Section 2107 of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2001 (Pub. L. 107-20) provided $2 million to make available financial assistance to eligible producers to promote water conservation in the Yakima Basin (Basin). The Yakima River flows for more than 200 miles through south central Washington and, with its tributaries, drains about 6,150 square miles, or 4 million acres. Much of the water is diverted for irrigation in the Yakima Valley. From 50 to 100 percent of the water delivered to the lower basin from the Naches River and upper Yakima River is diverted for irrigation and hydropower generation during the irrigation season. Most of the Basin receives less than 10 inches of precipitation a year.

In the Basin counties of Benton, Kittitas, and Yakima, there are 12,883 farms and 38,461 agricultural producers. The economy of the Basin is tied to agricultural production with a annual crop value of $628,503,519. Cereal crops, irrigated pasture, and hay production are predominant in Kittitas County, while Yakima and Benton Counties produce fruits, such as grapes, vegetables, and other specialty crops such as hops and mint. The Yakama Reservation lies in the Wapato Irrigation District and occupies about 40 percent of Yakima County and about 15 percent of the Basin.

Due to drought conditions in the Basin, water was prorated in crop year 2001. In the Yakima Basin, water use is tied to water rights. The two primary types of water rights are “prorateable” and “nonproratable” water. Nonproratable water allows the producer a right to utilize water in all conditions, including drought, thus almost guaranteeing water delivery. Prorateable water allows water delivery to be reduced in situations where there are impediments to normal water delivery such as scarcity of water due to drought conditions.

To assist producers adversely affected by the drought and water prorations, Congress included in section 2107 of Pub. L. 107-20 $2 million to remain available until expended, from amounts available to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Commodity Credit Corporation under 15 U.S.C. 713a-4, directing ”* * * the Secretary of Agriculture to make available financial assistance to eligible producers to promote water conservation in the Yakima Basin, Washington * * *.” In addition, the statute specified that to the extent that regulations might be found to be needed, the issuance of regulations promulgated pursuant to this new authority would be made without regard to: (1) The notice and comment provisions of section 553 of title 5, United States Code; (2) the Statement of Policy of the Secretary of Agriculture effective July 24, 1971, (36 FR 13804), relating to notices of proposed rulemaking and public participation in rulemaking; and (3) chapter 35 of title 44, United States Codes (commonly know as the “Paperwork Reduction Act”). It was also specified that in carrying out this section the Secretary should use the authority provided under section 808 of title 5, United States Code, which exempts certain rules from having to undergo certain Congressional oversight procedures prior to the time that the rules are made effective. The statute limited the eligible area to the Basin but did not stipulate any particular breakout to be paid. The funding will supplement existing assistance already available in the region by promoting water conservation.

There are over 31 irrigation districts operating in the Basin according to data collected. There are 418,958 acres listed for the irrigation districts which are mainly classified as agriculture. According to the information obtained from the U.S. Department of Interior's Bureau of Reclamation (USDOI), approximately one-half of the irrigation districts suffered no or very minimal consequences from the water prorations in crop year 2001. Of those districts affected by the water prorations, only three, Roza, Kittitas, and Wapato, had significant impact that occurred from water prorations. Roza and Kittitas Irrigation Districts, with 100 percent prorateable water, received only 37 percent of normal water, during the crop year 2001, and the Wapato Irrigation District, with 53 percent of prorateable water, received 67 percent of normal water. There are 256,972 acres of agricultural land in Roza, Kittitas, and Wapato irrigation districts with 7,065 agricultural producers.

Based on the relative degree of water available which is an indicator of the suffering attributed to the drought, the program will be limited to the three irrigation districts which received the least amount of normal water and were the most severely impacted. These irrigation districts are Rosa, Kittitas, and Wapato. If payments were issued on all agricultural land in the Basin, payments are estimated to be less than $4.00 an acre. It is unclear how much, if any, water conservation could be achieved with the relatively low payment per acre rate. However, payments to affected producers in the three most severely impacted districts will be higher making more water conversation achievable.

CCC will use data on Basin farming operations, along with data from water irrigation districts and USDOI to identify the universe of eligible producers. Anyone that has an interest in the eligible land may contact the Farm Service Agency (FSA) office to determine if they are eligibile for assistance.

Funds will be divided according to contract acres and according to payment shares indicated. Such shares must be agreed to by the owner and operator of the eligible land. Only undisputed requests for assistance will be paid. Producers will be provided with information on what kinds of conservation measures might be undertaken and other options that may be available to them. Such actions may include: (1) Moving to less water-intensive crops; (2) improving irrigation scheduling; and (3) developing on-farm irrigation improvements such as land leveling, canal maintenance, and sprinkler calibration. CCC can provide producers with assistance in determining the best water conservation practice(s) for their operation. All participating producers will agree to promote water conservation methods in future agricultural activities as a condition of payment. CCC will keep this agreement of file with the producer's other USDA records.

Further information about the program will be made available at the local FSA offices of the USDA. Program participation will be such subject to such additional terms and conditions as may be set out in the program application.

The five national forests involved in this project currently have different management direction for cross-country use of OHVs. This diversity of approaches has led to confusion by the public as to where they may use OHVs. The growing numbers of OHVs used on national forests has impacted land and resources. Popularity of this use has created conflicts with other forest uses and prompted many individuals and groups to express concerns over this matter.

Many types of OHVs are common in Arizona's National Forests. Pickup trucks, motorcycles, and all-terrain vehicles have all become more prevalent and now are beyond the scope considered for their use in forest plans. According to industry experts more than half of all vehicles sold in Arizona are sport utility vehicles (SUVs) or light trucks. Additionally, all-terrain vehicles have increased in sales between 1995 and 1998 an average of 29% per year. Improper use of such vehicles on national forests has been a concern of government agencies, organized environmental and OHV groups and individuals. This concern has accelerated in a pattern similar to the expanded population of OHVs.

Cross-country travel is defined as travel off of or away from open roads or trails. Where cross country travel is permitted under land management plans, these roads and trails are often products of repeated cross country use and not trespass per se. Where cross-country travel is prohibited, trails and roads created by repeated use are not legal additions to a designated transportation system. Agency personnel and the public note new user created trails on many national forests and roads almost every week. National forests in Arizona are experiencing noticeable impacts from improper OHV use.

Communities adjacent to national forests and popular recreation destinations have become focal points for development of a large amount of unapproved roads and trails created by OHV users. These user created trails lack engineering and environmental elements of design. The EIS will contain substantial information on what constitutes an open road or trail.

Even greater concerns occur in environmentally sensitive areas. Specially designated wildlife protection areas are becoming crisscrossed with OHV tracks. Wilderness areas have frequently been impacted by OHV tracks, often immediately adjacent to closure signs. Riparian areas also attract a large number of people and provide key habitat elements to wildlife. OHV tracks and use areas have strongly impacted many of these ecological communities.

The EIS will deal with alternative strategies for cross-country OHV travel. While it was once envisioned that this process would standardize the convention for signing open roads and trails, that has been dropped from the project because that is an administrative matter that is not subject to the documentation in an EIS or other environmental document. Forest supervisors will seek public input on their administrative decision for road signs. This EIS and that administrative process will over lap in time frames and may use common meetings to facilitate public input to both projects.

Off highway vehicles allow many people to enjoy the national forests and contribute significantly to the economy of communities when used properly. OHVs have become very popular because of high quality recreational experiences they provide and the amount of national forest land they can access on them.

Preliminary issues include:

• Law enforcement efficiency.

• Ability to access resources by persons of diverse cultures and abilities. An interdisciplinary team has been appointed by the Responsibilities Officials. They have examined documents of other agencies and Forest Service Regions to develop preliminary alternatives for analysis in an environmental impact statement. Comments on these preliminary alternatives during the initial scoping helped the team analyze reasonableness of the alternatives and the appropriateness of the range of alternatives. Our approach is to ensure a complete analysis of reasonable and feasible strategies to provide opportunities for OHV recreationists.

The preliminary alternatives include: “No Action” which would keep the existing forest plan direction on all five forests. The alternatives outlined in the table below have been developed to reflect the outcomes of multi-agency coordination and input from people and organizations during scoping contacts. The five Forest Supervisors have selected a proposed action alternative to facilitate public participation in the process.

Significant information has been obtained from “Arizona Trails 2000, State Motorized and Non-motorized Trails Plan” in determining preliminary issues and possible alternatives. Cooperation with Arizona State agencies who have OHV management roles has been and remains excellent.

It is anticipated that environmental analysis and preparation of the draft and final environmental impact statements will take about eight months. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement can be expected in the spring of 2002 and the Final EIS in the late summer. A 45-day comment period will be provided for the public to make comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

The intention of the EIS is to programmatically preserve options for local transportation planning including OHV consideration while reducing existing and potential impacts to resources. Subsequent to adoption of an alternative from this EIS, Forest officers will issue Forest Orders implementing the selected alternative. Site specific planning at the ranger district or national forest level will examine the need for additional facilities to provide for motorized recreation. This process is described in 36 CFR part 212.

