, and vegetated treatment systems because they are important to the abatement of nonpoint source pollution in coastal waters. States and territories were required to adopt measures “in conformity” with the coastal management measures guidance for their Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs.

State, territory, and tribal water quality assessments continue to identify nonpoint source pollution as a major cause of degradation in surveyed waters nationwide. In 1987 Congress enacted section 319 of the Clean Water Act to establish a national program to control nonpoint sources of water pollution. Under section 319, States, territories, and tribes address nonpoint source pollution by assessing the nonpoint source pollution problems within the State, territory, or tribal lands; identifying the sources of pollution; and implementing management programs to control the pollution. Section 319 also authorizes EPA to award grants to States, territories, and tribes to assist them in implementing management programs that EPA has approved. Program implementation includes nonregulatory and regulatory programs, technical assistance, financial assistance, education, training, technology transfer, and demonstration projects. In fiscal year 2001, Congress appropriated approximately $237 million for nonpoint source management program grants. EPA has awarded a total of approximately $1.3 billion to States, territories, and Indian tribes since 1990.

The 1993 management measures guidance, developed under the authority of CZARA, focused on conditions and examples of management measure implementation within the coastal zone. To date, technical guidance on the best available, economically achievable measures for controlling nonpoint sources with a national focus has not been released. The draft national management measures guidance for wetlands is intended to partially address this gap. Although the practices detailed in the 1993 coastal guidance apply generally to inland areas, EPA has recognized the utility of developing and publishing technical guidance that explicitly addresses nonpoint source pollution on a nationwide basis. Moreover, additional information and examples from research and experience to date with implementation of the management measures are available to enrich the national guidance. These changes have helped to prompt the revision and expansion of the wetlands chapter of the 1993 guidance.

The draft technical guidance continues to focus on the protection and restoration of wetlands and riparian areas and the use of vegetated treatment systems to control nonpoint sources of pollution identified for the 1993 coastal guidance by EPA in consultation with a number of other Federal agencies and other leading national experts. Specifically, the guidance identifies management measures for the following:

i. The protection of wetlands and riparian areas.

ii. The restoration of wetlands and riparian areas.

iii. Vegetated treatment systems.

The draft national management measures guidance is based in large part on the 1993 coastal guidance. The coastal guidance was developed using a workgroup approach to draw upon technical expertise within other federal agencies as well as state water quality and coastal zone management agencies. The 1993 text has been expanded to include information on the cost and effectiveness of wetlands and riparian areas and vegetative treatment systems for removing nonpoint source pollution, descriptions of ways to protect wetlands and riparian areas, resources for planning and implementing wetlands and riparian area restoration projects, a discussion on mitigation banking, and examples of projects that used vegetated treatment systems to control nonpoint source pollution.

EPA is soliciting comments on the draft guidance on management measures to protect and restore wetlands and riparian area for the abatement of nonpoint source pollution and for the use of vegetated treatment systems. The Agency is soliciting additional information and supporting data on the measures specified in this guidance and on additional measures that may be as effective or more effective to protect and restore wetlands and riparian areas for the abatement of nonpoint source pollution and the use of vegetated treatment systems. EPA requests that commenters focus their comments on the technical soundness of the draft management measures guidance.

FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Evaluation of the Effects of Orally Inhaled and Intranasal Corticosteroids on Growth in Children.” This draft guidance has been developed by the Division of Pulmonary and Allergy Drug Products, in consultation with the Division of Metabolic and Endocrine Drug Products, to provide guidance in the design, conduct, and evaluation of clinical studies to assess the effects of orally inhaled and intranasal corticosteroids on linear growth.

On July 30 and 31, 1998, the Pulmonary and Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee and the Metabolic and Endocrine Drugs Advisory Committee were jointly convened to discuss the implications of findings in previous clinical studies that indicated that inhaled corticosteroids may, as a class of compounds, affect linear growth in pediatric patients. The joint committees agreed that data were sufficient to justify inclusion of a precautionary statement in the labeling for this class of compounds, but the data were inadequate to precisely determine the decrement in growth velocity resulting from the use of these drug products. Members of the joint committees recommended that companies filing new drug applications for all newly approved corticosteroid products conduct further studies, as post-apptoval phase 4 commitments, to assess the effects of nasally and orally inhaled corticosteroids on growth velocity in prepubertal children.

