Title: Consumer Food Guide Pyramid Study.

OMB Number: Not assigned yet.

Expiration Date: Not applicable.

Type of Request: New collection of information.

Abstract: The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Guide Pyramid is designed to help all healthy Americans two years of age and over implement the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The proposed qualitative consumer research will describe consumers' understanding and use of the Food Guide Pyramid along with possible barriers to following the Pyramid's guidance. This study involves eighteen focus group sessions, 6 with general consumers and 4 each with the elderly, overweight, and food stamp recipients, to explore how consumers understand the concepts and messages of the consumer brochure and graphic illustration of the Food Guide Pyramid. The study will also obtain feedback on how and to what extent consumers use the Pyramid to make food choices, and will help to identify any barriers they face in applying Pyramid recommendations to their food choices. The information gathered along with additional information will be used by USDA in the reassessment and potential revision of the Food Guide Pyramid, and in message development and other communications efforts used to promote the Pyramid.

Affected Public: Adult Consumers.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 180.

Estimated Time Per Response: 2 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 360 hours.

The Advisory Committee on Emerging Markets is authorized by section 1542 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-624), as amended. The overall purpose of the Committee is “to provide the Secretary with information that may be useful * * * in carrying out the provisions of [the Emerging Markets Program].” The Committee is to be composed of representatives of the various sectors of the food and rural business systems of the United States. More information about the purpose and function of the Advisory Committee may be found at the FAS/Emerging Markets Program Web site: http://www.fas.usda.gov/mos/em-markets/acem.html. The members of the Advisory Committee are appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture and serve at the discretion of the Secretary. Committee members serve without compensation, but can receive reimbursement for travel expenses to attend Committee meetings if requested, in accordance with USDA travel regulations.

The Committee has a balanced membership of up to 20 members, representing a broad cross-section of the U.S. agricultural and agribusiness industry. All appointments will expire two years from the date of appointment. The Secretary may renew an appointment for one or more additional terms.

Most meetings will be held in Washington, DC, though other locations may be selected on an occasional basis. Committee meetings will be open to the public, unless the Secretary of Agriculture determines that the Committee will be discussing issues the disclosure of which justify closing all or a portion of a meeting, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(c).

Nominations are open to all individuals without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, physical handicap, marital status, or sexual orientation. To ensure that the work of the Committee takes into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the Department of Agriculture, membership shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent the interest of minorities, women, and persons with disabilities.

Members are selected primarily for their experience, expertise and knowledge of international agriculture and of trade and development issues as they affect emerging markets. No person, company, producer, farm organization, trade association, or other entity has a right to representation on the Committee. In making selections, every effort will be made to maintain balanced representation of the various broad industries within the United States, and of a geographic diversity as well.

The EIS and subsequent revision of the Allotment Management Plans will bring these allotments into compliance with Public Law 104, the Caribou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, and other applicable laws and regulations.

Initial scoping and issue development identified the following tentative issues: riparian/fisheries, wildlife, vegetation and watershed/soils.

The Forest Service has previously scoped this project in February of 2001. If you have already commented, your comments are part of the record and will be considered in determining issues, and alternatives. The Forest Service invites written comments and suggestions on the issues related to the proposal and the area being analyzed. Information received will be used in preparation of the Draft EIS and Final EIS. For most effective use, comments should be submitted to the Forest Service within 30 days from the date of publication of this Notice in the Federal Register .

Agency representatives and other interested people are invited to visit with Forest Service officials at any time during the EIS process. Two specific time periods are identified for the receipt of formal comments on the analysis. The two comment periods are, (1) during the scoping process, the next 30 days following publication of this Notice in the Federal Register , and (2) during the formal review period of the Draft EIS.

The Draft EIS is estimated to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public review in August of 2002. At that time, the EPA will publish an availability notice of the Draft EIS in the Federal Register .

The Forest Service estimates the Draft EIS will be filed within 10 months of this Notice of Intent, approximately August of 2002. The Final EIS will be filed within 6 months of that date, approximately December of 2002.

The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency 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 environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and intentions.

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. Court 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 environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft environmental impact statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement 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.)

Comments received in response to this solicitation, 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 7 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 10 days.

Comments received in response to this solicitation, 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 7 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 10 days.

The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency's notice of availability appears in the Federal Register . It is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate at this time. To be most helpful, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be a specific as possible and may address the adequacy of the statement or the merits of the alternatives discussed. (see the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3).

In addition, Federal court decisions have established that reviews of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaning and alerts an agency to the reviewers' position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Environmental objections that could have been raised at the draft stage may be waived if not raised until after completing of the final environmental impact statement. City of Angoon v. Hodel, (9th Circuit, 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). The reason for this is to ensure that substantive comments and objections area made available to the Forest Service at time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final.

The Forest Service proposes to salvage fire-killed trees of commercial value on approximately 1,000 acres in the North Fork of the Musselshell and the North Fork of the Smith River drainages on the Lewis and Clark National Forest. The entire project area covers about 2,300 acres in the central portion of the Little Belt Mountains. The purposes of the proposed action is to make use of trees of commercial value while the opportunity exists. No salvage or road construction within identified roadless areas is proposed.

Decisions To Be Made: The Forest Supervisor will decide whether and where salvage activities would take place in the project area. He will decide the number of acres, if any, on which salvage would take place and the treatment methods to be used. He will decide when any management activities would take place, what mitigation measures would be implemented to address concerns, and whether the action requires amendment(s) to the Lewis and Clark Forest Plan

Responsible Official: Rick Prausa, Forest Supervisor, is the Responsible Official for making the decision to implement any of the alternatives evaluated. He will document his decision and rationale in a Record of Decision.

Preliminary Issues: Issues associated with salvage harvest that have been identified during scoping and development of proposed action include impacts of proposed activities on wildlife and fish species and their habitat and soil resources.

Public Involvement, Rationale, and Public Meetings: Scoping for this project will begin in October 2001. A letter will be sent to individuals requesting their comment on the proposed action. A 45-day review period for comments on the Draft EIS will be provided. Comments received will be considered and included in documentation of the Final EIS. The public is encouraged to take part in the process and to visit with Forest Service officials at any time during the analysis and prior to the decision. The Forest Service has sought and will continue to seek information, comments and assistance from Federal, State and local agencies and other individuals or organizations who may be interested in, or affected by, the proposed action.

Electronic Access and Filing Addresses: Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to rl lewisclark comments@fs.fed.us. Please reference the Black Ant Salvage EIS on the subject line. Also, include your name and mailing address with your comments so documents pertaining to this project may be mailed to you.

Estimated Dates for Filing: The Draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public review by February, 2002. At that time EPA will publish a Notice of Availability of the draft EIS in the Federal Register. The comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date the EPA publishes the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register . It is very important that those interested in the management of this area participate at that time.

The final EIS is scheduled to be completed by May, 2002. In the final EIS, the Forest Service will respond to comments received during the comment period that pertain to the environmental consequences of the action, as well as those pertaining to applicable laws, regulations, and policies. These will be considered in making a decision regarding the proposal.

The Reviewers Obligation To Comment: The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers notice at this early stage of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statement 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, environmetnal objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F.Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). As shown by 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 environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement 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 environmental impact statement 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.

STEC is proposing to construct a combined-cycle combustion turbine generation plant at the existing Sam Rayburn Plant which is located in Nursery, Texas. The 177 MW capacity project would consist of three combustion turbine units connected to a single combined-cycle unit. Approximately 5.5 acres of the existing site will be needed for the proposed project. The existing plant infrastructure will be utilized for this new generation addition including existing gas lines, cooling water ponds and switchyard.

Copies of the Environmental Assessment and FONSI are available for review at, or can be obtained from, RUS at the address provided herein, or from Mr. John Packard, STEC, FM 447, Nursery, Texas 77976, telephone: (361) 575-6491.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (“Department”) regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (2001). Pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of the Act, an antidumping (“AD”) or countervailing duty (“CVD”) order will be revoked, or the suspended investigation will be terminated, unless revocation or termination would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of (1) dumping or a countervailable subsidy, and (2) material injury to the domestic industry.

The Department's procedures for the conduct of sunset reviews are set forth in 19 CFR 351.218. Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of sunset reviews is set forth in the Department's Policy Bulletin 98:3— Policies Regarding the Conduct of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998) (“ Sunset Policy Bulletin ”).

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218 we are initiating a sunset review of the following suspended investigation:

As a courtesy, we are making information related to sunset proceedings, including copies of the Sunset Regulations (19 CFR 351.218) and Sunset Policy Bulletin , the Department's schedule of sunset reviews, case history information ( i.e. , previous margins, duty absorption determinations, scope language, import volumes), and service lists, available to the public on the Department's sunset Internet website at the following address: “http://ia.ita.doc.gov/sunset/” .

All submissions in this sunset review must be filed in accordance with the Department's regulations regarding format, translation, service, and certification of documents. These rules can be found at 19 CFR 351.303. Also, we suggest that parties check the Department's sunset website for any updates to the service list before filing any submissions. The Department will make additions to and/or deletions from the service list provided on the sunset website based on notifications from parties and participation in this review. Specifically, the Department will delete from the service list all parties that do not submit a substantive response to the notice of initiation.

Because deadlines in a sunset review are, in many instances, very short, we urge interested parties to apply for access to proprietary information under administrative protective order (“APO”) immediately following publication in the Federal Register of the notice of initiation of the sunset review. The Department's regulations on submission of proprietary information and eligibility to receive access to business proprietary information under APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304-306.