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. To be the most helpful, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible and may address the adequacy of the statement or the merits of the alternatives discussed (see Council of 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 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 reviewers' position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Corp v. NRDC 435 US 519, 553 (1978). Environmental objections that could have been raised at the draft stage may be waived if not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement. City of Angoon v. Hodel 9th Circuit, 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc v. Harris, 490F. Supp.1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). The reason for this is to ensure that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when they can meaningfully consider them in the final environmental impact statement.

Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Review and approval of the minutes of the January meeting: (2) Title II and Title III dollars—County input; (3) Evaluation Criteria; (4) Project Proposals/Ideas; and (5) Public Comment. The meeting is open to the public. Public input opportunity will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the Committee at that time.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Tariff Act) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce (the Department) regulations refer to the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (April 2001).

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), on August 31, 2001, the Department received a timely and properly filed request from United States Steel LLC, petitioner in the original investigation, for a review of the imports by producer Acindar Industria Argentina de Aceros, S.A. Also on August 31, 2001, the Department received a request from North Star Steel Ohio, a domestic producer of oil country tubular goods, for a review of the imports by producer Siderca S.A.I.C. On October 1, 2001, the Department published a notice of initiation of this administrative review covering the period August 1, 2000 through July 31, 2001. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 66 FR 49924 (October 1, 2001).

Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act, the Department shall issue preliminary results in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. The Tariff Act further provides, however, that the Department may extend that 245-day period to 365 days if it determines it is not practicable to complete the review within the foregoing time period.

In the course of this proceeding interested parties have raised questions regarding submitted financial statement reconciliations, cost calculations, and the accuracy of the no-shipment claim by Siderca S.A.I.C. Due to the need to analyze these questions, it is not practicable to complete this review by the current deadline of May 3, 2002.

Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act, the Department is extending the time limit for the preliminary results by 120 days, until no later than August 31, 2002. The final results continue to be due 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results.

This notice is published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the regulations at 19 CFR part 351 (2001).

On August 8, 2001, the Department published Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 41509 (August 8, 2001) (“Preliminary Results”). We invited parties to comment on these preliminary results. The review covers imports of subject merchandise from YUSCO, Tung Mung, Chia Far and Ta Chen. The POR is June 8, 1999, through June 30, 2000.

We received written comments on September 21, 2001, from Chia Far and from petitioners 1 concerning YUSCO, Tung Mung and Ta Chen and on September 26, 2001, concerning Chia Far. On September 28, 2001, we received rebuttal comments from YUSCO, Tung Mung, Chia Far and from petitioners concerning Chia Far.

As we stated in that notice, we preliminarily rescinded this review with respect to Ta Chen, pursuant to its claim of no shipments of the subject merchandise during the POR. On September 28, 2000, October 4, 12, and 31, 2000, Ta Chen reported that it had no entries of subject merchandise during the period of review. Ta Chen further stated that its U.S. affiliate, Ta Chen International's (“TCI”) had resales of SSSS from Taiwan during the POR, but these sales were from inventory that was entered into the United States prior to the suspension of liquidation. Ta Chen also certified that all resales of Taiwanese merchandise made from TCI's U.S. warehouse inventory during the POR were entered into the United States prior to the POR. The Department's Customs inquiry indicates that such merchandise did not enter the United States after the suspension of liquidation.

On September 21, 2001, petitioners submitted a case brief arguing that this review should not be rescinded with respect to Ta Chen. Since no information has been developed on the record demonstrating that Ta Chen made any shipments during the POR we are now rescinding this review with respect to Ta Chen. We are now completing the administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

For purposes of this administrative review, the products covered are certain stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed ( e.g. , cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, etc. ) provided that it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such processing.

The merchandise subject to this review is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) at subheadings: 7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, 7219.1300.81 2 , 7219.14.0030, 7219.14.0065, 7219.14.0090, 7219.32.0005, 7219.32.0020, 7219.32.0025, 7219.32.0035, 7219.32.0036, 7219.32.0038, 7219.32.0042, 7219.32.0044, 7219.33.0005, 7219.33.0020, 7219.33.0025, 7219.33.0035, 7219.33.0036, 7219.33.0038, 7219.33.0042, 7219.33.0044, 7219.34.0005, 7219.34.0020, 7219.34.0025, 7219.34.0030, 7219.34.0035, 7219.35.0005, 7219.35.0015, 7219.35.0030, 7219.35.0035, 7219.90.0010, 7219.90.0020, 7219.90.0025, 7219.90.0060, 7219.90.0080, 7220.12.1000, 7220.12.5000, 7220.20.1010, 7220.20.1015, 7220.20.1060, 7220.20.1080, 7220.20.6005, 7220.20.6010, 7220.20.6015, 7220.20.6060, 7220.20.6080, 7220.20.7005, 7220.20.7010, 7220.20.7015, 7220.20.7060, 7220.20.7080, 7220.20.8000, 7220.20.9030, 7220.20.9060, 7220.90.0010, 7220.90.0015, 7220.90.0060, and 7220.90.0080. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive.

Excluded from the scope of this review are the following: (1) sheet and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled, (2) sheet and strip that is cut to length, (3) plate ( i.e. , flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more), (4) flat wire ( i.e. , cold-rolled sections, with a prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 mm), and (5) razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the manufacture of razor blades. See Chapter 72 of the HTS, “Additional U.S. Note” 1(d).

In response to comments by interested parties, the Department has determined that certain specialty stainless steel products are also excluded from the scope of this review. These excluded products are described below.

Flapper valve steel is defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a hardness (Hv) of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves in compressors.

Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm length.

Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is also excluded from the scope of this review. This stainless steel strip in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and total rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron.

Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also excluded from the scope of this review. This ductile stainless steel strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Arnokrome III.” 3

Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the scope of this review. This product is defined as a non-magnetic stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Gilphy 36.” 4

Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is also excluded from the scope of this review. This high-strength, ductile stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering System (“UNS”) as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Durphynox 17.”  5

Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also excluded from the scope of this review. These include stainless steel strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools ( e.g. , carpet knives). 6 This steel is similar to AISI grade 420 but containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold under proprietary names such as “GIN4 Mo.” The second excluded stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 carbide particles per 100 square microns. An example of this product is “GIN5” steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied as, for example, “GIN6”. 7

In the Preliminary Results, we stated that Ta Chen reported, and the Department confirmed through independent U.S. Customs Service data, that it had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. Since Ta Chen did not report any shipments during the POR, we had no basis for determining a margin. Consequently, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with the Department's practice, we preliminarily rescinded our review with respect to Ta Chen. Since we have received no information since the Preliminary Results that contradicts the decision made in the preliminary results of review, we are rescinding the review with respect to Ta Chen. Since Ta Chen did not participate in the original investigation, its cash deposit rate will remain at 12.61 percent, which is the all others rate established in the less than fair value (“LTFV”) investigation.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“Decision Memorandum”) from Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, to Faryar Shirzad, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated February 4, 2002, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/frnhome.htm. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

We disregarded sales below cost for both Tung Mung and YUSCO during the course of the review.

Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made changes in the margin calculations for YUSCO, Tung Mung and Chia Far. The changes are listed below:

We determine that the following percentage margin exists for the period January 4, 1999 through June 30, 2000:

The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service. For duty-assessment purposes, we will calculate importer-specific assessment rates by dividing the dumping margins calculated for each importer by the total entered value of sales for each importer during the period of review.

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of stainless steel sheet and strip from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for YUSCO, Tung Mung and Chia Far will be the rates shown above; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in these or any previous reviews conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be the “all others” rate, which is 12.61 percent.

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

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties or countervailing duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APOs”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 771(i) of the Act.

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

This review covers two manufacturers/exporters, Changwon Specialty Steel Co., Ltd. (Changwon) and Dongbang Specialty Steel Co., Ltd. (Dongbang) (collectively, respondents).

The POR is September 1, 1999, through August 31, 2000.

On October 9, 2001, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel wire rod (SSWR) from Korea. See Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Korea; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 51385 (October 9, 2001) (Preliminary Results).

We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. On December 5, 2001, the respondents submitted a case brief. The petitioners (i.e., Carpenter Technology Corp., Empire Specialty Steel, and the United Steel Workers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC), submitted a rebuttal brief on December 12, 2001.

The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

For purposes of this review, SSWR comprises products that are hot-rolled or hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled and/or descaled rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in coils, that may also be coated with a lubricant containing copper, lime or oxalate. SSWR is made of alloy steels containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. These products are manufactured only by hot-rolling or hot-rolling annealing, and/or pickling and/or descaling, are normally sold in coiled form, and are of solid cross-section. The majority of SSWR sold in the United States is round in cross-sectional shape, annealed and pickled, and later cold-finished into stainless steel wire or small-diameter bar. The most common size for such products is 5.5 millimeters or 0.217 inches in diameter, which represents the smallest size that normally is produced on a rolling mill and is the size that most wire-drawing machines are set up to draw. The range of SSWR sizes normally sold in the United States is between 0.20 inches and 1.312 inches in diameter.