The draft guidance provides general recommendations for the design and conduct of a “growth study.” The Division of Pulmonary and Allergy Drug Products endorses these recommendations to encourage the collection of other evidence that will consistently and accurately describe the effects of intranasal and orally inhaled corticosteroids on growth velocity in children.

This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the agency's current thinking on evaluating the effects of orally inhaled and intranasal corticosteroids on growth in children. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

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

Persons with access to the Internet can obtain the document at http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm or http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm.

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

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

The Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Evaluation Study of Rounds 6-8 of HUD's Lead Hazard Control Grant Program.

OMB Control Number: To be assigned.

Need for the Information and Proposed Use: In order to assist in fulfilling its mission of eliminating lead-based paint hazards and other housing-related threats to children's health and safety in low-income privately-owned homes, HUD's Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control operates a grant program for State and local governments to develop and implement cost-effective methods for the inspection and reduction of lead-based paint hazards in private owner-occupied and rental housing for low and moderate income families. In Rounds 6-8 (a “Round” refers to consecutively numbered annual grant awards, starting in fiscal year 1992) of this Lead Hazard Control Grant Program, HUD has awarded grants to sixty-five different States and localities. The purpose of this information collection is to study the effectiveness of the grant programs and the lead hazard control treatments conducted with these grants. To do this, HUD will study selected housing units within approximately ten grants programs that received Round 6-8 grants. Researchers will collect environmental samples and household information before and after lead hazard control treatments are applied to housing units that agree to participate in the study. The data collected during this project should provide HUD with a comprehensive assessment of whether program policies and procedures, treatment methods, and outcomes have changed, evolved, or improved significantly following the rounds 1-2 grant programs.

This information collection will involve conducting brief on-site interviews of property owners and tenants; brief interior and exterior visual inspections of housing units; collection of paint, soil, and dust-wipe samples for lead analysis; and collection of vacuum dust samples for future study on the effectiveness of lead hazard control treatments to reduce the presence of allergens and mold spores. Approximately five information collection visits will be made to participating housing units over a three to four year period. If appropriate, the results of this information collection will be used to improve existing HUD guidance for conducting safe and cost-effective lead hazard control treatments.

Agency For Numbers: None.

Members of Affected Public: Selected property owners and residents of housing units that agree to participate in the study representing approximately 10 state, county, or city level lead hazard control grant programs across the United States.

Total Burden Estimate (First Year):

Average Response Time: 6 hours (assuming 50 percent owner-occupied housing units at 5.25 hrs. per unit; rental housing will require time of both owner and tenant for total of 6.75 hrs. per unit).

Total Burden for 600 units: 3,600 hours.

Status of the Proposed Information Collection: New collection.

As established, the Historic Site consists of lands and interests therein comprising the Central High School campus and adjacent properties in Little Rock, Arkansas. Congress established the Historic Site to preserve, protect, and interpret for the benefit, education, and inspiration of present and future generations, Central High School and its role in the integration of public schools and the development of the Civil Rights movement in the United States.

The purpose of the general management plan is to set forth the basic management philosophy for the Historic Site and to provide the strategies for addressing issues and achieving identified management objectives. The DGMP/DEIS describes and analyzes the environmental impacts of a proposed action and three action alternatives for the future management direction of the Historic Site. A no action alternative is also evaluated.

Persons wishing to comment may do so by any one of several methods. They may attend the open houses noted above. They may mail comments to Superintendent, Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site, Federal Building, Box 3527, 700 West Capitol Ave., Little Rock, AR 72201. They also may comment via e-mail to dave_forney@nps.gov (include name and return address in the e-mail message). Finally, they may hand-deliver comments to the Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site visitor center at 2125 Daisy L. Gatson Bates Drive, Little Rock, AR 72201. The NPS' practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses available for public inspection in their entirety.

The responsible official is Mr. William Schenk, Midwest Regional Director, National Park Service.

These general management plans will guide the management of the Sunset Crater Volcano, Walnut Canyon, and Wupatki National Monuments for the next 10 to 15 years. The Sunset Crater Volcano DEIS/GMP considers four alternatives—a no-action and three action alternatives, including the NPS preferred alternative. The preferred alternative would provide increased educational opportunities and diverse experiences both within and outside of park boundaries. The park would be viewed as a destination for education and learning. Partnerships with the U.S. Forest Service, affiliated tribes, and educational institutions would provide interpretation and more consistent management of sites and features outside the park that are primary to the park's purpose. Boundaries would be adjusted for ease of management and to better protect geologic features. Most existing uses would continue. The park would remain day-use only, with 24-hour access on FR545, and visitor use would be spread throughout more resources. A new multiagency visitor center would be built near US89 to serve as the primary location to orient and serve visitors, and the existing visitor center would be adapted for use as an education center.