Domestic interested parties (defined in 19 CFR 351.102) wishing to participate in this sunset review must respond not later than 15 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of the notice of initiation by filing a notice of intent to participate. The required contents of the notice of intent to participate are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance with the Department's regulations, if we do not receive a notice of intent to participate from at least one domestic interested party by the 15-day deadline, the Department will automatically revoke the order without further review.

If we receive an order-specific notice of intent to participate from a domestic interested party, the Department's regulations provide that all parties wishing to participate in the sunset review must file substantive responses not later than 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of the notice of initiation. The required contents of a substantive response, on an order-specific basis, are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note that certain information requirements differ for foreign and domestic parties. Also, note that the Department's information requirements are distinct from the International Trade Commission's information requirements. Please consult the Department's regulations for information regarding the Department's conduct of sunset reviews. 1 Please consult the Department's regulations at 19 CFR part 351 for definitions of terms and for other general information concerning antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings at the Department.

This notice of initiation is being published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c).

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

On July 6, 1999, the Department entered into Antidumping Duty Suspension Agreement regarding certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products (“hot-rolled steel”) from Brazil produced by Companhia Siderurgica Nacional (“CSN”), Usinas Siderurgicas de Minas Gerais (“USIMINAS”), and Companhia Siderurgica Paulista (“COSIPA”). This agreement was entered into under section 734(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, requiring, among other things, that the estimated margin of each entry under the suspension agreement does not exceed 15 percent of the margin found in the investigation. In addition, the Agreement requires that sales of subject merchandise are not made below the reference price (calculated quarterly, to prevent price suppression or undercutting). On July 28, 2000, petitioners requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of the agreement. The Department initiated this review on September 6, 2000. See 65 FR 53980 (September 6, 2000). On March 8, 2001 the Department extended the time limit for completion of the preliminary results by 120 days. See 66 FR 13891 (March 8, 2001). The preliminary results were published on August 8, 2001. See 66 FR 41500 (August 8, 2001). The final results are due on December 6, 2001, which is 120 days after the date of publication for the preliminary results.

This is the first administrative review of this suspension agreement. There are several novel and complex issues relating to compliance with the suspension agreement, including those involving: The precise nature of the relationships between the Brazilian mills and other parties involved in the U.S. sales process; the appropriate methods of margin calculations with respect to the requirements of the suspension agreement; and the treatment of certain Brazilian domestic taxes. Because of these issues, we find it is not practicable to complete this review within the initial time limits mandated by section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Therefore, we are fully extending the due date for the final results to 180 days after the publication date of the preliminary results, until February 4, 2002.

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

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

On May 31, 2001, Accai Speciali Terni S.p.A. and its affiliated company, requested that the Department conduct an administrative review. On June 19, 2001, the Department published a notice of initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Italy, covering the period May 1, 2000 through April 30, 2001. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Requests for Revocation in Part, 66 FR 32934 (June 19, 2001). The preliminary results of this review are currently due no later than January 31, 2002.

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. On October 22, 2001, the Department initiated a sales-below-the-cost-of-production investigation with respect to home market sales made by AST. On November 23, 2001, AST submitted the company-specific cost data. In order to properly analyze and consider the cost data in the Department's preliminary results, the Department has determined that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of this review for Accai Speciali Terni S.p.A. and its affiliates within the initial time limits provided in section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and section 351.213(h) of the Department's regulations.

Therefore, we are extending the due date for the preliminary results by 60 days, until no later than April 2, 2002. The final results continue to be due 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions in effect as of December 31, 1994.

On February 11, 1997, the Department published the final results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished (TRBs), from the People's Republic of China covering the period June 1, 1994, through May 31, 1995. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China, Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 6173 (February 11, 1997) ( Final Results ).

The Timken Company contested the Department's decision in the Final Results . In issuing its decision in this case, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) instructed the Department to make the following changes to its margin calculations for the Final Results : (1) Eliminate from the cost-of-manufacture calculation the category “purchases of traded goods” and (2) recalculate marine insurance expense on a value rather than weight basis. See Timken Company v. United States , Court No. 97-01-00394, Slip Op. 99-73 (CIT July 30, 1999). The Department issued final results of redetermination on remand on December 13, 1999. The CIT affirmed the Department's final remand results and dismissed the case. See Timken Company v. United States, Slip Op. 200-13 (CIT February 8, 2000).

There was no appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. As there is now a final and conclusive court decision in this action, we are amending our final results of review and we will instruct the Customs Service to liquidate entries subject to this review.

Pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Act, we are now amending the final results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on TRBs from the People's Republic of China for the period of review June 1, 1994, through May 31, 1995. The revised weighted-average margins are as follows:

Accordingly, the Department will determine and the Customs Service will assess appropriate antidumping duties on entries of the subject merchandise exported by firms covered by this review. Weighted-average margins for other respondent companies and the PRC-wide rate for others remain as published in the Final Results .

We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce (the Department) regulations refer to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (2000).

The merchandise subject to this investigation is certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths, of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate ( i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness of not less than 4 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of this investigation.

Specifically included within the scope of this investigation are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, and the substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium or niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum.

Steel products included in the scope of this investigation, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), are products in which: (i) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (ii) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (iii) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

All products that meet the physical and chemical description provided above are within the scope of this investigation unless otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:

• Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including, e.g., ASTM specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, A506).

• SAE/AISI grades of series 2300 and higher.

• Ball bearings steels, as defined in the HTS.

• Tool steels, as defined in the HTS.

• Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTS) or silicon electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent.

• ASTM specifications A710 and A736.

• USS Abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500).

• All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507).

• Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of the HTS.

The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the HTS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.36.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7211,14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel covered by this investigation, including: Vacuum degassed fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00. and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise subject to this proceeding is dispositive.

In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, on October 3, 2001, the Department published in the Federal Register its final affirmative determination in the countervailing duty investigation of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Thailand (66 FR 50410). On November 13, 2001, the International Trade Commission (ITC) notified the Department of its final determination, pursuant to section 705(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Thailand.

Therefore, countervailing duties will be assessed on all unliquidated entries of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Thailand entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 20, 2001, the date on which the Department published its preliminary countervailing duty determination in the Federal Register , and before August 18, 2001, the date that the Department instructed the U.S. Customs Service to terminate the suspension of liquidation in accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, and on all entries and withdrawals on or after the date of publication of this countervailing duty order in the Federal Register . Section 703(d) of the Act states that the suspension of liquidation pursuant to a preliminary determination may not remain in effect for longer than four months. Entries of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products made on or after August 18, 2001, and prior to the date of publication of this order in the Federal Register are not liable for the assessment of countervailing duties due to the Department's termination, effective August 17, 2001, of suspension of liquidation.

In accordance with section 706 of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs officers to reinstate the suspension of liquidation effective the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register and to assess, upon further advice by the Department pursuant to section 706(a)(1) of the Act, countervailing duties for each entry of the subject merchandise in an amount based on the counteravailable subsidy rate for the subject merchandise.

On or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register , U.S. Customs officers must require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the counteravailable subsidy rates noted below. The All Others rate applies to all producers and exporters of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Thailand not specifically listed below. The cash deposit rates are as follows:

This notice constitutes the countervailing duty order with respect to certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Thailand, pursuant to section 706(a) of the Act. Interested parties may contact the Central Records Unit, for copies of an updated list of countervailing duty orders currently in effect.

This countervailing duty order is published in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211.

The three AmeriCorps programs of the Corporation (AmeriCorps*State/National, National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC) and Volunteers In Service To America (VISTA)) depend on volunteers to help link program activities to individuals and institutions in the communities served by AmeriCorps. Each program plans and implements its own volunteer mobilization and deployment strategies. Volunteer mobilization includes volunteer position development, recruitment, screening, and training. Deployment includes management (i.e. placement, scheduling, coordination, record keeping, volunteer/paid staff relations), recognition and development of appropriate volunteer policies and procedures.

The Corporation seeks to evaluate the volunteer mobilization and deployment practices and outcomes of AmeriCorps programs. The evaluation will determine the extent to which the mobilization and deployment of local volunteers is meeting AmeriCorps goals for community strengthening and getting things done and AmeriCorps programs are engaging in effective volunteer mobilization and deployment practices. The evaluation will entail mail survey of approximately 1500 surveys to program/project directors and/or site staff. The Corporation will use the data collected through these activities to help programs and projects improve their volunteer-related practices.

Type of Review: New collection.

Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

Title: AmeriCorps Volunteer Generation Study.

OMB Number: None.

Agency Number: None.

Affected Public: AmeriCorps program staff, members, volunteers, and other stakeholders.

Total Respondents: 1500 survey respondents.

Frequency: One time.

Average Time Per Response: 45 minutes.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1125 hours (survey).

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): 0.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): 0.

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

DoD has identified three activities that interface with its suppliers and are relevant for acquisition improvement. These are providing information that contractors need to do business with DoD, establishing a business relationship with each contractor, and then maintaining that business relationship on a long-term basis. The best leverage for improving the overall satisfaction of suppliers is in improving the relationships DoD maintains with them. The proposed collection has been designed to diagnose problems with supplier customer satisfaction. This feedback will be used to formulate policies, programs and practices for improving the level of supplier customer satisfaction. A web-based survey is planned for the supplier diagnostic survey. The survey instrument will be posted on the web, and suppliers will be sent invitations via e-mail to access the web site and complete the survey instrument. The basis for this method is that the cost and time for the survey could be reduced, minimizing the burden on the supplier base.

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

Type of Review: Revision.

Title : Part B of the Individual with Disabilities Education Act Biennial Performance Report for School Years 1999-2000 through 2000-2001.