Two stainless steel grades are excluded from the scope of the review. SF20T and K-M35FL are excluded. The chemical makeup for the excluded grades is as follows:

The products subject to this review are currently classifiable under subheadings 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, and 7221.00.0075 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this review is dispositive.

On November 14, 2000, the petitioners requested that the Department determine whether antidumping duties had been absorbed during the POR by the respondents. Section 751(a)(4) of the Act provides for the Department, if requested, to determine during an administrative review initiated two or four years after the publication of the order, whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by a foreign producer or exporter, if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an affiliated importer. Because the collapsed entity Pohang Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. (POSCO)/Changwon/Dongbang (see “Collapsing” section of this notice) sold to unaffiliated customers in the United States, in part, through an importer, Pohang Steel America Corporation, that is affiliated, and because this review was initiated two years after the publication of the order, we will make a duty absorption determination in this segment of the proceeding within the meaning of section 751(a)(4) of the Act.

On February 16, 2001, the Department requested evidence from each respondent to demonstrate that U.S. purchasers will pay any ultimately assessed duties charged to them. The Department requested that this information be provided no later than March 2, 2001. No respondent provided such evidence. Furthermore, in the Preliminary Results, 66 FR at 51386, we notified interested parties that, if they wish to submit evidence that the unaffiliated purchasers in the United States will pay any ultimately assessed duty charged to affiliated importers, they must do so no later than 15 days after publication of the preliminary results. No interested party provided such evidence. Accordingly, based on the record, we cannot conclude that the unaffiliated purchaser in the United States will ultimately pay the assessed duty. Consequently, we have determined that duty absorption by the collapsed entity POSCO/Changwon/Dongbang has occurred in this administrative review.

During the less than fair value (LTFV) investigation, POSCO was the sole supplier to Dongbang of black coil (unfinished SSWR). See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Korea, 63 FR 40404, 40410 (July 29, 1998) (Final Determination). Based on this fact, and the fact that Dongbang was not able to obtain suitable black coil from alternative sources, the Department determined that POSCO and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Changwon, were affiliated with Dongbang through a close supplier relationship pursuant to section 771(33)(G) of the Act and section 351.102(b) of the Department's regulations. See id. The Department, in the investigation stage, also collapsed Changwon, POSCO, and Dongbang as a single entity for purposes of the dumping analysis in accordance with section 351.401(f) of the Department's regulations. See id.

Because neither POSCO, Changwon, nor Dongbang has provided any new evidence showing that this finding no longer holds true, and because we have not found any new evidence to change this finding, we have continued to find that POSCO and Changwon are affiliated with Dongbang through a close supplier relationship. 1 Further, we have continued to treat POSCO, Changwon, and Dongbang as a single entity and to calculate a single margin for them. (See, e.g., Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice from Brazil; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 51008 (October 5, 2001)).

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this proceeding and to which we have responded are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (Decision Memorandum), dated February 6, 2002, which is hereby adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of the issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in the public Decision Memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made adjustments to the preliminary results calculation methodologies in calculating the final dumping margin in this proceeding. A summary of these adjustments is discussed below:

We determine that the following weighted-average percentage margin exists for the period September 1, 1999, through August 31, 2000:

The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculated an assessment rate for each importer of subject merchandise. For Changwon's sales, since Changwon reported the entered values and importer for its sales, we have calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the entered value of sales used to calculate those duties. For Dongbang's reported sales, since Dongbang did not report the entered value for its sales, we have calculated importer-specific per unit duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the quantity of sales used to calculate those duties. Where the importer-specific assessment rate is above de minimis, we will instruct Customs to assess the importer-specific rate uniformly on all entries made during the POR.

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of SSWR from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the reviewed firm will be the rate shown above; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be rate of 5.77 percent, which is the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation (see Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Korea: Amendment of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value Pursuant to Court Decision, 66 FR 41550 (August 8, 2001)).

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

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

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

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

The Department of Commerce has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

Agency : National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Title : Southeast Region Gear Identification Requirements.

Form Number(s) : None.

OMB Approval Number : 0648-0359.

Type of Request : Regular submission.

Burden Hours : 2,192.

Number of Respondents : 1,000.

Average Hours Per Response: 7 minutes to mark a trap; 10 seconds to mark a coral rock; and 20 minutes to mark a gillnet float.

Needs and Uses : Participants in certain Federally-regulated fisheries in the Southeast Region of the U.S. must mark their fishing gear with the vessel's official identification number or permit number (depending upon the fishery) and color code. Harvesters of aquacultured live rock must mark or tag the material deposited. These requirements are needed to aid fishery enforcement activities and for purposes of gear identification of lost or damaged gear and related civil proceedings.

Affected Public : Business or other for-profit organizations, individuals or households.

Frequency : Third-party disclosure.

Respondent's Obligation : Mandatory.

OMB Desk Officer : David Rostker, (202) 395-3897.

Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Madeleine Clayton, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-3129, Department of Commerce, Room 6086, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at MClayton@doc.gov).

Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

Issuance of permits and permit modifications, as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (ESA), is based on a finding that such permits/modifications: (1) are applied for in good faith; (2) would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species which are the subject of the permits; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Scientific research and/or enhancement permits are issued under section 10 (a)(1)(A) of the ESA. Authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits. Permits and modifications are issued in accordance with and are subject to the ESA and NMFS regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 222-226).

Those individuals requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see ADDRESSES ). The holding of such hearing is at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA. All statements and opinions contained in the permit action summaries are those of the applicant and do not necessarily reflect the views of NMFS.

The following species are covered in this notice:

Threatened and endangered green turtle ( Chelonia mydas )

Endangered hawksbill turtle ( Eretmochelys imbricata )

Endangered Kemp's ridley turtle ( Lepidochelys kempii )

Endangered leatherback turtle ( Dermochelys coriacea )

Threatened loggerhead turtle ( Caretta caretta )

The applicant is applying for a 5-year permit to trawl for turtles, as needed, at dredge and other construction/destruction sites to remove the turtles to a safe location. The turtles will be captured, tagged, measured and released offshore away from the dredging activities. The applicant expects to capture and relocate 95 green, 11 hawksbill, 160 loggerhead, 14 Kemp's ridley and 4 leatherback turtles on the Atlantic coast and 105 green, 17 hawksbill, 160 loggerhead, 50 Kemp's ridley and 11 leatherback turtles on the Gulf coast.

In the SUMMARY section on page 2020, the third and fourth sentences are corrected to read: “All NWPs except NWPs 3, 7, 12, 14, 27, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44 expire on February 11, 2002. Existing NWPs 3, 7, 12, 14, 27, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44 expire on March 18, 2002.” In the last sentence of the SUMMARY section, the expiration date is corrected as “March 18, 2007”, instead of “March 19, 2007”.

On page 2020, in second sentence of the DATES section, the expiration date is corrected as “March 18, 2007”, instead of “March 19, 2007”. Therefore, the NWPs published in the January 15, 2002; Federal Register will expire on March 18, 2007, five years from their effective date of March 18, 2002.

On page 2020, in the fifth paragraph of the Background section, the third and fourth sentences are corrected to read: “All NWPs except NWPs 3, 7, 12, 14, 27, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44 expire on February 11, 2002. Existing NWPs 3, 7, 12, 14, 27, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44 expire on March 18, 2002.” The expiration date in the last sentence of this paragraph is corrected as “March 18, 2007”, instead of “March 19, 2007”.

On page 2020, the paragraph in the section entitled “ Grandfather Provision for Expiring NWPs at 33 CFR 330.6 ” is corrected to read: “Activities authorized by the current NWPs issued on December 13, 1996, (except NWPs 3, 7, 12, 14, 27, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44), that have commenced or are under contract to commence by February 11, 2002, will have until February 11, 2003, to complete the activity. Activities authorized by NWPs 3, 7, 12, 14, 27, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44, that were issued on March 9, 2000, that are commenced or under contract to commence by March 18, 2002, will have until March 18, 2003, to complete the activity.”

On page 2020, in the “ Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) and Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Consistency Agreement ” section, the date in the fifth sentence is corrected as “February 11, 2002”, instead of “February 11, 2001”.

On page 2023, third column, last sentence, the number 29 is replaced with the number 19, because this sentence refers to General Condition 19.

On page 2024, first column, in the fourth sentence of the last paragraph the phrase “less than” is replaced by “greater than” because the 30 day completeness review period for NWP pre-construction notifications is greater than the 15 day completeness review period for standard permit applications.

On page 2031, second column, second full paragraph, the number 31 is replaced with the number 3 because this paragraph refers to NWP 3.

On page 2044, second column, fourth complete paragraph, the title is corrected to read “Stream and Wetland Restoration Activities” because that is the title of NWP 27.

On page 2054, second column, the year cited in the third sentence of the second paragraph is the year 2000, not 1996.