Three alternatives were considered in the Walnut Canyon DEIS/GMP—a no-action and two action alternatives, including the NPS preferred alternative. The preferred alternative would preserve untrailed expanses, unfragmented natural systems, and relatively pristine conditions throughout much of the park. It would protect Walnut Canyon as a critical wildlife corridor. Visitation would be managed with the goal of providing quality learning opportunities in an intimate atmosphere while maintaining the health of the canyon ecosystem. The natural soundscape and tranquil setting of the canyon would be enhanced through strategic placement of facilities. The park would remain day-use only, with recreational uses of the western end prohibited. Efforts would be made to provide a broader range of educational offerings, and a greater number of archeological sites would be available for visitation.

The Wupatki DEIS/GMP considers five alternatives—a no-action and four action alternatives, including the NPS preferred alternative. The preferred alternative would include significant resources and landscapes north of the park within park boundaries, retain existing motorized sightseeing, focus on existing major visitor use areas, provide visitor orientation at the existing visitor center and at a new contact station at the north entrance, and diversify visitor experiences via new trails, new interpretive media and activities, and guided hikes to some cultural sites.

All three environmental impact statements assess impacts to archeological resources; historic character of the built environment; long-term integrity of ethnographic resources, natural systems and processes, and geological resources; threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; visitors' ability to experience park resources; park neighbors, local, state, and tribal land management plans and land/resource managing agencies; and operational efficiency.

The FEIS/GMP analyzes three alternatives to manage the park and balance visitor use and resource protection. Under the preferred alternative visitors would have opportunities to participate in a variety of activities. The major action of the alternative would be to locate the visitor/administrative facility offsite at the U.S. Forest Service site. Alternative A would provide visitors with offsite learning opportunities, while preserving the reflective mood at the site. Under Alternative B visitors would be provided with onsite learning opportunities through integration of the visitor facilities with the historic scene.

The FEIS/GMP in particular evaluates the environmental consequences of the proposed action and the other alternatives on cultural resources, natural resources, visitor use, and the socioeconomic environment.

On September 7, 2001, the Department published a notice of proposed exemption in the Federal Register at 66 FR 46826, that would amend PTE 99-45. PTE 99-45 provides an exemption form certain prohibited transaction restrictions of section 406 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (the Act) and from the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code), as amended, by reason of section 4975(c)(1) of the Code. The proposed exemption was requested in an application filed on behalf of DLJ and CSFB pursuant to section 408(a) of the Act and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR Part 2570, Subpart B (55 FR 32826, August 10, 1990). Effective December 31, 1978, section 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978 (43 FR 47713, October 17, 1978) transferred the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to issue exemptions of the type requested to the Secretary of Labor. Accordingly, this exemption is being issued solely by the Department.

The proposed exemption gave interested persons an opportunity to comment and to request a hearing. In this regard, all interested persons were invited to submit written comments or requests for a hearing on the pending exemption on or before October 22, 2001. All comments were to be made a part of the record. During the comment period, the Department received no comments or hearing requests from interested persons.

The attention of interested persons is directed to the following:

(1) The fact that a transaction is the subject of an exemption under section 408(a) of the Act and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code does not relieve a fiduciary or other party in interest or disqualified person from certain other provisions of the Act and the Code, including any prohibited transaction provisions to which the exemption does not apply and the general fiduciary responsibility provisions of section 404 of the Act, which require, among other things, a fiduciary to discharge his or her duties respecting the plan solely in the itnerest of the participants and beneficiaries of the plan and in a prudent fashion in accordance with section 404(a)(1)(B) of the Act; nor does it affect the requirements of section 401(a) of the Code that the plan operate for the exclusive benefit of the employees of the employer maintaining the plan and their beneficiaries;

(2) The exemption does not extend to transactions prohibited under section 406(b)(3) of the Act and section 4975(c)(1)(F) of the Code;

(3) In accordance with section 408(a) of the act, section 4975(c)(2), of the Code, and the procedures set forth in 29 CFR Part 2570, Subpart B (55 FR 32836, August 10, 1990), the Department finds that the exemption is administratively feasible, in the interest of the plan and of its participants and beneficiaries and protective of the rights of participants and beneficiaries of the plan;

(4) The exemption is supplemental to, and not in derogation of, any other provision of the Act and the Code, including statutory or administrative exemptions. Furthermore, the fact that a transaction is subject to an administrative or statutory exemption is not dispositive of whether the transaction is in fact a prohibited transaction; and

(5) This exemption is subject to the express condition that the facts and representations set forth in the notice of proposed exemption, the Notice of Technical Correction, and the proposed and final exemptions relating to PTE 99-45, accurately describe, where relevant, the material terms of the transactions to be consummated pursuant to this exemption.