Abstract : State educational agencies are required to establish goals for the performance of children with disabilities in that State that promote the purposes of Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Part B). States must also establish performance indicators that the State will use to assess its progress in achieving these goals. Section 612(a)(16) of Part B requires States to report to the Secretary biennially on the progress that the State has made toward meeting its goals.

Additional Information : Information required provides States an opportunity to analyze and explain data that are reported in the Annual Report of Children Served, i.e., number of children served, suspension and expulsion, graduation, and dropout data.

Frequency: Biennially.

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

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden :

 Responses: 57.

 Burden Hours: 4,560.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651, or should be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO.RIMG@ed.gov , or should be faxed to 202-708-9346.

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

Recommended water quality criteria are the concentrations of a chemical in water at or below which aquatic life are protected from acute and chronic adverse effects of the chemical. Section 304(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act requires EPA to develop and publish, and from time to time revise, criteria for water accurately reflecting the latest scientific knowledge. Water quality criteria developed under section 304(a) are based solely on data and scientific judgments. They do not consider economic impacts or the technological feasibility of meeting the criteria in ambient water. Section 304(a) criteria provide guidance to States and Tribes in adopting water quality standards and provide a scientific basis for them to develop controls of discharges or releases of pollutants. The criteria also provide a scientific basis for EPA to develop Federally promulgated water quality standards under section 303(c).

Atrazine is an organic chemical used as an herbicide throughout the U.S. for control of weeds in agricultural crops. Environmental exposure occurs mainly from its application as an herbicide but may also occur from industrial manufacture, distribution releases, precipitation, field runoff, and drift. Atrazine is moderately volatile and soluble in water, and resistant to natural degradation in water. Because of atrazine's chemical properties and widespread use as an herbicide, concerns have been raised over the potential risks posed by exposure of aquatic organisms to it. For these reasons, EPA has developed the following water quality criteria:

Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the: One-hour average concentration of atrazine does not exceed 350 ug/l more than once every three years on the average (Acute Criterion); and Four-day average concentration of atrazine does not exceed 12 ug/l more than once every three years on the average (Chronic Criterion).

Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the: One hour average concentration of atrazine does not exceed 760 ug/l more than once every three years on the average (Acute Criterion); and Four-day average concentration of atrazine does not exceed 26 ug/l more than once every three years on the average (Chronic Criterion).

One hour average: The average of all samples taken during a one hour period by either continuous sampling or periodic grab samples.

Four day average: The average of all samples taken during four consecutive days by either continuous sampling or periodic grab samples. Also known as a 96-hour average.

Acute Criterion: A chemical concentration protective of aquatic organisms from short term exposure to fast acting chemicals or spikes in concentrations. For example exposure of a fish moving through an area for foraging but not residing in the area.

Chronic Criterion: A chemical concentration protective of aquatic organisms from longer term exposure to slower acting chemicals or relatively steady concentrations. For example, exposure of a fish that resides in an area.

Today, EPA is notifying the public about the extension of the comment period on the draft aquatic life criteria document for atrazine to expand the public's involvement in the criteria development process. EPA notified the public of its intent to develop aquatic life criteria for atrazine in the Federal Register on October 29, 1999 (64 FR 58409). At that time EPA made available to the public all references identified by a recent literature review and solicited any additional pertinent data or scientific views that would be useful in developing the aquatic life criteria for atrazine. On September 26, 2001, EPA notified the public of the availability of a draft aquatic life criteria document for atrazine (66 FR 49186). EPA is now making the draft aquatic life criteria document for atrazine available for public review for an additional sixty days. As indicated in the December 10, 1998 FR notice, the Agency believes it is important to provide the public with an opportunity to submit scientific information on draft criteria. EPA is soliciting views from the public on issues of science pertaining to the information used to derive the draft criteria. EPA will review and consider significant scientific information submitted by the public that might not have otherwise been identified during development of these criteria.

The Agency published detailed information about its revised process for developing and revising criteria in the Federal Register on December 10, 1998 (63 FR 68354) and in the EPA document entitled, National Recommended Water Quality—Correction (EPA 822-Z-99-001, April 1999). The purpose of the revised process is to provide expanded opportunities for public input, and to make the criteria development process more efficient.

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Oklahoma is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of October 25, 2001: Caddo and Kiowa Counties for Individual Assistance and Public Assistance.

New regulations effective May 18, 2001 (66 FR 15347, March 19, 2001, see also 66 FR 4092, January 17, 2001) establish an accreditation based regulatory system for opioid treatment programs (OTPs) that use methadone or ORLAAM for the maintenance or detoxification treatment of opiate addiction. Under 42 CFR 8.3, interested private nonprofit organizations or State governmental entities can submit applications to become accreditation bodies under the new rules. Four entities submitted applications and have been determined by SAMHSA under 42 CFR 8.3(d) to substantially meet the conditions for approval.

1. CARF * * * The Rehabilitation Accreditation Commission, 4891 East Grant, Tucson, Arizona 60181, telephone: 520-325-1044, fax: 520-318-1129, Web site: http://www.carf.org/CARF.

2. Council on Accreditation for Children and Family Services, 120 Wall Street, 11th Floor, New York, New York 10005, telephone: 212-797-3000, fax: 212-797-1428, Web site: http://www.coanet.org.

3. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, One Renaissance Boulevard, Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois 60181, telephone: 630-792-5800, fax: 630-792-5005, Web site: http://www.jcaho.org.

4. Division of Alcohol and Substance Abuse, Washington Department of Social and Health Services, Division of Alcohol and Substance Abuse, P.O. Box 45330 (Mail Stop 45330), Olympia, Washington 98504-5330, telephone: 360-438-8056, fax: 360-407-5318, Web site: http://www-app2.wa.gov/dshs/dasa .

SAMHSA is providing this notice to OTPs and others to facilitate accreditation applications as necessary for certification under the provisional and transitional certification provisions of Subpart B of the new regulation (see 42 CFR 8.11(a), (d), and (e)). OTPs with transitional certification must apply to an approved accreditation body no later than March 4, 2002. SAMHSA is also notifying OTPs directly about the approval of these four accreditation organizations and will notify OTPs of future approvals in a similar manner.

Additional information on accreditation and related issues can be obtained from the SAMHSA/CSAT Web page at www.opat.samhsa.gov or by writing to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, CSAT Office of Pharmacologic and Alternative Therapies, Attention: OTP Accreditation Program, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 12-105, Rockville, MD 20857.

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

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) (Act), requires the development of recovery plans for listed species unless such a plan would not promote the conservation of a particular species. Section 4(f) of the Act as amended in 1988 requires that public notice and an opportunity for public review and comment be provided during recovery plan development. The Service will consider all information presented during the public comment period prior to approval of each new or revised recovery plan. Substantive technical comments will result in changes to the plan. Substantive comments regarding recovery plan implementation may not necessarily result in changes to the recovery plan, but will be forwarded to appropriate Federal or other entities so that they can take these comments into account during the course of implementing recovery actions. Individual responses to comments will not be provided.

San Francisco lessingia and Raven's manzanita are restricted to the San Francisco peninsula in San Francisco County, California. San Francisco lessingia, an annual herb in the aster family, is restricted to coastal sand deposits. Raven's manzanita is a rare evergreen creeping shrub in the heath family which was historically restricted to few scattered serpentine outcrops. Habitat loss, adverse alteration of ecological processes, and invasion of non-native plant species threaten San Francisco lessingia. Raven's manzanita has also been threatened by habitat loss; at present it is threatened primarily by invasion of non-native vegetation and secondarily by disease organisms and poor reproductive success. The draft plan also makes reference to several other federally listed species which are ecologically associated with San Francisco lessingia and Raven's manzanita, but which are treated comprehensively in other recovery plans. These species are beach layia ( Layia carnosa ), Presidio clarkia ( Clarkia franciscana ), Marin dwarf-flax ( Hesperolinon congestum ), Myrtle's silverspot butterfly ( Speyere zerene myrtleae ), and bay checkerspot butterfly ( Euphydryas editha bayensis ). In addition, 16 plant species of concern and 17 plant species of local or regional conservation significance are considered in this recovery plan.

The draft recovery plan stresses re-establishing dynamic, persistent populations of San Francisco lessingia and Raven's manzanita within plant communities which have been restored to be as “self-sustaining” as possible within urban wildland reserves. Specific recovery actions for San Francisco lessingia focus on the restoration and management of large, dynamic mosaics of coastal dune areas supporting shifting populations within the species' narrow historic range. Recovery of Raven's manzanita will include, but will not be limited to, the strategy of the 1984 Raven's Manzanita Recovery Plan, which emphasized the stabilization of the single remaining genetic individual. The draft plan also seeks to re-establish multiple sexually reproducing populations of Raven's manzanita in association with its historically associated species of local serpentine outcrops. The objectives of this recovery plan are to delist San Francisco lessingia and to downlist Raven's manzanita through implementation of a variety of recovery measures including: (1) Protection and restoration of a series of ecological reserves (often with mixed recreational and conservation park land uses); (2) promotion of population increases of San Francisco lessingia and Raven's manzanita within these sites, or reintroduction of them to restored sites; (3) management of protected sites, especially the extensive eradication or suppression of invasive dominant non-native vegetation; (4) research; and (5) public participation, outreach, and education.

The Service solicits written comments on the recovery plan described. All comments received by the date specified above will be considered prior to approval of this plan.

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

On November 8, 1999, a notice was published in the Federal Register (64 FR 60826) announcing that the Service intended to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement “ to [address] impacts caused by population and range expansion of the double-crested cormorant in the contiguous United States.” This announcement commenced a public scoping period that ended on June 20, 2000. Over 1,400 public comments were received and were considered in the development of the DEIS, which is now being made available for public review. This notice is provided pursuant to Fish and Wildlife Service regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (40 CFR 1506.6).