On page 2058, third column, in the second sentence of the second complete paragraph the word “intermittent” is inserted before the phrase “stream bed” because the waiver for filling or excavating greater than 300 linear feet of stream beds can apply only to intermittent stream beds.

On page 2072, third column, last sentence, the number 19 is inserted after the term “General Condition” since this sentence refers to General Condition 19.

On page 2076, second column, the street address for the Walla Walla District Engineer is corrected to read “201 N. Third Avenue“.

On page 2080, second column, third paragraph from the top of the column (in the “Notification” section of NWP 12), the word “or” at the end of paragraph (e) is deleted and the period at the end of the fourth paragraph (paragraph (f)) is replaced with “; or”.

On page 2080, second column, paragraph (a) of NWP 13 is corrected to read: “No material is placed in excess of the minimum needed for erosion protection;” The change was not intended and we are correcting this paragraph by reinstating the original text as it appeared in the version of NWP 13 published in the December 13, 1996, Federal Register (61 FR 65915).

On page 2080, third column, the word “or” is inserted at the end of paragraph (a)(1) of NWP 14, Linear Transportation Projects. Paragraph (a) of NWP 14 is corrected to read: “a. This NWP is subject to the following acreage limits: (1) For linear transportation projects in non-tidal waters, provided the discharge does not cause the loss of greater than 1/2 -acre of waters of the US; or (2) For linear transportation projects in tidal waters, provided the discharge does not cause the loss of greater than 1/3 -acre of waters of the US.”

On page 2085, second column, the last sentence of NWP 36 is corrected to read as follows: “Dredging to provide access to the boat ramp may be authorized by another NWP, regional general permit, or individual permit pursuant to section 10 if located in navigable waters of the United States. * * *” The change was not intended and we are correcting this paragraph by reinstating the original text as it appeared in the version of NWP 36 published in the December 13, 1996, Federal Register (61 FR 65919).

On page 2086, in the second full paragraph of the second column, “paragraph (e)” in the second sentence is replaced with “paragraph (f)” and “paragraph (i)” in the third sentence is replaced with “paragraph (j)” to accurately cite the previous paragraphs of NWP 39. The last two sentences of the paragraph before the subdivision paragraph were incorrectly divided into two sentences from the original single sentence and identified as being related to General Condition 15. This change was not intended and we are correcting this paragraph by reinstating the original last sentence as it exists in the March 9, 2000, text of NWP 39 (65 FR 12890).

On page 2086, middle column, the parenthetical statement at the end of the Note at the end of NWP 39 is corrected to read “* * * (except for ephemeral waters, which do not require PCNs under paragraph (c)(2), above; however, activities that result in the loss of greater than 1/10 acre of ephemeral waters would require PCNs under paragraph (c)(1), above).” The addition to the Note was intended to clarify that under paragraph (c)(2) only the loss of ephemeral open waters were not included in the requirement for a pre-construction notification (PCN). However, under paragraph (c)(1) all ephemeral waters of the United States are included in the measurement for the 1/10 acre PCN requirement. The correction is needed because the statement in the parentheses could be incorrectly interpreted to apply to paragraph (c)(1) and possibly to all PCNs, not just those affected by paragraph (c)(2).

For clarity, we are providing the text of NWP 39 in its entirety, with the corrections described above:

39. Residential, Commercial, and Institutional Developments. Discharges of dredged or fill material into non-tidal waters of the U.S., excluding non-tidal wetlands adjacent to tidal waters, for the construction or expansion of residential, commercial, and institutional building foundations and building pads and attendant features that are necessary for the use and maintenance of the structures. Attendant features may include, but are not limited to, roads, parking lots, garages, yards, utility lines, stormwater management facilities, and recreation facilities such as playgrounds, playing fields, and golf courses (provided the golf course is an integral part of the residential development). The construction of new ski areas or oil and gas wells is not authorized by this NWP.

Residential developments include multiple and single unit developments. Examples of commercial developments include retail stores, industrial facilities, restaurants, business parks, and shopping centers. Examples of institutional developments include schools, fire stations, government office buildings, judicial buildings, public works buildings, libraries, hospitals, and places of worship. The activities listed above are authorized, provided the activities meet all of the following criteria:

a. The discharge does not cause the loss of greater than 1/12 -acre of non-tidal waters of the U.S., excluding non-tidal wetlands adjacent to tidal waters;

b. The discharge does not cause the loss of greater than 300 linear-feet of a stream bed, unless for intermittent stream beds this criterion is waived in writing pursuant to a determination by the District Engineer, as specified below, that the project complies with all terms and conditions of this NWP and that any adverse impacts of the project on the aquatic environment are minimal, both individually and cumulatively;

c. The permittee must notify the District Engineer in accordance with General Condition 13, if any of the following criteria are met:

(1) The discharge causes the loss of greater than 1/10 -acre of non-tidal waters of the US, excluding non-tidal wetlands adjacent to tidal waters; or

(2) The discharge causes the loss of any open waters, including perennial or intermittent streams, below the ordinary high water mark (see Note , below); or

(3) The discharge causes the loss of greater than 300 linear feet of intermittent stream bed. In such case, to be authorized the District Engineer must determine that the activity complies with the other terms and conditions of the NWP, determine adverse environmental effects are minimal both individually and cumulatively, and waive the limitation on stream impacts in writing before the permittee may proceed;

d. For discharges in special aquatic sites, including wetlands, the notification must include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites;

e. The discharge is part of a single and complete project;

f. The permittee must avoid and minimize discharges into waters of the US at the project site to the maximum extent practicable. The notification, when required, must include a written statement explaining how avoidance and minimization of losses of waters of the US were achieved on the project site. Compensatory mitigation will normally be required to offset the losses of waters of the US. (See General Condition 19.) The notification must also include a compensatory mitigation proposal for offsetting unavoidable losses of waters of the US. If an applicant asserts that the adverse effects of the project are minimal without mitigation, then the applicant may submit justification explaining why compensatory mitigation should not be required for the District Engineer's consideration;

g. When this NWP is used in conjunction with any other NWP, any combined total permanent loss of waters of the US exceeding 1/10 -acre requires that the permittee notify the District Engineer in accordance with General Condition 13;

h. Any work authorized by this NWP must not cause more than minimal degradation of water quality or more than minimal changes to the flow characteristics of any stream (see General Conditions 9 and 21);

i. For discharges causing the loss of 1/10 -acre or less of waters of the US, the permittee must submit a report, within 30 days of completion of the work, to the District Engineer that contains the following information: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the permittee; (2) The location of the work; (3) A description of the work; (4) The type and acreage of the loss of waters of the US ( e.g., 1/2 -acre of emergent wetlands); and (5) The type and acreage of any compensatory mitigation used to offset the loss of waters of the US ( e.g., 1/2 -acre of emergent wetlands created on-site);

j. If there are any open waters or streams within the project area, the permittee will establish and maintain, to the maximum extent practicable, wetland or upland vegetated buffers next to those open waters or streams consistent with General Condition 19. Deed restrictions, conservation easements, protective covenants, or other means of land conservation and preservation are required to protect and maintain the vegetated buffers established on the project site.

Only residential, commercial, and institutional activities with structures on the foundation(s) or building pad(s), as well as the attendant features, are authorized by this NWP. The compensatory mitigation proposal that is required in paragraph (f) of this NWP may be either conceptual or detailed. The wetland or upland vegetated buffer required in paragraph (j) of this NWP will be determined on a case-by-case basis by the District Engineer for addressing water quality concerns. The required wetland or upland vegetated buffer is part of the overall compensatory mitigation requirement for this NWP. If the project site was previously used for agricultural purposes and the farm owner/operator used NWP 40 to authorize activities in waters of the United States to increase production or construct farm buildings, NWP 39 cannot be used by the developer to authorize additional activities in waters of the United States on the project site in excess of the acreage limit for NWP 39 ( i.e., the combined acreage loss authorized under NWPs 39 and 40 cannot exceed 1/2 acre).

Subdivisions: For residential subdivisions, the aggregate total loss of waters of US authorized by NWP 39 can not exceed 1/2 -acre. This includes any loss of waters associated with development of individual subdivision lots. (Sections 10 and 404)

On page 2088, in the sixth sentence of the first paragraph in the first column, the phrase “an adequate water quality management plan” is replaced with the phrase “adequate water quality management measures” to reflect the modified language in General Condition 9. This sentence is corrected to read “The facility must have adequate water quality management measures in accordance with General Condition 9, such as a stormwater management facility, to ensure that the recreational facility results in no substantial adverse effects to water quality.”

On page 2089, first column, the second sentence of paragraph (c) of NWP 44 is corrected to read “Normally, the water quality management measures required by General Condition 9 should address these impacts;”. In addition, the second sentence of paragraph (i) of NWP 44 is corrected to read “Further the District Engineer may require water quality management measures to ensure the authorized work results in minimal adverse effects to water quality;” These corrections are necessary to reflect the modified language in General Condition 9.