Under the authority of section 408(a) of the Act and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR Part 2570, Subpart B (55 FR 32836, August 10, 1990), the Department hereby amends PTE 99-45 as follow:

A. The restrictions of section 406(a)(1)(A) through (D) of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through (D) of the Code, shall not apply, effective November 3, 2000, to any purchase or sale of a security between certain affiliates of Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation (DLJ) or Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation (CSFB) which are foreign broker-dealers (the Foreign Affiliates, as defined below) and employee benefit plans (the Plans) with respect to which the Foreign Affiliates are parties in interest, including options written by a Plan, DLJ, CSFB, or a Foreign Affiliate, provided that the following conditions and the General Conditions of Section II, are satisfied:

(1) The Foreign Affiliate customarily purchases and sells securities for its own account in the ordinary course of its business as a broker-dealer;

(2) The terms of any transaction are at least as favorable to the Plan as those which the Plan could obtain in a comparable arm's length transaction with an unrelated party; and

(3) Neither the Foreign Affiliate nor an affiliate thereof has discretionary authority or control with respect to the investment of the Plan assets involved in the transaction, or renders investment advice (within the meaning of 29 CFR 2510.3-21(c)) with respect to those assets, and the Foreign Affiliate is a party in interest or disqualified person with respect to the Plan assets involved in the transaction solely by reason of section 3(14)(B) of the Act or section 4975(e)(2)(B) of the Code, or by reason of a relationship to a person described in such sections. For purposes of this paragraph, the Foreign Affiliate shall not be deemed to be a fiduciary with respect to Plan assets solely by reason of providing securities custodial services for a Plan.

B. The restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(A) through (D) and 406(b)(2) of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through (D) of the Code, shall not apply, effective November 3, 2000, to any extension of credit to the Plans by the Foreign Affiliates to permit the settlement of securities transactions regardless of whether they are effected on an agency or a principal basis, or in connection with the writing of options contracts, provided that the following conditions and the General Conditions of Section II are satisfied:

(1) The Foreign Affiliate is not a fiduciary with respect to any Plan assets involved in the transaction, unless no interest or other consideration is received by the Foreign Affiliate or an affiliate thereof, in connection with such extension of credit; and

(2) Any extension of credit would be lawful under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 1934 Act) and any rules or regulations thereunder if such Act, rules or regulations were applicable.

C. The restrictions of section 406(a)(1)(A) through (D) of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through (D) of the Code, shall not apply, effective November 3, 2000, to the lending of securities to the Foreign Affiliates by the Plans, provided that the following conditions and the General Conditions of Section II are satisfied:

(1) Neither the Foreign Affiliate nor an affiliate thereof has discretionary authority or control with respect to the investment of Plan assets involved in the transaction, or renders investment advice (within the meaning of 29 CFR 2510.3-21(c)) with respect to those assets;

(2) The Plan receives from the Foreign Affiliate (by physical delivery or by book entry in a securities depository, wire transfer, or similar means) by the close of business on the day on which the loaned securities are delivered to the Foreign Affiliate, collateral consisting of cash, securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Government or its agencies or instrumentalities, or irrevocable U.S. bank letters of credit issued by persons other than the Foreign Affiliate or an affiliate of the Foreign Affiliate, or any combination thereof. All collateral shall be in U.S. dollars, or dollar-denominated securities or bank letters of credit, and shall be held in the United States;

(3) The collateral has, as of the close of business on the preceding business day, a market value equal to at least 100 percent of the then market value of the loaned securities (or, in the case of letters of credit, a stated amount equal to same);

(4) The loan is made pursuant to a written loan agreement (the Loan Agreement), which may be in the form of a master agreement covering a series of securities lending transactions, and which contains items at least as favorable to the Plan as those the Plan could obtain in an arm's length transaction with an unrelated party;

(5) In return for lending securities, the Plan either (a) receives a reasonable fee, which is related to the value of the borrowed securities and the duration of the loan, or (b) has the opportunity to derive compensation through the investment of cash collateral. In the latter case, the plan may pay a loan rebate or similar fee to the Foreign Affiliate, if such fee is not greater than the Plan would pay an unrelated party in a comparable arm's length transaction with an unrelated party;

(6) The Plan receives at least the equivalent of all distributions on the borrowed securities made during the term of the loan, including, but not limited to, cash dividends, interest payments, shares of stock as a result of stock splits and rights to purchase additional securities that the Plan would have received (net of tax withholdings)  1 had it remained the record owner of such securities.