The DEIS evaluates six management alternatives to address biological and socioeconomic resource conflicts associated with cormorants: (1) No Action or a continuation of current cormorant management practices (Alternative A); (2) implement only non-lethal management techniques (Alternative B); (3) expand current cormorant damage management policies (Alternative C); (4) establish a new Depredation Order to address public resource conflicts (Alternative D) (PROPOSED ACTION); (5) reduce regional cormorant populations (Alternative E); and (6) establish frameworks for a cormorant hunting season (Alternative F). Our proposed action (Alternative D) modifies the existing Aquaculture Depredation Order and establishes a new Public Resource Depredation Order to allow public resource managers greater flexibility in dealing with cormorant conflicts while ensuring Federal oversight via reporting and monitoring requirements.

You may mail or deliver comments to the Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 634, Arlington, Virginia 22203. Additionally, you may submit comments on the DEIS via the internet to: cormorant_eis@fws.gov. Please include your name and return address in your e-mail message, and submit your comments as an ASCII file. Do not use special characters or encryption. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we received your e-mail message, you can contact us directly at 703/358-1714.

In order to be considered, submission of comments (written or electronic) must include your name and postal mailing address; we will not consider anonymous comments. All comments received, including names and addresses, will become part of the public record. The public may inspect comments during normal business hours in Room 634 “ Arlington Square Building, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia. Requests for such comments will be handled in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act and the Council on Environmental Quality's National Environmental Policy Act regulations [40 CFR 1506.6(f)]. Our practice is to make comments 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. If a respondent wishes us to withhold his/her name and/or address, this must be stated prominently at the beginning of the comment.

Several public hearings will be held throughout the country during the comment period to solicit further comments from the public. The dates and locations of these hearings are yet to be determined. A notice of public meetings with the locations, dates, and times will be published in the Federal Register .

You may obtain copies of these documents for review by contacting the above office. Documents also will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address and at the Temecula Library located at 41000 County Center Drive, Temecula, California.

Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) and federal regulations prohibit the “take” of fish or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. Take of listed fish or wildlife is defined under the Act to include “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” The Service may, under limited circumstances, issue permits to authorize incidental take (i.e., take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity). Regulations governing incidental take permits for threatened and endangered species are found in 50 CFR 17.32 and 17.22.

The Applicants are proposing development of multi-family residential structures (containing a total of 406 residential units) and associated commercial and retail space on 44 acres. The development site is an infill area within the City surrounded by a combination of multi-family and single family residential complexes.

Biologists surveyed the combined project site for biological resources in 1999 and 2000. Two years of protocol surveys for Quino checkerspot butterfly ( Euphydryas editha quino ) were conducted, but no sign of the species was detected. Two pairs of coastal California gnatcatchers were found in 2000. Given the limited amount of sage scrub habitat available for these two pairs on this infill site (14 acres), it is presumed that the two pairs are also utilizing, to some degree, portions of the remaining 30 acres, which consist of non-native grassland, ruderal vegetation, and barren areas.

Based on the survey results, the Service concluded that implementation of the two proposed projects would result in take of the two pairs of gnatcatchers found on this infill site, through the permanent removal of the vegetation on the 44 acres of this combined site: 14 acres of riversidean sage scrub, and 30 acres of non-native grassland and ruderal vegetation. Environmental effects addressed in the HCP and Environmental Assessment include the loss of both pairs of gnatcatchers given the removal of the vegetation from the site.

The Applicants propose to implement the following measures to mitigate and minimize take of coastal California gnatcatchers: (1) Avoid ground disturbing activities during the California gnatcatcher breeding season; (2) stake the construction boundaries of the project; (3) random inspections of the project site by a biological monitor; (4) purchase conservation credits for 45 acres of riversidean sage scrub occupied by two pairs of gnatcatchers from an off-site mitigation bank in the Riverside County area; and (5) purchase an additional 25 acres of riversidean sage scrub conservation credits from another off-site mitigation bank in the Riverside County area. Both conservation banks possess a management endowment to ensure their permanent management for sensitive species and habitats, including the California gnatcatcher.

The Environmental Assessment considers the environmental consequences of four alternatives, including the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action consists of the issuance of two incidental take permits and implementation of the HCP and its Implementing Agreement, which includes measures to minimize and mitigate impacts of the two projects on the coastal California gnatcatcher. Under the “No Action” alternative, the Service would not issue a permit to either Applicant. Under this alternative, the proposed residential developments would not be constructed at this time. Both pairs of gnatcatchers may still be lost over time because the small isolated project site is not well-suited to the long term preservation of gnatcatcher pairs. Contributions to more permanent gnatcatcher preservation efforts in the region (through participation in regional conservation mitigation banks) would not occur.

Under the “Reduced Project” alternative, one of the two multi-family residential projects would not receive an incidental take permit. One of the applicants would not develop their property at this time. The other project would receive a permit. It is likely that both gnatcatcher pairs would ultimately be lost from the 44 acre combined site since development of either project alone would likely eliminate so much habitat as to render the remaining isolated habitat incapable of supporting any gnatcatcher pairs in the long term. This alternative would provide only half of the conservation benefits of the Proposed Action while ultimately resulting in the same level of incidental take as the Proposed Action.

Under the “Different Location” alternative, the two adjoining projects would be relocated to another area in the City of Temecula. The opportunities for needed multi-family housing in the City of Temecula are severely limited, and the identification and acquisition of an alternative site in the City cannot be assured. Under this alternative, both pairs of gnatcatchers may still be lost because the small isolated project site is not well-suited to the long term preservation of gnatcatcher pairs. No conservation contributions to regional gnatcatcher preservation would be made.

The alternatives to the Proposed Action would result in less habitat conservation value for the coastal California gnatcatcher in the Riverside County region and contribute less to its long-term survival in the wild than the off-site conservation bank habitat preservation/management mitigation measures under the Proposed Action.

This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(a) of the Endangered Species Act and the regulations of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (40 CFR 1506.6). All comments that we receive, including names and addresses, will become part of the official administrative record and may be made available to the public. We will evaluate the application, associated documents, and comments submitted thereon to determine whether the application meets the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act regulations and section 10(a) of the Endangered Species Act. If we determine that those requirements are met, we will issue a permit to each Applicant for the incidental take of the coastal California gnatcatcher. We will make our final permit decision no sooner than 60 days from the date of this notice.

On January 7, 1997, the Department of Commerce suspended an antidumping duty investigation on imports of sodium azide from Japan (62 FR 973). The Commission is conducting a review to determine whether termination of the suspended investigation would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. It will assess the adequacy of interested party responses to this notice of institution to determine whether to conduct a full review or an expedited review. The Commission's determination in any expedited review will be based on the facts available, which may include information provided in response to this notice.

The following definitions apply to this review:

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or kind of merchandise that is within the scope of the five-year review, as defined by the Department of Commerce.

(2) The Subject Country in this review is Japan.

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the domestically produced product or products which are like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the Subject Merchandise. For the purpose of the preliminary investigation, the Commission defined the Domestic Like Product as all sodium azide.

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. producers as a whole of the Domestic Like Product, or those producers whose collective output of the Domestic Like Product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product. For the purpose of the preliminary investigation, the Commission defined the Domestic Industry as producers of sodium azide.

(5) The Order Date is the date that the investigation was suspended. In this review, the Order Date is January 7, 1997.

(6) An Importer is any person or firm engaged, either directly or through a parent company or subsidiary, in importing the Subject Merchandise into the United States from a foreign manufacturer or through its selling agent.

Persons, including industrial users of the Subject Merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the review as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the Commission's rules, no later than 21 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register . The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the review.

Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are reminded that they are required, pursuant to 19 CFR 201.15, to seek Commission approval if the matter in which they are seeking to appear was pending in any manner or form during their Commission employment. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is the “same particular matter” as the underlying original investigation for purposes of 19 CFR 201.15 and 18 U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute for Federal employees. Former employees may seek informal advice from Commission ethics officials with respect to this and the related issue of whether the employee's participation was “personal and substantial.” However, any informal consultation will not relieve former employees of the obligation to seek approval to appear from the Commission under its rule 201.15. For ethics advice, contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy Agency Ethics Official, at 202-205-3088.

Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI submitted in this review available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the review, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. § 1677(9), who are parties to the review. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

Pursuant to section 207.3 of the Commission's rules, any person submitting information to the Commission in connection with this review must certify that the information is accurate and complete to the best of the submitter's knowledge. In making the certification, the submitter will be deemed to consent, unless otherwise specified, for the Commission, its employees, and contract personnel to use the information provided in any other reviews or investigations of the same or comparable products which the Commission conducts under Title VII of the Act, or in internal audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of the Commission pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3.

Pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission's rules, each interested party response to this notice must provide the information specified below. The deadline for filing such responses is January 22, 2002. Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the Commission's rules, eligible parties (as specified in Commission rule 207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments concerning the adequacy of responses to the notice of institution and whether the Commission should conduct an expedited or full review. The deadline for filing such comments is February 19, 2002. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of sections 201.8 and 207.3 of the Commission's rules and any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6 and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means. Also, in accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or APO service list as appropriate), and a certificate of service must accompany the document (if you are not a party to the review you do not need to serve your response).

Pursuant to section 207.61(c) of the Commission's rules, any interested party that cannot furnish the information requested by this notice in the requested form and manner shall notify the Commission at the earliest possible time, provide a full explanation of why it cannot provide the requested information, and indicate alternative forms in which it can provide equivalent information. If an interested party does not provide this notification (or the Commission finds the explanation provided in the notification inadequate) and fails to provide a complete response to this notice, the Commission may take an adverse inference against the party pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act in making its determination in the review.