On page 2089, third column, the text of General Condition 6 is corrected to read: “The activity must comply with any regional conditions that may have been added by the Division Engineer (see 33 CFR 330.4(e)) and with any case specific conditions added by the Corps or by the state or tribe in its Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Zone Management Act consistency determination.” The change to General Condition 6 that was published in the January 15, 2002, Federal Register was not intended and we are correcting this sentence by reinstating the original text as it existed in the March 9, 2000, NWPs.

On page 2090, first column, the word “Section” in the parenthetical at the end of General Condition 10 is replaced with “33 CFR” so that the parenthetical reads “(see 33 CFR 330.4(d))”.

On page 2090, at the top of the second column, the second Internet URL is replaced with “* * * http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/overview/es.html * * *” because the Internet address for the National Marine Fisheries Service home page for endangered species has been changed.

On page 2090, third column, in paragraph (b)(4) of General Condition 13, NWP 40 should be added to the list of NWPs that require submission of delineations of special aquatic sites with pre-construction notifications. Therefore, paragraph (b)(4) of General Condition 13 is corrected to read “For NWPs 7, 12, 14, 18, 21, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, and 43, the PCN must also include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites, including wetlands, vegetated shallows ( e.g., submerged aquatic vegetation, seagrass beds), and riffle and pool complexes (see paragraph 13(f));”

On page 2090, third column, in paragraph (b)(6) of General Condition 13, the word “Projects” replaces the word “Crossings”, because the title of NWP 14 is “Linear Transportation Projects”.

On page 2090, third column, in paragraph (b)(8) of General Condition 13, the word “Activities” is inserted after the word “Restoration” because the title of NWP 27 is “Stream and Wetland Restoration Activities”.

On page 2091, first column, in paragraph (b)(10) of General Condition 13, the word “Projects” is replaced with the word “Facilities” because the title of NWP 31 is “Maintenance of Existing Flood Control Facilities”.

On page 2094, third column, we are correcting the definition of “Loss of Waters of the US” by deleting the last sentence and inserting the following sentence after the fourth sentence of this definition: “Impacts to ephemeral streams are not included in the linear foot measurement of loss of stream bed for the purpose of determining compliance with the linear foot limits of NWPs 39, 40, 42, and 43.”

Due to the number of corrections made to the definition of “Loss of Waters of the US”, we are providing the text of this definition in its entirety, with the corrections described above:

Loss of Waters of the US: Waters of the US that include the filled area and other waters that are permanently adversely affected by flooding, excavation, or drainage because of the regulated activity. Permanent adverse effects include permanent above-grade, at-grade, or below-grade fills that change an aquatic area to dry land, increase the bottom elevation of a waterbody, or change the use of a waterbody. The acreage of loss of waters of the US is the threshold measurement of the impact to existing waters for determining whether a project may qualify for an NWP; it is not a net threshold that is calculated after considering compensatory mitigation that may be used to offset losses of aquatic functions and values. The loss of stream bed includes the linear feet of stream bed that is filled or excavated. Impacts to ephemeral streams are not included in the linear foot measurement of loss of stream bed for the purpose of determining compliance with the linear foot limits of NWPs 39, 40, 42, and 43. Waters of the US temporarily filled, flooded, excavated, or drained, but restored to preconstruction contours and elevations after construction, are not included in the measurement of loss of waters of the US.

In the January 15, 2002, Federal Register , it was stated that the definition was being revised (to clarify that ephemeral waters and streams are not included in the acreage or linear thresholds for NWPs) to comport with language in the preamble of the March 9, 2000 Federal Register notice. However, the language in the preamble of the March 9, 2000 Federal Register notice (65 FR 12881, third column) does not support this revision. Rather, the referenced preamble states, “During our review of the comments received in response to the July 21, 1999, Federal Register notice, we found an error in the proposed definition of the term, “loss of waters of the United States.” In the fourth sentence of the draft definition, we stated that the loss of stream bed includes the linear feet of perennial or intermittent stream bed that is filled or excavated. This statement is inaccurate because ephemeral stream bed that is filled or excavated can also be considered a loss of waters of the United States. However, the 300 linear foot limit for stream beds filled or excavated does not apply to ephemeral streams. We have modified this sentence to define the loss of stream bed as the linear feet of stream bed that is filled or excavated.” Thus, the modification of this definition was intended to clarify that activities that involve filling or excavating ephemeral streams are not included in the linear foot limits for filling or excavating stream beds in NWPs 39, 40, 42, and 43. However, it was not intended to exempt ephemeral waters or streams from calculations of impacted acreages to determine PCN or maximum acreage requirements in accordance with NWPs 39, 40, 42, and 43.

In the August 9, 2001, Federal Register notice (66 FR 42099) we proposed to modify the definition of “Loss of Waters of the US” by adding the sentence “* * * The loss of stream bed includes the linear feet of perennial stream or intermittent stream that is filled or excavated * * *”. The proposed change was in response to a commitment to clearly state in the text of the NWPs (which includes the definitions) that the 300 linear foot limit in NWPs 39, 40, 42, and 43 for filling and excavating stream beds would only apply to intermittent and perennial streams, not to ephemeral streams.

In the January 15, 2002, Federal Register notice (67 FR 2074-2075) we erroneously stated that both the acreage and linear limits of the NWPs do not apply to ephemeral waters. This was never intended to be adopted as policy for the NWPs or the Corps regulatory program. A previously stated, in the first column of page 2075 of the January 15, 2002, Federal Register notice, we refer to page 12881 of the March 9, 2000, Federal Register notice, which only discusses the 300 linear foot limit, not the acreage limits of the NWPs. Our intent is to continue to apply acreage limits of NWPs to activities that result in the permanent loss of ephemeral waters, but the linear foot limits of the NWPs ( i.e., NWPs 39, 40, 42, and 43) for filling or excavating stream beds would not apply to activities that involve filling or excavating ephemeral streams. The last sentence of the definition of “Loss of Waters of the US” as published in the January 15, 2002, Federal Register notice does not comport with remainder of this NWP package. Therefore, we are correcting this definition as described above.

We believe that correcting the text of NWP 39 and the definition of “Loss of Waters of the US” through the publication of this correction notice is appropriate. Nevertheless, in order to give all interested parties further opportunity to comment on this matter, we intend to publish a Federal Register notice to solicit public comments on those two corrections. If we determine that any other matter relating to the final NWPs requires correction or clarification, but that matter was not adequately dealt with in this correction notice, we will address that additional matter in the forthcoming Federal Register notice, as well. We expect to publish that Federal Register notice within a few weeks.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Student Assistance General Provisions—Subpart I—Immigration Status Confirmation.

Frequency: On Occasion.

Affected Public: Individuals or households; Not-for-profit institutions

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 7,310.

 Burden Hours: 23,209.

Abstract: Collection of this information used for immigration status confirmation reduces the potential of fraud and abuse caused by ineligible aliens receiving Federally subsidized student finanicial assistance under Title IV of the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, as amended. The respondent population is comprised of 7,310 postsecondary institutions who participate in administration of the Title IV, HEA programs.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, or should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail address vivian.reese@ed.gov. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Joseph Schubart at (202) 708-9266 or via his internet address Joe.Schubart_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.

Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are those which participate in the Acid Rain Program.

Title: Acid Rain Program ICR; (OMB Control No. 2060-0258; EPA ICR No. 1633.13) expiring 9/30/2002.

Abstract: The Acid Rain Program was established under Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The program calls for major reductions of the pollutants that cause acid rain while establishing a new approach to environmental management. This information collection is necessary to implement the Acid Rain Program. It includes burden hours associated with developing and modifying permits, transferring allowances, monitoring emissions, participating in the annual auctions, completing annual compliance certifications, participating in the Opt-in program, and complying with Nox permitting requirements. Most of this information collection is mandatory under 40 CFR parts 72-78. Some parts of it are voluntary or to obtain a benefit, such as participation in the annual auctions under 40 CFR part 73, subpart E. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. The EPA would like to solicit comments to:

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

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

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

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

Burden Statement : The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 132 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: 850.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 850.

Frequency of Response: Varies by task.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 1,330,327 hours.

Estimated Total Annualized Capital and Start-up Cost: $92,058,000.

Estimated Total Annualized Operation and Maintenance Cost: $43,574,000.

EPA has granted or denied emergency exemptions to the following State and Federal agencies. The emergency exemptions may take the following form: Crisis, public health, quarantine, or specific. EPA has also listed denied emergency exemption requests in this notice.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you petition EPA for authorization under section 18 of FIFRA to use pesticide products which are otherwise unavailable for a given use. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table in this unit could also be regulated. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action applies to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business is affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in 40 CFR part 166. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

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

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPP-181085. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

Under FIFRA section 18, EPA can authorize the use of a pesticide when emergency conditions exist. Authorizations (commonly called emergency exemptions) are granted to State and Federal agencies and are of four types:

1. A “specific exemption” authorizes use of a pesticide against specific pests on a limited acreage in a particular State. Most emergency exemptions are specific exemptions.