(7) If the market value of the collateral as of the close of trading on a business day falls below 100 percent of the market value of the borrowed securities as of the close of trading on that day, the Foreign Affiliate delivers additional collateral, by the close of the Plan's business on the following business day, to bring the level of the collateral back to at least 100 percent. However, if the market value of the collateral exceeds 100 percent of the market value of the borrowed securities, the Foreign Affiliate may require the Plan to return part of the collateral to reduce the level of the collateral to 100 percent;

(8) Before entering into a Loan Agreement, the Foreign Affiliate furnishes to the independent Plan fiduciary (a) the most recent available audited statement of the Foreign Affiliate's financial condition, (b) the most recent available unaudited statement of its financial condition (if more recent than the audited statement), and (c) a representation that, at the time the loan is negotiated, there has been no material adverse change in its financial condition that has not been disclosed since the date of the most recent financial statement furnished to the independent Plan fiduciary. Such representation may be made by the Foreign Affiliate's agreeing that each loan of securities shall constitute a representation that there has been no such material adverse change;

(9) The Loan Agreement and/or any securities loan outstanding may be terminated by the Plan at any time, whereupon the Foreign Affiliate shall deliver certificates for securities identical to the borrowed securities (or the equivalent thereof in the event of reorganization, recapitalization or merger of the issuer of the borrowed securities) to the Plan within (a) the customary delivery period for such securities, (b) five business days, or (c) the time negotiated for such delivery by the Plan and the Foreign Affiliate, whichever is least, or, alternatively such period as permitted by Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption (PTCE) 81-6 (46 FR 7527, January 23, 1981, as amended at 52 FR 18754, May 19, 1987), as it may be amended or superseded. 2

OMB Approval Number: OMB 3145-(new).

Expiration Date: Not applicable.

Abstract: The National Science Foundation (NSF) requests a six-month (180 days) emergency clearance for the Evaluation of the Urban Systemic Program (USP), a study that has been on-going since October 1999 under OMB 3145-0136. Due to a change in OMB terms of clearance for OMB 3145-0136, NSF is seeking to establish an independent clearance for the USP study. A four-month delay (for standard OMB clearance) would negatively impact the baseline data collection by placing the resumption of scheduling of data collection at the end of the 2001-2002 school year. Participating school districts (respondents) work on a nine-month schedule. Scheduling evaluator's visits at the height of end-of-year events and on the eve of summer vacation is inconvenient for the respondents. Furthermore, when the school year ends key interviewees including teachers are unavailable.

As part of the study, four site visits have been scheduled for fall of 2001. The inconvenience to these districts represented by a delay or suspension of data collection activities would harm the overall evaluation effort. Finally, given the turnover in leadership in urban school districts, a time lapse in data collection will result in an increased risk of the departure of key USP staff, further delaying timely and reliable data collection. As part of multiple data collection activities over time, opportunities to supplement baseline data through observations of normal USP operations will be compromised, possibly leading to inconsistent data across sites.

USP began in 1999 when NSF made competitive awards of up to $3 million, for each of 5 years, to five urban school districts. The USP represents NSF's major current investment in improving science and mathematics education in urban school systems across the country, and having a third-party evaluative documentation will be important in interpreting the worthiness of the investment.

NSF uses the data to: (1) Determine whether to modify or extend the USP concepts and (2) share best practices and lessons learned about systemic reform with school, district, and state educators.

Specifically, during the first two years of the USP Cross-Site Evaluation First, the third-party has produced reports for others at NSF (e.g., the National Science Board). Though there are other sources of such documentation, the information provided by the Cross-Site team is valued because the team is conducting an evaluation and is not associated in any other way with the program sites. Second, the Division of Educational System Reform uses the information to supplement its annual program monitoring. Third, NSF will use the information as a program evaluation, both assessing its investment in the USP program and potentially helping to guide the design of future programs.

Respondents: State, local or tribal governments.

Number of Respondents: 378.

Burden on the Public: 270 hours.