As used below, the term “firm” includes any related firms.

(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address if available) and name, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address of the certifying official.

(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union or worker group, a U.S. importer of the Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, a U.S. or foreign trade or business association, or another interested party (including an explanation). If you are a union/worker group or trade/business association, identify the firms in which your workers are employed or which are members of your association.

(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this review by providing information requested by the Commission.

(4) A statement of the likely effects of the termination of the suspended investigation on the Domestic Industry in general and/or your firm/entity specifically. In your response, please discuss the various factors specified in section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675a(a)) including the likely volume of subject imports, likely price effects of subject imports, and likely impact of imports of Subject Merchandise on the Domestic Industry.

(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the Domestic Like Product. Identify any known related parties and the nature of the relationship as defined in section 771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677(4)(B)).

(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the Subject Merchandise and producers of the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country that currently export or have exported Subject Merchandise to the United States or other countries since 1996.

(7) If you are a U.S. producer of the Domestic Like Product, provide the following information on your firm's operations on that product during calendar year 2000 (report quantity data in thousands of pounds and value data in thousands of U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/worker group or trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms in which your workers are employed/which are members of your association.

(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the Domestic Like Product accounted for by your firm's(s') production;

(b) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s); and

(c) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s).

(8) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the Subject Merchandise from the Subject Country, provide the following information on your firm's(s') operations on that product during calendar year 2000 (report quantity data in thousands of pounds and value data in thousands of U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association.

(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping or countervailing duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of Subject Merchandise from the Subject Country accounted for by your firm's(s') imports;

(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of Subject Merchandise imported from the Subject Country; and

(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of Subject Merchandise imported from the Subject Country.

(9) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country, provide the following information on your firm's(s') operations on that product during calendar year 2000 (report quantity data in thousands of pounds and value data in thousands of U.S. dollars, landed and duty-paid at the U.S. port but not including antidumping or countervailing duties). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association.

(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country accounted for by your firm's(s') production; and

(b) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise from the Subject Country accounted for by your firm's(s') exports.

(10) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the Domestic Like Product that have occurred in the United States or in the market for the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country since the Order Date, and significant changes, if any, that are likely to occur within a reasonably foreseeable time. Supply conditions to consider include technology; production methods; development efforts; ability to increase production (including the shift of production facilities used for other products and the use, cost, or availability of major inputs into production); and factors related to the ability to shift supply among different national markets (including barriers to importation in foreign markets or changes in market demand abroad). Demand conditions to consider include end uses and applications; the existence and availability of substitute products; and the level of competition among the Domestic Like Product produced in the United States, Subject Merchandise produced in the Subject Country, and such merchandise from other countries.

(11) (Optional) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the Domestic Like Product and Domestic Industry; if you disagree with either or both of these definitions, please explain why and provide alternative definitions.

Under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, the Copyright Office is charged with publishing in the Federal Register any notices of intent to enforce restored copyrights timely filed with the Office. Notices filed with the Office must be filed within 24 months after a work initially becomes eligible. See 17 U.S.C. 104A(d)(2)(A). At this time, only works the source country of which is a foreign member of the World Trade Organization or the Berne Convention are eligible for restoration. 17 U.S.C. 104A(h)(3). On or shortly after January 1, 1996, the effective date of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, the great majority of these countries fulfilled the conditions for eligibility. For those reasons, the time for filing notices of intent from the overwhelming majority of countries has now expired. Thus, typically, the Office does not receive new NIEs that are timely.

The URAA also prescribes conditions under which NIEs may be corrected. In 1997, the Copyright Office adopted an interim regulation under which corrections of errors in Notices of Intent to Enforce restored copyright may be filed. 62 FR 55736 (1997). In accordance with that regulation, the Office has published in the Federal Register lists of certain Correction Notices which reflect information erroneously listed on or omitted from original NIEs. 37 CFR 201.34. Any timely filed original or correction NIEs are published within four months after receipt on the next scheduled publication date. 17 U.S.C. 104A(e)(1)(B).

The Office now publishes a list of NIEs that is neither of original nor Correction NIEs but a judicially required statement which is the result of an action related to ownership of certain restored copyrights. The Office publishes this notice consistent with the intent of the URAA that makes the Copyright Office responsible for providing public notice of significant facts regarding, inter alia, the ownership of restored copyrights.

In a letter dated August 30, 2001, responding to an Amended Final Judgment in Alameda Films, S.A. v. H. Jackson Shirley III, No. H-99-0734, slip op. at 4 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 1, 2001), Mr. Shirley notified the U.S. Copyright Office that the Authors Rights Restoration Corporation retracts all filings in the U.S. Copyright Office in any way related to the eighty-one films listed in Exhibit “A” of the district court's order. This case has been appealed to the fifth circuit, No. 01-20869, docketed August 24, 2001.

The titles from Exhibit A are as follows:

Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), NARA invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed information collections. The comments and suggestions should address one or more of the following points: (a) Whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NARA; (b) the accuracy of NARA's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways, including the use of information technology, to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the NARA request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this notice, NARA is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:

Title: Customer Request for Information and Order Forms.

OMB number: 3095—New.

Agency form number: NA Form 14116.

Type of review: Regular.

Affected public: Individuals and households.

Estimated number of respondents: 130,000.

Estimated time per response: 5 minutes.

Frequency of response: On occasion.

Estimated total annual burden hours: 10,833 hours.

Abstract: The form is a web-based form to be completed by members of the public who wish to either request printed order forms for copies of genealogical records or to obtain information about NARA's archival holdings or services. Customers who request printed forms indicate the type and quantity of form wanted. Those who need information about NARA's archival holdings choose a subject heading to help describe their request. The form entails no burden other than that necessary to identify the customer, the date, the customer's address, and the nature of the request. This information is used only to facilitate answering the request and is not retained after the request is completed. The information is not used for any subsequent purpose.

As a result of a public meeting to discuss NRC interactions with stakeholders on nuclear material and waste activities, the Commission directed the NRC staff to improve NRC's Web site by (1) reviewing other major Web sites as models for possible improvements to the NRC site; (2) soliciting the views of stakeholders, including members of the general public, researchers, and representatives of the library community; (3) implementing goals for the public site to support NRC's Strategic Plan; and (4) ensuring that the public site is compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act.

The NRC staff established the following objectives for the external Web site to support the goals of NRC's Strategic Plan: (1) Increase public confidence in the NRC by providing information that enhances the ability of stakeholders to participate effectively in the regulatory process; provide information that enhances the public's understanding of NRC's mission, goals, and performance; make it easy to find desired information; ensure the timeliness and accuracy of information at the site; and (2) make doing business with the NRC more efficient and effective by providing easy access to necessary information and tools for conducting business electronically via the Web.

The NRC formed two groups to provide agencywide input to the redesign effort: a Web Redesign Working Group, composed of staff who currently maintain the NRC's content at our public Web site, and a Web Redesign Steering Committee, composed of senior managers and chaired first by a representative from the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and later by a representative from the Office of Public Affairs.

The NRC staff contracted for a usability analysis of the existing Web site. Stakeholders, including representatives of public interest groups, librarians, licensees, State officials, members of the international nuclear regulatory community, and NRC staff who frequently interact with the public were involved in this process through several focus groups, a usability test at NRC's Regulatory Information Conference, and a Web survey. An expert evaluation of how well NRC's current Web site follows best practices and considers human factors, and how accessible it is to individuals with disabilities (in compliance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act) was also done. In addition, the staff compared NRC's Web site with other highly rated government sites and confirmed that there were significant opportunities to improve the current site's structure and organization, navigability, style, understandability, and accessibility. The recommendations included:

• Create a “common look and feel” for the entire NRC Web site (enforce standards);

• Organize by content and topic rather than by NRC organizational structure;

• Use top-down logic going from the general to the specific;

• Make navigation consistent (links to top-level pages, within-page navigational devices, and links to external non-NRC sites); and

• Comply with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (test pages on multiple platforms and with browsers favored by people with disabilities).

The results of these assessments formed the basis for developing a prototype for the redesigned Web site. The prototype contained improvements adopted from all the recommendations listed above and was reviewed by the NRC Web staff, the Web Redesign Working Group, and the Web Redesign Steering Committee. In addition, NRC collected and evaluated comments on the prototype from stakeholders who were involved in the initial usability study, as well as others. The agency obtained OMB clearance to collect comments from stakeholders. The NRC staff as a whole was also provided an opportunity to comment.

An analysis of the feedback on the prototype indicated that users were more satisfied with the prototype than with NRC's existing public Web site. Many suggestions for further improvements were adopted and implemented for the redesigned site.

As a result of the events of September 11, 2001, the NRC shut down its public Web site on October 11 and is conducting a thorough review of the original scope of the redesigned site. This review includes all document collections available at the NRC public Web site prior to October 11 (over 50,000 pages and nearly all of the other content, over 1,000 pages). As reviews are completed, NRC will restore content incrementally in the redesigned format. Updates on the redesign will be posted at the Web site ( www.nrc.gov ) as the deployment proceeds.

The following is a summary of the application. The complete application is available for a fee from the Public Reference Branch of the Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington DC 20549-0102 (tel. (202) 942-8090).

1. Mutual of America is a mutual life insurance company organized under the laws of the State of New York in 1945, having its home office at 320 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10022. Mutual of America is authorized to sell individual and group life insurance policies, variable annuity contracts and variable universal life policies in 50 states and the District of Columbia.