2. “Quarantine” and “public health” exemptions are a particular form of specific exemption issued for quarantine or public health purposes. These are rarely requested.

3. A “crisis exemption” is initiated by a State or Federal agency (and is confirmed by EPA) when there is insufficient time to request and obtain EPA permission for use of a pesticide in an emergency.

EPA may deny an emergency exemption: If the State or Federal agency cannot demonstrate that an emergency exists, if the use poses unacceptable risks to the environment, or if EPA cannot reach a conclusion that the proposed pesticide use is likely to result in “a reasonable certainty of no harm” to human health, including exposure of residues of the pesticide to infants and children.

If the emergency use of the pesticide on a food or feed commodity would result in pesticide chemical residues, EPA establishes a time-limited tolerance meeting the “reasonable certainty of no harm standard” of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

In this document, EPA identifies the State or Federal agency granted the exemption or denial, the type of exemption, the pesticide authorized and the pests, the crop or use for which authorized, number of acres (if applicable), and the duration of the exemption. EPA also gives the Federal Register citation for the time-limited tolerance, if any.

EPA authorized the use of avermectin on spinach to control leaf miners; November 1, 2001 to October 31, 2002. Contact: (Dan Rosenblatt)

EPA authorized the use of carboxin on onion seed to control onion smut; November 13, 2001 to May 31, 2002. Contact: (Andrew Ertman)

EPA authorized the use of imidacloprid on strawberries to control silverleaf whiteflies; December 24, 2001 to December 23, 2002. Contact: (Andrew Ertman)

EPA authorized the use of cyhalofop-buty on rice to control bearded sprangletop; April 15, 2002 to August 15, 2002. Contact: (Barbara Madden)

EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; January 19, 2002 to January 18, 2003. Contact: (Barbara Madden)

EPA authorized the use of pendimethalin on mint to control kochia and redroot pigweed; January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002. Contact: (Libby Pemberton)

EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; February 2, 2002 to February 1, 2003. Contact: (Barbara Madden)

EPA authorized the use of propiconazole in sorghum to control sorghum ergot; June 1, 2002 to September 30, 2002. Contact: (Dan Rosenblatt)

EPA authorized the use of tebuconazole on barley to control Fusarium Head Blight; May 15, 2002 to September 1, 2002. Contact: (Meredith Laws)

EPA authorized the use of clopyralid on cranberries to control lotus, Douglas aster, and clover; January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002. Contact: (Libby Pemberton)

EPA authorized the use of pendimethalin on mint to control kochia and redroot pigweed; January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002. Contact: (Libby Pemberton)

EPA authorized the use of azoxystrobin on cabbage to control leaf spot caused by Cercospora brassicicola and Alternaria bassicae ; November 29, 2001 to March 18, 2003. Contact: (Libby Pemberton)

EPA authorized the use of propiconazole in sorghum to control sorghum ergot; December 14, 2001 to December 13, 2002. Contact: (Dan Rosenblatt)

EPA authorized the use of imazapic-ammonium on bermudagrass hay meadows and pastures to control grassy weeds; February 1, 2002 to October 31, 2002. Contact: (Libby Pemberton)

EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; February 2, 2002 to February 1, 2003. Contact: (Barbara Madden)

EPA authorized the use of bifenazate on greenhouse grown tomatoes to control spider mites; June 13, 2002 to June 12, 2003. Contact: (Barbara Madden)

EPA authorized the use of clopyralid on cranberries to control lotus, Douglas aster, and clover; January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002. Contact: (Libby Pemberton)

EPA authorized the use of pendimethalin on mint to control kochia and redroot pigweed; January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002. Contact: (Libby Pemberton)

On November 16, 2001, for the use of hydrogen peroxide and dimethylbenzyl ammonium chlorides on structures or other property identified as contaminated or potentially contaminated by Bacillus anthracis to control anthrax. This program is expected to end on November 16, 2002. Contact: (Barbara Madden)

On November 30, 2001, for the use of chlorine dioxide gas in the Hart Senate Office Building to control anthrax ( Bacillus anthracis ). This program ended on February 1, 2002. Contact: (Barbara Madden)

On December 7, 2001, for the use of ethylene oxide to fumigate items retrieved from Congressional Offices that were contaminated or potentially contaminated by Bacillus anthracis . This program is expected to end by December 6, 2002. Contact: (Barbara Madden)

On December 17, 2001, for the use of ethylene oxide to fumigate mail received by the Department of Justice that may have been contaminated or potentially contaminated by Bacillus anthracis . This program ended on January 1, 2002. Contact: (Barbara Madden)

On December 11, 2000 (65 FR 77376), EPA announced a 90-day comment period during which the public could submit comments identifying deficiencies they perceived to exist in State and local agency operating permits programs required by title V of the Act. The 90-day comment period ended on March 12, 2001.

The December 11, 2000 notice solicited comment from the public regarding either deficiencies in the elements of the approved program, such as deficiencies in the States' approved regulations, or deficiencies in how a permitting authority was implementing its program. The Agency indicated that it would consider information received from the public and determine whether it agreed or disagreed with the purported deficiencies and would then publish notices of those findings. Where the Agency agreed that a claimed shortcoming constituted a deficiency, it indicated it would issue a notice of deficiency. Where the Agency disagreed as to the existence of a deficiency, it indicated it would respond to the citizen comments by December 1, 2001, for comments on programs granted interim approval as of December 11, 2000. For programs granted full approval as of December 11, 2000, EPA indicated it would respond to citizen comments by April 1, 2002.

In accordance with the procedures set forth in the December 11, 2000, notice and outlined above, EPA has issued notices of deficiency for several State permitting authorities in connection with the citizen comment letters submitted pursuant to the December 11, 2000, notice. Notices of deficiency have been published in the Federal Register for the following permitting authorities:

Also in accordance with the December 11, 2000, notice, EPA has issued Agency response letters to citizen comments which explain EPA's reasoning in those instances where the Agency disagrees that particular alleged problems constitute deficiencies within the meaning of part 70. The EPA hereby notifies the public that these letters are available via the internet at the following web address: (http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/permits/response/) . The EPA notes further that the terms “deficiency” and “notice of deficiency” are terms of art under the operating permits regulations in part 70. Thus, as explained in our letters responding to citizen comments, in some instances where EPA declined to issue a notice of deficiency, it was because the Agency disagreed that there was a problem with the State program or its implementation that requires correction. In other instances, however, EPA agreed in whole or in part with commenters that a program was not being properly implemented but nevertheless did not issue a notice of deficiency. Rather, EPA determined that the alleged deficiency had been corrected because the State had made a firm commitment to correct program implementation shortcomings where that could be accomplished on a timely basis by the State administratively without additional rulemaking or legislation.

Pursuant to section 502(b) of the Act, EPA has promulgated regulations establishing the minimum requirements for State and local air agency operating permits programs. We promulgated these regulations on July 21, 1992 (57 FR 32250), in part 70 of title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations. Section 502(d) of the Act requires each State to develop and submit to EPA an operating permits program meeting the requirements of the part 70 regulations and requires us to approve or disapprove the submitted program. In some cases, States have delegated authority to local city, county, or district air pollution control agencies to administer operating permits programs in their jurisdictions. These operating permits programs must meet the same requirements as the State programs. In accordance with section 502(g) of the Act and 40 CFR 70.4(d), for 99 State and local operating permits programs, we granted “interim” rather than full approval because the programs substantially met, but did not fully meet, the provisions of part 70. For interim approved programs, we identified in the notice of interim approval those program deficiencies that would have to be corrected before we could grant the program full approval. As of December 11, 2000, some of those 99 programs had since been granted full approval and the remainder still had interim approval status.

After a State or local permitting program is granted full or interim approval, EPA has oversight of the program to insure that the program is implemented correctly and is not changed in an unacceptable manner. Section 70.4(i) of the part 70 regulations requires permitting authorities to keep us apprised of any proposed program modifications and also to submit any program modifications to us for approval. Section 70.10(b) requires any approved operating permits program to be implemented “ * * * in accordance with the requirements of this part and of any agreement between the State and the Administrator concerning operation of the program.”

Furthermore, §§ 70.4(i) and 70.10(b) provide authority for us to require permitting authorities to correct program or implementation deficiencies. As explained previously, EPA has exercised these authorities by in some instances issuing notices of deficiency and in other instances issuing letters explaining why we do not agree that deficiencies exist.

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

The GSA is requesting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to review and approve information collection, 3090-0235, Price Reductions Clause. The Price Reductions Clause used in multiple award schedule contracts ensures that the Government maintains its relationship with the contractor's customer or category of customers, upon which the contract is predicated.

Number of Respondents: 9,547.

Total Annual Responses: 19,094.

Percentage of these responses: 100 collected electronically.

Average hours per response: 7.5 hours.

Total Burden Hours: 143,205.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requester may obtain a copy of the proposal from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVP), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4744. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0235, Price Reductions Clause.