2. The Annuity Account is a separate account of Mutual of America established for the purpose of providing an investment medium for variable contracts, including individual annuities. It is registered under the Act as a unit investment trust (File No 811-4679), and three registration statements on Form N-4 filed pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (“1933 Act”) are in effect for sales of interests under group and individual variable accumulation annuity contracts (File Nos. 2-90201, 33-5609 and 33-11023). One registration statement (File No. 2-90201) covers several forms of contract, including Individual Retirement Annuity (“IRA”) Contracts and Flexible Premium Deferred Annuity (“FPA”) Contracts. The IRA and FPA Contracts issued by Mutual of America are herein referred to as the “Contracts.”

3. The VUL Account is a separate account of Mutual of America established for the purpose of providing an investment medium for variable contracts, including individual life policies. It is registered under the Act as a unit investment trust (File No. 811-9487), and a registration statement on Form S-6 filed pursuant to the 1933 Act is in effect for sales of interests under individual variable universal life insurance policies (the “Policies”) (File No. 333-83413).

4. The Mutual Accounts currently hold assets in their respective seventeen subaccounts (“investment funds”), each of which invests in shares of a corresponding mutual fund portfolio (collectively, the “Underlying Funds”). Each of the Underlying Funds is a series of a management investment company registered under the Act and its shares are registered for sale under the 1933 Act.

5. Mutual of America serves as the principal underwriter of the Contracts and the Policies, and also is the principal underwriter for the Mutual of America Investment Corporation. It is a broker-dealer registered under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and is a member of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.

6. Mutual of America intends to make offers of exchange to the holders (“Owners”) of variable annuity and life insurance products that were issued by American Life at a time when American Life was an indirectly wholly-owned subsidiary of Mutual of America. American Life is a stock life insurance company organized under the laws of the State of New York in 1955, with headquarters at 435 Hudson Street, New York, New York 10014, and substantial operations at 300 Distillery Commons, Louisville, Kentucky 40206.

7. The American Separate Account No. 2 (the “American Annuity Account”) is a separate account of American Life established for the purpose of providing an investment medium for variable contracts, including individual annuities. The American Annuity Account is registered under the Act as a unit investment trust (File No. 811-7904), and a registration statement on Form N-4 filed pursuant to the 1933 Act is in effect for sales of interests under IRA Contracts and FPA Contracts, which are variable individual accumulation annuity contracts (File No. 33-66406). The American IRA and American FPA Contracts issued by American Life are herein referred to as the “American Contracts.”

8. The American Separate Account No. 3 (the “American VUL Account”) is a separate account of American Life established for the purpose of providing an investment medium for variable contracts, including individual life policies. The American VUL Account is registered under the Act as a unit investment trust (File No. 811-8368), and a registration statement on Form S-6 filed pursuant to the 1933 Act is in effect for sales of interests under individual variable universal life insurance policies (the “American Policies”) (File No. 33-75280).

9. The American Annuity Account and American VUL Account are herein called the “American Accounts.” The American Accounts each have seventeen investment funds that invest in shares of corresponding Underlying Funds.

10. American Life ceased selling the American Contracts and Policies as of April 1, 2000. In reliance on the Commission's no-action position in Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Co. (publicly available October 23, 1990), American Life in 2001 did not file updating amendments to the registration statements covering the American Contracts and the American Policies.

11. On March 16, 2001, Mutual of America sold to a third party all of the outstanding common stock of a holding company, which owned all of the outstanding common stock of American Life. For accounting purposes, the sale was effective as of February 28, 2001. Under an Indemnity Reinsurance Agreement, dated as of February 28, 2001, between Mutual of America and American Life (the “Indemnity Agreement”), Mutual of America has indemnity reinsured American Life's general account liabilities under the American Contracts and Policies. Under an Administrative Services Agreement, dated as of February 28, 2001, between Mutual of America and American Life (the “Servicing Agreement”), Mutual of America provides all administrative services for the American Contracts and America Policies, including administrative services with respect to the American Accounts. Under an Amendment, dated as of February 28, 2001, to the Distribution and Administration Agreement between Mutual of America and American Life, Mutual of America is the principal underwriter of the American Contracts and Policies for new contributions and premiums paid by existing Owners (the “Distribution Agreement”). Mutual of America entered into the Servicing Agreement, the Indemnity Agreement and the Distribution Agreement to facilitate the sale of American Life to a third party.

12. American Life and Mutual of America entered into a reinsurance and assumption agreement, which was effective April 1, 2000 (the “assumption agreement”), relating to various individual annuity contracts and individual life policies, including the then outstanding American Contracts and Policies. In the assumption agreement, American Life ceded all of its obligations, rights and liabilities under the American Contracts and Policies to Mutual of America on an assumption reinsurance basis, and Mutual of America agreed to assume all such obligations, rights and liabilities transferred to it, subject to compliance with applicable state insurance laws and regulations.

13. Under the insurance laws and regulations of some states, Owners had the right to opt out of the proposed assumption reinsurance of their contracts by Mutual of America, and in some states Owners were required to affirmatively consent to the assumption reinsurance. In addition, the New York State Insurance Department has administratively prohibited the assumption reinsurance of variable annuity contracts and variable life insurance policies issued in New York when contractholders are no longer New York residents. Upon effectiveness of the assumption agreement, a substantial portion of the American Contracts and Policies were transferred to Mutual of America, which replaced American Life as the issuer of such Contracts and Policies. Mutual of America, however, was not able to assumption reinsure American Contracts and Policies when an Owner: (a) Was required under applicable state insurance law to give affirmative consent to Mutual of America's assumption reinsurance and did not provide such consent; (b) had the right under applicable state insurance law to opt out of Mutual of America's assumption reinsurance and timely exercised such right; or (c) was a resident of the State of New York when the American Contract or Policy was issued and subsequently moved to another state.

14. On November 4, 1999, Mutual of America, the Mutual Accounts, American Life and the American Accounts (the “Initial Applicants”) filed with the Commission an application for an order pursuant to Section 17(b), Section 17(d) and Rule 17d-1 thereunder, and Section 11(a) of the Act, in connection with the assumption agreement and the reinsurance transactions contemplated thereunder. Among other things, the application requested an order to permit the offers of exchange when Owners had opt out rights or the consent of Owners was required in connection with the assumption reinsurance of American Contracts and Policies by Mutual of America. The Initial Applicants filed an amended and restated application on February 16, 2000 (the “Initial Application”), and the Commission issued an Order granting the requested exemptions to the Initial Applicants on March 13, 2000, Inv. Co. Act Rel. No. 24336, File No. 812-11840 (the “Initial Order”).

15. At the time of the Initial Application, Mutual of America and American Life contemplated that they would make additional offers of exchange only through requests for consent to assumption by Owners whose American Contracts and Policies were not assumption reinsured effective April 1, 2000. Accordingly, the exemptive relief that was requested in the Initial Application and granted in the Initial Order with respect to offers of exchange contemplated that such offers would be made in connection with assumption reinsurance transactions, either before or after the sale of American Life by Mutual of America.

16. Mutual of America intends to make offers of exchange to Owners, pursuant to which Owners would exchange their American Contracts and Policies for Contracts and Policies, respectively. A reduction in the number of Owners, or their elimination, would reduce or eliminate, respectively, the cost to Mutual of America of providing administrative services for the American Contracts and Policies and the American Accounts, as required under the Servicing Agreement, and for reinsuring American Life's general account liabilities, pursuant to the Indemnity Agreement. It would be less expensive for Mutual of America to provide administrative services only to owners of its Contracts and Policies rather than to provide such services for both Contracts and Policies and American Contracts and Policies. The exchanges also would benefit Owners, because owners of Contracts and Policies may utilize Mutual of America's regional service offices and may use Mutual of America's toll-free telephone number and Internet web site for transactions as well as to obtain contract information, while Owners must send transaction requests in writing to the New York administrative office that is servicing the American Contracts and Policies and may use a toll free number only to obtain information. American Life will not issue additional contracts or policies through the American Accounts, and therefore the Accounts are expected to decline in asset size and number of Owners over a period of time.

17. The terms of the Contracts and Policies are identical to the American Contracts and Policies except for the identity of the issuing company and depositor of the separate account, the funding separate account, and the right of owners of Contracts and Policies to participate in the divisible surplus of Mutual of America, a mutual company. In addition, when Mutual of America issues policies in exchange for American Policies, it will waive the suicide clause and will not require medical underwriting. As a consequence, Owners will not be subject to new incontestability periods under their Policies for suicide or medical conditions.

18. The Underlying Funds, the current administrative charges and the maximum permitted administrative charges, the mortality and expense risk charges, and the rates for the cost of insurance charges in the case of the Policies are identical under the Contracts and Policies and the American Contracts and Policies, respectively. The unit values for the investment funds of the Annuity Account and the American Annuity Account are identical, and the unit values for the investment funds of the VUL Account and the American VUL Account also are identical.

19. Mutual of America will send offers of exchange to Owners who, after being contacted by a Mutual of America representative, indicate their interest in receiving the exchange materials. The materials will include a current prospectus and any supplements thereto for the Contract or Policy, as appropriate. Owners who wish to accept the offers of exchange will complete and return the exchange materials to Mutual of America, which will review them for completeness. When an Owner's exchange materials are incomplete, a representative of Mutual of America will contact the Owner to attempt to obtain any missing information or signatures.

20. Applicants expect that Owners will have no adverse tax consequences from the exchanges. Exchanges of American IRA Contracts will be non-taxable direct transfers under the Internal Revenue Code, as amended (the “Code”), and exchanges of American FPA Contracts and American VUL Policies will be tax-free exchanges under Section 1035 of the Code.

21. In certain limited circumstances, a Policy may be treated differently for tax purposes than the American Policy being exchanged. Prior to making offers of exchange to Owners, Mutual of America will review the amount of insurance coverage under each American Policy, the initial premium to be paid under the Policy issued in exchange and the Policy's scheduled premiums to ascertain whether the Policy (a) Would be a modified endowment contract (“MEC”) under the Code when the American Policy is not an MEC, (b) would be unable to accept additional premiums, because such payments would cause the Policy to not be treated as life insurance under the Code when premiums could be paid under the American Policy, (c) would become an MEC upon the payment of additional scheduled premiums, when payment of such premiums under the American Policy would not cause that Policy to become an MEC, or (d) would fail to continue to qualify as life insurance as defined in the Code. As part of any exchange offer made in such situation, Mutual of America will notify the Owner in writing of the potential change in tax treatment that would result from the issuance of a Policy in exchange for the Owner's American Policy. Mutual of America may suggest an increase in the face amount of the insurance coverage under the Policy in an amount sufficient so that the situations in (a)-(d), as the case may be, would not apply to the Policy, and Mutual of America will not issue a Policy if it would not be deemed life insurance under the Code.

22. When an Owner's exchange materials are complete, Mutual of America will provide the surrender request to American Life, which will redeem the shares of the Underlying Funds held by the American Accounts that are attributable to the American Contract or Policy exchanged and arrange for the withdrawal of any funds held in American Life's general account. An Owner's account balance as of the close of business on the date of surrender of the American Contract or Policy, without the imposition of any sales charge, as of the close of business on the purchase order date. The applicable Mutual Account will purchase shares of the Underlying Funds, and/or Mutual of America will allocate amounts to its General Account, 1 based on the allocation instruction set forth on the purchaser's application and the amount transferred to Mutual of America from American Life.

23. Because Mutual of America is providing all administrative services for the American Contracts and Policies and the American Accounts and has indemnity reinsured American Life's general account portion of the American Contracts and Policies, Mutual of America will implement the surrender of an American Contract or Policy and issue its Contract or Policy on the same day. As a result, the redemption order given to the Underlying Funds by Mutual of America, as servicer for American Life and the American Accounts, and the purchase order given to the Underlying Funds by Mutual of America, as issuer of the Contract or Policy, will be placed with the Underlying Funds on the same day. Assuming that the Owner selects the same investment allocations in the Mutual of America application as the Owner has selected under the American Contract or Policy, the Underlying Funds will be able to offset the redemption and purchase orders, and therefore the exchange will have no impact on the Underlying Funds' portfolio securities. The Underlying Funds are not parties to the exchange offers, and the terms of the Participation Agreements pursuant to which they sell shares to and redeem shares from the American Accounts and Mutual Accounts are not affected by the exchanges.

24. Applicants anticipate that some Owners will retain their American Contracts and Policies, which will remain unchanged. Mutual of America will continue to provide administrative services to these Owners pursuant to the Servicing Agreement, and will indemnity reinsure the general account portion of such Contracts and Policies pursuant to the Indemnity Agreement. As previously noted, the American Accounts are expected to decline in asset size and number of Owners over a period of time. Depending on the number of Owners who remain in each of the American Accounts, either one or both of the American Accounts may be deregistered pursuant to Section 8(f) of the Act, immediately following the exchanges made in response to the offers or at some future date.

1. Section 11(a) of the Act makes it unlawful for a registered open-end investment company or its principal underwriter to offer securities of an investment company in exchange for other securities of the same or another investment company, unless the exchange either is based on the respective net asset values of the securities or the terms of the offer have received prior approval of the Commission. Section 11(c) provides that in the case of a unit investment trust, the prohibition of Section 11(a) is applicable irrespective of the basis of exchange.

2. The exchange offers to be made to Owners by Mutual of America relate to contracts that participate in the American Accounts and the Mutual Accounts, which are registered unit investment trusts. Therefore, the offers of exchange fall within the prohibitions of Section 11(a) and (c). 2

Last year's report may be found on USTR's Internet homepage ( www.ustr.gov ) under the section on Reports. In order to ensure compliance with the statutory mandate for reporting foreign trade barriers that are significant, we will focus particularly on those restrictions where there has been active private sector interest.

The information submitted should relate to one or more of the following ten categories of foreign trade barriers:

(1) Import policies ( e.g. , tariffs and other import charges, quantitative restrictions, import licensing, and customs barriers);

(2) Standards, testing, labeling, and certification (including unnecessarily restrictive application of phytosanitary standards, refusal to accept U.S. manufacturers' self-certification of conformance to foreign product standards, and environmental restrictions);

(3) Government procurement ( e.g. , “buy national” policies and closed bidding);

(4) Export subsidies ( e.g. , export financing on preferential terms and agricultural export subsidies that displace U.S. exports in third country markets);

(5) Lack of intellectual property protection ( e.g. , inadequate patent, copyright, and trademark regimes);

(6) Services barriers ( e.g. , limits on the range of financial services offered by foreign financial institutions, regulation of international data flows, restrictions on the use of data processing, quotas on imports of foreign films, and barriers to the provision of services by professionals ( e.g. , lawyers, doctors, accountants, engineers, nurses, etc.));

(7) Investment barriers ( e.g. , limitations on foreign equity participation and on access to foreign government-funded R&D consortia, local content, technology transfer and export performance requirements, and restrictions on repatriation of earnings, capital, fees and royalties);

(8) Anticompetitive practices with trade effects tolerated by foreign governments (including anticompetitive activities of both state-owned and private firms that apply to services or to goods and that restrict the sale of U.S. products to any firm, not just to foreign firms that perpetuate the practices);

(9) Trade restrictions affecting electronic commerce ( e.g. , tariff and non-tariff measures, burdensome and discriminatory regulations and standards, and discriminatory taxation); and

(10) Other barriers ( i.e. , barriers that encompass more than one category, e.g. bribery and corruption, or that affect a single sector).

As in the case of last year's NTE, we are asking that particular emphasis be placed on any practices that may violate U.S. trade agreements. We are also interested in receiving any new or updated information pertinent to the barriers covered in last year's report as well as new information. Please note that the information not used in the NTE will be maintained for use in future negotiations.

It is MOST IMPORTANT that your submission contain estimates of the potential increase in exports that would result from the removal of the barrier, as well as a clear discussion of the method(s) by which the estimates were computed. Estimates should fall within the following value ranges: less than $5 million; $5 to $25 million; $25 million to $50 million; $50 million to $100 million; $100 million to $500 million; or over $500 million. Such assessments enhance USTR's ability to conduct meaningful comparative analyses of a barrier's effect over a range of industries.

Please note that interested parties discussing barriers in more than one country should provide a separate submission ( i.e. , one that is self-contained) for each country.

Written Comments: U.S. Government agencies in the Washington, DC area and the Office of the United States Trade Representative, in particular, continue to apply restrictions causing disruptions and delays in receiving mail from the U.S. Postal Service and other commercial express delivery services.

In order to ensure the most timely receipt and consideration of comments submitted in response to this Notice, the following guidelines and special procedures have been established:

(1) All comments will be received at the U.S. Department of Commerce rather than the Office of the United States Trade Representative;

(2) The Department of Commerce has arranged to accept non-confidential, public submissions by electronic mail (e-mail). An automatic reply confirming receipt of e-mail submissions will be sent. E-mail submissions in Microsoft Word or Corel WordPerfect are preferred. If a word processing application other than those two is used, please advise us in your submission of the specific application used;

(3) In order to facilitate prompt processing of submissions, the Department of Commerce strongly urges and prefers e-mail submission of non-confidential, public comments.

(4) To ensure security, submissions containing business confidential information should not be sent by e-mail, but via the U.S. Postal Service or commercial express delivery (see paragraph 6 and 7 below for special requirements applying to such submissions). If a submission contains business confidential information, a non-confidential public version must also be submitted along with the business confidential version.

(5) Business-confidential submissions must be accompanied by a justification as to why the information contained in the submission should be treated confidentially. In addition, any submissions containing business confidential information must be clearly marked “Confidential” at the top and bottom of the cover page (or letter) and of each succeeding page of the submission. The version that does not contain confidential information should also be clearly marked, at the top and bottom of each page, “public version” or “non-confidential.”

(6) When comments are submitted using the U.S. Postal Service or commercial couriers, it is strongly recommended that submitters notify the Department of Commerce by e-mail as to the date of transmittal and method of delivery (U.S. Postal Service or name of courier company). this will facilitate tracking in the event of delivery irregularities.

(7) All submissions must be in English and should conform to the information requirements of 15 CFR 2003. If submissions are made via U.S. Postal Service or commercial express delivery, a party must provide five copies of its submission and the submission should be accompanied by a computer disk containing a machine-readable version. The disk should have a label identifying the software used, the submitter and the title of the submission. In addition, business confidential and public or non-confidential submissions should be submitted on separate disks which are clearly marked “business confidential” or “non-confidential”, as appropriate.

Submissions must be received at the Department of Commerce no later than Monday, December 17, 2001.

Written comments submitted in connection with this request, except for information granted “business confidential” status pursuant to 15 CFR 2003.6, will be available for public inspection shortly after the filing deadline in the Foreign Trade Reference Room (room 2233) in the U.S. Department of Commerce. The Department of Commerce is located at 14th St. and Constitution Ave., NW. in Washington, DC. Hours of operation for the Foreign Trade Reference Room are from 9 am to 4 pm, Monday through Friday. Questions regarding the operation of the Reference Room should be directed to Ms. Marva Thompson at 202-482-2185.

This request constitutes the 30-day notice required by OMB. The Coast Guard has already published [66 FR 47055 (September 10, 2001) the 60-day notice required by OMB. That notice elicited no comments.