CMS published a notice that identified a newly established SOR, “Long Term Care Minimum Data Set,” System No. 09-70-1516 at 63 Federal Register (FR) 28396 (May 22, 1998). Additional global routine uses affecting this system were published at 63 FR 38414 (July 16, 1998) (added three fraud and abuse uses), and 65 FR 50552 (Aug. 18, 2000) (deleted one and modified two fraud and abuse uses).

Authority for maintenance of the system is given under sections 1102(a), 1819(b)(3)(A), 1819(f), 1919(b)(3)(A), 1919(f), and 1864 of the Social Security Act (the Act).

The system contains information related to Medicare enrollment and entitlement and Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) data containing other party liability insurance information necessary for appropriate Medicare claim payment. It contains hospice election, premium billing and collection, direct billing information, and group health plan enrollment data. The system also contains the individual's health insurance numbers, name, geographic location, race/ethnicity, sex, and date of birth.

The Privacy Act permits us to disclose information without an individual's consent if the information is to be used for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose(s) for which the information was collected. Any such disclosure of data is known as a “routine use.” The government will only release LTCMDS information that can be associated with an individual as provided for under “Section III. Proposed Routine Use Disclosures of Data in the System.” Both identifiable and non-identifiable data may be disclosed under a routine use. We will only disclose the minimum personal data necessary to achieve the purpose of LTCMDS. CMS has the following policies and procedures concerning disclosures of information that will be maintained in the system. Disclosure of information from the system will be approved only to the extent necessary to accomplish the purpose of the disclosure and only after CMS:

1. Determines that the use or disclosure is consistent with the reason that the data is being collected, e.g., developing and refining payment systems, determine effectiveness, and monitoring the quality of care provided to patients.

2. Determines that:

a. The purpose for which the disclosure is to be made can only be accomplished if the record is provided in individually identifiable form;

b. The purpose for which the disclosure is to be made is of sufficient importance to warrant the effect and/or risk on the privacy of the individual that additional exposure of the record might bring; and

c. There is a strong probability that the proposed use of the data would in fact accomplish the stated purpose(s).

3. Requires the information recipient to:

a. Establish administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to prevent unauthorized use of disclosure of the record;

b. Remove or destroy at the earliest time all patient-identifiable information; and

c. Agree to not use or disclose the information for any purpose other than the stated purpose under which the information was disclosed.

4. Determines that the data are valid and reliable.

These routine uses specify circumstances, in addition to those provided by statute in the Privacy Act of 1974, under which CMS may release information from the LTCMDS without the consent of the individual to whom such information pertains. Each proposed disclosure of information under these routine uses will be evaluated to ensure that the disclosure is legally permissible, including but not limited to ensuring that the purpose of the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the information was collected. We have provided a brief explanation of the routine uses we are proposing to establish or modify for disclosures of information maintained in the system:

1. To Agency contractors, or consultants who have been engaged by the Agency to assist in accomplishment of a CMS function relating to the purposes for this system and who need to have access to the records in order to assist CMS.

We contemplate disclosing information under this routine use only in situations in which CMS may enter into a contractual or similar agreement with a third party to assist in accomplishing a CMS function relating to purposes for this system.

CMS occasionally contracts out certain of its functions when doing so would contribute to effective and efficient operations. CMS must be able to give a contractor or consultant whatever information is necessary for the contractor or consultant to fulfill its duties. In these situations, safeguards are provided in the contract prohibiting the contractor or consultant from using or disclosing the information for any purpose other than that described in the contract and requires the contractor or consultant to return or destroy all information at the completion of the contract.

2. To another Federal or state agency, agency of a state government, an agency established by state law, or its fiscal agent to:

a. Contribute to the accuracy of CMS's proper payment of Medicare benefits

b. Enable such agency to administer a Federal health benefits program, or as necessary to enable such agency to fulfill a requirement of a Federal statute or regulation that implements a health benefits program funded in whole or in part with Federal funds, and/or

c. Assist Federal/state Medicaid programs within the state.

Other Federal or state agencies in their administration of a Federal health program may require LTCMDS information in order to support evaluations and monitoring of Medicare claims information of beneficiaries, including proper reimbursement for services provided;

In addition, other state agencies in their administration of a Federal health program may require LTCMDS information for the purposes of determining, evaluating and/or assessing cost, effectiveness, and/or the quality of health care services provided in the state;

The Social Security Administration may require LTCMDS data to enable them to assist in the implementation and maintenance of the Medicare program;

Disclosure under this routine use shall be used by state Medicaid agencies pursuant to agreements with the HHS for determining Medicaid and Medicare eligibility, for quality control studies, for determining eligibility of recipients of assistance under Titles IV, XVIII, and XIX of the Act, and for the administration of the Medicaid program. Data will be released to the state only on those individuals who are patients under the services of a Medicaid program within the state or who are residents of that state;

We also contemplate disclosing information under this routine use in situations in which state auditing agencies require LTCMDS information for auditing state Medicaid eligibility considerations. CMS may enter into an agreement with state auditing agencies to assist in accomplishing functions relating to purposes for this system.

3. To PROs in connection with review of claims, or in connection with studies or other review activities, conducted pursuant to Part B of Title XI of the Act and in performing affirmative outreach activities to individuals for the purpose of establishing and maintaining their entitlement to Medicare benefits or health insurance plans.

PROs will work to implement quality improvement programs, provide consultation to CMS, its contractors, and to state agencies. PROs will assist the state agencies in related monitoring and enforcement efforts, assist CMS and intermediaries in program integrity assessment, and prepare summary information for release to CMS.

4. To insurance companies, underwriters, third party administrators (TPA), employers, self-insurers, group health plans, health maintenance organizations (HMO), health and welfare benefit funds, managed care organizations, other supplemental insurers, non-coordinating insurers, multiple employer trusts, liability insurers, no-fault medical automobile insurers, workers compensation carriers or plans, other groups providing protection against medical expenses without the beneficiary's authorization, and any entity having knowledge of the occurrence of any event affecting (a) an individual's right to any such benefit or payment, or (b) the initial right to any such benefit or payment, for the purpose of coordination of benefits with the Medicare program and implementation of the MSP provision at 42 U.S.C. 1395y (b). Information to be disclosed shall be limited to Medicare utilization data necessary to perform that specific function. In order to receive the information, they must agree to:

a. Certify that the individual about whom the information is being provided is one of its insured or employees, or is insured and/or employed by another entity for whom they serve as a TPA;

b. Utilize the information solely for the purpose of processing the individual's insurance claims; and

c. Safeguard the confidentiality of the data and prevent unauthorized access.

Other insurers may require LTCMDS information in order to support evaluations and monitoring of Medicare claims information of beneficiaries, including proper reimbursement for services provided.

5. To an individual or organization for research, evaluation, or epidemiological projects related to the prevention of disease or disability, the restoration or maintenance of health, or payment related projects.

LTCMDS data will provide research, evaluations and epidemiological projects, a broader, longitudinal, national perspective of the status of Medicare beneficiaries. CMS anticipates that many researchers will have legitimate requests to use these data in projects that could ultimately improve the care provided to Medicare beneficiaries and the policy that governs the care.

6. To a Member of Congress or congressional staff member in response to an inquiry of the congressional office made at the written request of the constituent about whom the record is maintained.

Beneficiaries often request the help of a Member of Congress in resolving an issue relating to a matter before CMS. The Member of Congress then writes CMS, and CMS must be able to give sufficient information to be responsive to the inquiry.

7. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), court or adjudicatory body when:

a. The Agency or any component thereof, or

b. Any employee of the Agency in his or her official capacity, or

c. Any employee of the Agency in his or her individual capacity where the DOJ has agreed to represent the employee, or

d. The United States Government, is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and by careful review, CMS determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation.

Whenever CMS is involved in litigation, or occasionally when another party is involved in litigation and CMS's policies or operations could be affected by the outcome of the litigation, CMS would be able to disclose information to the DOJ, court or adjudicatory body involved.

8. To a CMS contractor (including, but not limited to fiscal intermediaries and carriers) that assists in the administration of a CMS-administered health benefits program, or to a grantee of a CMS-administered grant program, when disclosure is deemed reasonably necessary by CMS to prevent, deter, discover, detect, investigate, examine, prosecute, sue with respect to, defend against, correct, remedy, or otherwise combat fraud or abuse in such program.

We contemplate disclosing information under this routine use only in situations in which CMS may enter into a contract or grant with a third party to assist in accomplishing CMS functions relating to the purpose of combating fraud and abuse.

CMS occasionally contracts out certain of its functions when doing so would contribute to effective and efficient operations. CMS must be able to give a contractor or grantee whatever information is necessary for the contractor or grantee to fulfill its duties. In these situations, safeguards are provided in the contract prohibiting the contractor or grantee from using or disclosing the information for any purpose other than that described in the contract and requiring the contractor or grantee to return or destroy all information.

9. To another Federal agency or to an instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States (including any state or local governmental agency), that administers, or that has the authority to investigate potential fraud or abuse in a health benefits program funded in whole or in part by Federal funds, when disclosure is deemed reasonably necessary by CMS to prevent, deter, discover, detect, investigate, examine, prosecute, sue with respect to, defend against, correct, remedy, or otherwise combat fraud or abuse in such programs.