The Coast Guard invites comments on the proposed collection of information to determine whether the collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the collections; (2) the accuracy of the Department's estimated burden of the collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information that is the subject of the collections; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments, to DMS or OIRA, must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR addressed. Comments to DMS must contain the docket number of this request, USCG 2001-10524. Comments to OIRA are best assured of having their full effect if OIRA receives them 30 or fewer days after the publication of this request.

Title: Submission of Continuous-Discharge Book, Revised Merchant Mariner's Application, Report of Entry-Level Physical, Report of Other Physical, Report of New Sea Service, and Report of Chemical Testing.

OMB Control Number: 2115-0514.

Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Merchant Mariners.

Forms: CG-719A, CG-719B, CG-719K, CG-719S, CG 719P and CG-719K/E

Abstract: The Coast Guard needs this various information to evaluate the competency, character, and physical fitness of individuals applying for Coast Guard Licenses, Certificates of Registry, and Merchant Mariners' Documents.

Annual Estimated Burden Hours: The estimated burden is 21,359 hours a year.

At the request of the Gary/Chicago Airport Authority, the FAA is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement or other appropriate environmental documentation. The review will address specific improvements of Gary/Chicago Airport as identified during the 2001 Airport Master Plan process and shown on the 2001 Airport Layout Plan. The following improvements have been grouped in four categories and are identified as ripe for review and decision: Improvements associated with Existing Runway 12-30, the primary air carrier runway at the airport, relocate E.J. & E. Railroad, acquire land northwest of airport to allow for modifications to runway safety area, relocate airside perimeter roadway, relocate Runway 12-30 navaids, improve Runway Safety Area for Runway 12, relocate Runway 12 threshold to remove prior displacement, and acquire land southeast of airport, located within or immediately adjacent to runway protection zone; Extension of Runway 12-30, including acquire land or rights northwest of existing runway, relocate/bury power lines, relocate airside perimeter roadway, extend Runway 12-30 (1,900 feet by 150 feet), relocate Runway 12-30 navaids, displace Runway 30 threshold using declared distance standards, extend parallel taxiway A to new end of Runway 12, construct deicing hold pads on Taxiway A at Runway 12 and Runway 30, and develop two high-speed exit taxiways; Expansion of existing passenger terminal to accommodate projected demands; and analysis of sites adjacent to extended runway for aviation related development, including new passenger terminal and air cargo areas.

The purpose and need for these improvements will be reviewed in the environmental documentation. All reasonable alternatives will be considered including the no-action alternative.

Copies of a scoping document with additional detail can be obtained by contacting the FAA informational contact person identified above. Federal, State, and local agencies and other interested parties are invited to make comments and suggestions to ensure that the full range of issues related to these proposed actions are addressed and all significant issues identified. The FAA informational contact person identified above should receive these comments and suggestions by January 29, 2002.

Public Scoping Meeting: To facilitate receipt of comments, two public scoping meetings will be held on January 15, 2002 at the Gary/Chicago Airport, 6001 Industrial Highway, Gary, Indiana. The first meeting will be held between 10 am and 2 pm Central Standard Time for Federal, State, and local agencies in the administrative offices. The second meeting will be held from 3 PM to 7 PM Central Standard Time for other interested parties in the passenger terminal facility.

Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. 11), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Aviation Security Advisory Committee to be held December 18, 2001, at the Capitol Holiday Inn, 550 C Street, SW., Discovery II Room, Washington, DC. The agenda for the meeting will include: Regulatory/Legislative Initiatives, Enforcement Policy, and Status of Rapid Response Team Recommendations. The meeting is open to the public but attendance is limited to space available. Members of the public may address the committee only with the written permission of the chair, which should be arranged in advance. The chair may entertain public comment if, in its judgment, doing so will not disrupt the orderly progress of the meeting and will not be unfair to any other person. Members of the public are welcome to present written material to the committee at any time. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the Office of the Associate Administrator for Civil Aviation Security, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone 202-267-7622.

Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for the Final Report of the Future Flight Data Collection Committee, being reviewed at an RTCA Policy Board meeting. The agenda will include:

Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may present a written statement to the committee at any time.

The OCC is proposing to extend OMB approval of the following information collection:

Title: (MA)-Loans in Areas Having Special Flood Hazards (12 CFR 22).

OMB Number: 1557-0202.

Description: This submission covers an existing regulation and involves no change to the regulation or to the information collection. The OCC requests only that OMB extend its approval of the information collection. This regulation requires national banks to make disclosures and keep records regarding whether a property securing a loan is located in a special flood hazard area.

This information collection is required by section 303(a) and title V of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act, Pub. L. 103-325, title V, 108 Stat. 2160, the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 amendments to the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104a and 4104b), the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4012a and 4106(b)), and by OCC regulations implementing those statutes. The information collection requirements are contained in 12 CFR part 22.

Section 22.6 requires a national bank to use and maintain a copy of the Standard Flood Hazard Determination Form developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Section 22.7 requires a national bank or its loan servicer, if a borrower has not obtained flood insurance, to notify the borrower to obtain adequate flood insurance coverage or the bank or servicer will purchase flood insurance on the borrower's behalf.

Section 22.9 requires a national bank making a loan secured by a building or a mobile home to advise the borrower and the loan servicer that the property is, or is not, located in a special flood hazard area, if flood insurance is available under the National Flood Insurance Program, and if Federal disaster relief may be available in the event of flooding. The bank must maintain a record of the borrower and loan servicer's receipts of these notices.

Section 22.10 requires a national bank making a loan secured by a building or a mobile home located in a special flood hazard area to notify FEMA of the identify of the servicer, and of any change in servicers.

These information collection requirements ensure bank compliance with applicable Federal law, further bank safety and soundness, provide protections for banks and the public, and further public policy interests.

Commercial Union Insurance Company, a Massachusetts corporation, has formally changed its name to OneBeacon America Insurance Company, effective August 31, 2001. The Company was last listed as an acceptable surety Federal bonds at 66 FR 30533, July 2, 2001.

A Certificate of Authority as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds, dated today, is hereby issued under Sections 9304 to 9308 of Title 31 of the United States Code, to OneBeacon America Insurance Company, Boston, Massachusetts. This new Certificate replaces the Certificate of Authority issued to the Company under its former name. The underwriting limitation of $28,750,000 established for the Company as of July 2, 2001, remains unchanged until June 30, 2002.

Certificates of Authority expire on June 30, each year, unless revoked prior to that date. The Certificates are subject to subsequent annual renewal as long as the Company remains qualified (31 CFR, part 223). A list of qualified companies is published annually as of July 1, in the Department Circular 570, which outlines details as to underwriting limitations, areas in which licensed to transact surety business and other information. Federal bond-approving officers should annotate their reference copies of the Treasury Circular 570, 2001 Revision, at page 35050 to reflect this change.

The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet ( http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570/index.html ). A hard copy may be purchased from Government Printing Office (GPO), Subscription Service, Washington, DC, telephone (202) 512-1800. When ordering the Circular from GPO, use the following stock number: 769-004-04067-1.

Questions concerning this notice may be directed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Financial Accounting and Services Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6F04, Hyattsville, MD 20782.

CGU Insurance Company, a Pennsylvania corporation, has formally changed its name to OneBeacon Insurance Company, effective August 28, 2001. The company was last listed as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds at 66 FR 35031, July 2, 2001.

A Certificate of Authority as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds, dated today, is hereby issued under Sections 9304 to 9308 of Title 31 of the United States Code, to OneBeacon Insurance Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This new Certificate replaces the Certificate of Authority issued to the Company under its former name. The underwriting limitation of $112,260,000 established for the Company as of July 2, 2001, remains unchanged until June 30, 2002.

Certificates of Authority expire on June 30, each year, unless revoked prior to that date. The Certificates are subject to subsequent annual renewal as long as the Company remains qualified (31 CFR part 223). A list of qualified companies is published annually as of July 1, in the Department Circular 570, which outlines details as to underwriting limitations, areas in which licensed to transact surety business and other information. Federal bond-approving officers should annotate their reference copies of the Treasury Circular 570, 2001 Revision, at page 35050 to reflect this change.

The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet( http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570/index.html). A hard copy may be purchased from the Government Printing Office (GPO), Subscription Service, Washington, DC, telephone (202) 512-1800. When ordering the Circular from GPO, use the following stock number: 769-004-04067-1.

Questions concerning this notice may be directed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Financial Accounting and Services Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6F04, Hyattasville, MD 20782.

General Accident Insurance Company, a Pennsylvania corporation, has formally changed its name to Pennsylvania General Insurance Company, effective August 28, 2001. The Company was last listed as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds at 66 FR 35039, July 2, 2001.

A Certificate of Authority as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds, dated today, is hereby issued under Sections 9304 to 9308 of Title 31 of the United States Code, to Pennsylvania General Insurance Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This new Certificate replaces the Certificate of Authority issued to the Company under

its former name. The underwriting limitation of $9,791,000 established for the Company as of July 2, 2001, remains unchanged until June 30, 2002.

Certificates of Authority expire on June 30, each year, unless revoked prior to that date. The Certificates are subject to subsequent annual renewal as long as the Company remains qualified (31 CFR, part 223). A list of qualified companies is published annually as of July 1, in the Department Circular 570, which outlines details as to underwriting limitations, areas in which licensed to transact surety business and other information. Federal bond-approving officers should annotate their reference copies of the Treasury Circular 570, 2001 Revision, at page 35051 to reflect this change.

The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet­ ( http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570/index.html ). A hard copy may be purchased from the Government Printing Office (GPO), Subscription Service, Washington, DC, telephone (202) 512-1800. When ordering the Circular from GPO, use the following stock number: 769-004-04067-1.

Questions concerning this notice may be directed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Financial Accounting and Services Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6F04, Hyattsville, MD 20782.