Other agencies may require LTCMDS information for the purpose of combating fraud and abuse in such Federally funded programs.

10. To a national accrediting organization whose accredited facilities are presumed to meet certain Medicare requirements for inpatient hospital (including swing beds) services; e.g., the Joint Commission for the Accrediting of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). Information will be released to accrediting organizations only for those facilities that they accredit and that participate in the Medicare program.

CMS anticipates providing those national accrediting organizations with LTCMDS information to enable them to target potential or identified problems during the organization's accreditation review process of that facility.

This SOR contains Protected Health Information as defined by HHS regulation “Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information” (45 CFR parts 160 and 164, 65 FR 82462 (12-28-00), as amended by 66 FR 12434 (2-26-01)). Disclosures of Protected Health Information authorized by these routine uses may only be made if, and as, permitted or required by the “Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information.”

In addition, our policy will be to prohibit release even of non-identifiable data, except pursuant to one of the routine uses, if there is a possibility that an individual can be identified through implicit deduction based on small cell sizes (instances where the patient population is so small that individuals who are familiar with the enrollees could, because of the small size, use this information to deduce the identity of the beneficiary).

The LTCMDS system will conform to applicable law and policy governing the privacy and security of Federal automated information systems. These include but are not limited to: The Privacy Act of 1974, Computer Security Act of 1987, the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, and OMB Circular A-130, Appendix III, “Security of Federal Automated Information Resources.” CMS has prepared a comprehensive system security plan as required by the OMB Circular A-130, Appendix III. This plan conforms fully to guidance issued by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) in NIST Special Publication 800-18, “Guide for Developing Security Plans for Information Technology Systems.” Paragraphs A-C of this section highlight some of the specific methods that CMS is using to ensure the security of this system and the information within it.

Authorized users: Personnel having access to the system have been trained in Privacy Act and systems security requirements. Employees and contractors who maintain records in the system are instructed not to release any data until the intended recipient agrees to implement appropriate administrative, technical, procedural, and physical safeguards sufficient to protect the confidentiality of the data and to prevent unauthorized access to the data. In addition, CMS is monitoring the authorized users to ensure against excessive or unauthorized use. Records are used in a designated work area or workstation and the system location is attended at all times during working hours.

To assure security of the data, the proper level of class user is assigned for each individual user as determined at the Agency level. This prevents unauthorized users from accessing and modifying critical data. The system database configuration includes five classes of database users:

• Database Administrator class owns the database objects, e.g., tables, triggers, indexes, stored procedures, packages, and has database administration privileges to these objects;

• Quality Control Administrator class has read and write access to key fields in the database;

• Quality Indicator Report Generator class has read-only access to all fields and tables;

• Policy Research class has query access to tables, but are not allowed to access confidential patient identification information; and

• Submitter class has read and write access to database objects, but no database administration privileges.

All server sites have implemented the following minimum requirements to assist in reducing the exposure of computer equipment and thus achieve an optimum level of protection and security for the LTCMDS system: Access to all servers is controlled, with access limited to only those support personnel with a demonstrated need for access. Servers are to be kept in a locked room accessible only by specified management and system support personnel. Each server requires a specific log-on process. All entrance doors are identified and marked. A log is kept of all personnel who were issued a security card, key and/or combination which grants access to the room housing the server, and all visitors are escorted while in this room. All servers are housed in an area where appropriate environmental security controls are implemented, which include measures implemented to mitigate damage to Automated Information System (AIS) resources caused by fire, electricity, water and inadequate climate controls.

Protection applied to the workstations, servers and databases include:

• User Log-ons—Authentication is performed by the Primary Domain Controller/Backup Domain Controller of the log-on domain.

• Workstation Names—Workstation naming conventions may be defined and implemented at the Agency level.

• Hours of Operation—May be restricted by Windows NT. When activated all applicable processes will automatically shut down at a specific time and not be permitted to resume until the predetermined time. The appropriate hours of operation are determined and implemented at the Agency level.

• Inactivity Log-out—Access to the NT workstation is automatically logged out after a specified period of inactivity.

• Warnings—Legal notices and security warnings display on all servers and workstations.

• Remote Access Services (RAS)—Windows NT RAS security handles resource access control. Access to NT resources is controlled for remote users in the same manner as local users, by utilizing Windows NT file and sharing permissions. Dial-in access can be granted or restricted on a user-by-user basis through the Windows NT RAS administration tool.

All automated systems must comply with Federal laws, guidance, and policies for information systems security as stated previously in this section. Each automated information system should ensure a level of security commensurate with the level of sensitivity of the data, risk, and magnitude of the harm that may result from the loss, misuse, disclosure, or modification of the information contained in the system.

CMS proposes to establish this system in accordance with the principles and requirements of the Privacy Act and will collect, use, and disseminate information only as prescribed therein.

We will only disclose the minimum personal data necessary to achieve the purpose of LTCMDS. Disclosure of information from the system will be approved only to the extent necessary to accomplish the purpose of the disclosure. CMS has assigned a higher level of security clearance for the information maintained in this system in an effort to provide added security and protection of data in this system.

CMS will take precautionary measures to minimize the risks of unauthorized access to the records and the potential harm to individual privacy or other personal or property rights. CMS will collect only that information necessary to perform the system's functions. In addition, CMS will make disclosure from the proposed system only with consent of the subject individual, or his/her legal representative, or in accordance with an applicable exception provision of the Privacy Act.

CMS, therefore, does not anticipate an unfavorable effect on individual privacy as a result of the disclosure of information relating to individuals.

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

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

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: (1) Letter of Transmittal, (2) Resolution of Board of Directors and Certificate of Authorized Signatures, and (3) Master Servicing Agreement.

OMB Control Number, if applicable: 2503-0016.

The purpose of the Letter of Transmittal is to provide issuers with a form to transmit documentation to Ginnie Mae when requesting Ginnie Mae's action on certain activities such as requests for commitment authority and pool numbers. The Resolution of Board of Directors and Certificate of Authorized Signature is used by the issuers to provide a list of the names and signatures of officers of the company authorized to execute documents with respect to issuance of securities. The Master Servicing Agreement is used to provide assurance to Ginnie Mae that servicing the mortgages backing the securities approved for issuance will be performed in accordance with acceptable standards of mortgage servicing. It is also used to determine whether the issuer of the pool is the sole servicer or whether the issuer has established a sub-contract servicer arrangement with another institution to perform certain servicing functions on behalf of the issuer.

Agency form numbers, if applicable: HUD form 11700, 11702, and 11707.

Members of affected public: For profit business (mortgage companies, thrifts, savings & loans, etc.)

Status of the proposed information collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.

The Department has submitted the proposal for the collection of information, as described below, to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The Notice lists the following information: (1) The title of the information collection proposal; (2) the office of the agency to collect the information (3) the OMB approval number, if applicable; (4) the description of the need for the information and its proposed use; (5) the agency form number, if applicable; (6) what members of the public will be affected by the proposal; (7) how frequently information submissions will be required; (8) an estimate of the total number of ours needed to prepare the information submission including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response; (9) whether the proposal is new, an extension, reinstatement, or revision of an information collection requirement; and (10) the name and telephone number of an agency official familiar with proposal and of the OMB Desk Officer for the Department.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Mortgagor's Certificate of Actual Cost.

OMB Approval Number: 2502-0112.

Form Numbers: HUD-92330.

Description of the Need for the Information and its Proposed Use: The Mortgagor's Certificate of Actual certifies cost the development in order to make an informed determination of mortgage insurance acceptability and to prevent windfall profits. It provides a basis for evaluating housing programs, labor costs, and physical improvements in connection with the construction of multifamily housing.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Frequency of Submission: At final endorsement.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 4,000.

Status: Reinstatement, without changed.

This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has submitted to OMB, for emergency processing, an information collection package containing additional alternatives to the SF 424, Application for Federal Assistance, and directly related forms intended to offer standardized, consolidated and streamlined grant application processes in accordance with the provisions of Public Law 106-107, The Federal Financial Assistance Improvement Act of 1999. The two additional forms are a detailed budget and a voluntary indicator of religious status. This submission also proposes minimal changes to the budget summary form to be included in grant applications.

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

This Notice also listed the following information:

Title of Proposal: Emergency Comment Request for Proposed Changes to Generic Application, Religious Status, and Budget Forms Contained in Grant Applications.

OMB Control Number: 2501-0017.

Agency Form Numbers: HUD-424, HUD-424-B, HUD-424-C, HUD-424-CB, HUD-424-M, HUD-424-F.

Members of Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government, Not-for-Profit Institutions.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of responses, and hours of response: An estimation of the total number of hours need to prepare the forms for each grant application is 1, however, the burden will assessed against each individual grant program submission under the Paperwork Reduction Act; Estimated number of respondents is 9,091; frequency of response is on the occasion of application for benefits.