The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.”

The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Further, the regulations in § 340.6(e)(2) provide that a person may request that APHIS extend a determination of nonregulated status to other organisms. Such a request must include information to establish the similarity of the antecedent organism and the regulated article in question.

On September 9, 2001, APHIS received a request for an extension of a determination of nonregulated status (APHIS No. 01-206-01p) from Aventis CropScience (Aventis) of Research Triangle Park, NC, for canola ( Brassica napus L. ) transformation events designated as MS1 and RF1 and RF2, which have been genetically engineered for male sterility (MS1), fertility restoration (RF1 and RF2), and tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate (MS1, RF1, and RF2). The Aventis request seeks an extension of a determination of nonregulated status issued in response to APHIS petition number 98-278-01p for male sterile canola transformation event MS8 and fertility restoration canola transformation event RF3, the antecedent organisms (see 64 FR 15337-15338, Docket No. 98-114-2, published March 31, 1999). Both MS8 and RF3 are also tolerant to the herbicide glufosinate. Based on the similarity of canola events MS1 and RF1 and RF2 to the antecedent organisms, Aventis requests a determination that MS1 and RF1 and RF2 do not present a plant pest risk and, therefore, are not regulated articles under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340.

Like the antecedent organisms, canola events MS1 and RF1 and RF2 have been genetically engineered to contain a barnase gene (MS1) for male sterility or a barstar gene (RF1 and RF2) for fertility restoration. The barnase gene expresses a ribonuclease that blocks pollen development and results in a male-sterile plant, and the barstar gene encodes a specific inhibitor of this ribonuclease and restores fertility. The barnase and barstar genes were derived from Bacillus amyloliquefaciens , and are linked to in the subject transformation events to the bar gene derived from Streptomyces hygroscopicus . The bar gene encodes the enzyme phosphinothricin-N-acetyltransferase (PAT), which confers tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate. The subject canola events and the antecedent organisms were developed through use of the Agrobacterium tumefaciens method, and expression of the added genes in MS1 and RF1 and RF2 and the antecedent organisms is controlled in part by gene sequences derived from the plant pathogen A. tumefaciens . In summary, the Aventis extension request states that canola events MS1 and RF1 and RF2 and the antecedent organisms contain the same genetic elements with the exception of the antibiotic resistance marker gene nptII in MS1 and RF1 and RF2, which was used as a transformant selection tool during the developmental process. The parental variety Drakkar was used to develop both the antecedent organisms and MS1 and RF1 and RF2.

Canola events MS1 and RF1 and RF2 and the antecedent organisms were genetically engineered using the same transformation method and contain the same enzymes for male sterility, fertility restoration, and glufosinate herbicide tolerance. Accordingly, we have determined that canola events MS1 and RF1 and RF2 are similar to the antecedent organisms in APHIS petition number 98-278-01p, and we are proposing that canola events MS1 and RF1 and RF2 should no longer be regulated under the regulations in 7 CFR part 340.

The subject canola events have been considered regulated articles under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340 because they contain gene sequences derived from a plant pathogen. However, canola events MS1 and RF1 and RF2 have been field tested in numerous countries, including the United States and Canada, and after having received the appropriate Canadian approvals, have been marketed commercially in Canada since 1996 with no reports of adverse effects on human health or the environment.

Should APHIS approve Aventis' request for an extension of a determination of nonregulated status, canola events MS1 and RF1 and RF2 would no longer be considered regulated articles under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340. Therefore, the requirements pertaining to regulated articles under those regulations would no longer apply to the field testing, importation, or interstate movement of the subject canola events or their progeny.

An environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared to examine any potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed extension of a determination of nonregulated status for the subject canola events. The EA was prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). Copies of the Aventis extension request and the EA are available from the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

The Forest Service is initiating this action in order to exchange lands that will provide a balance in public benefits while improving management opportunities. Lands within the Rubicon River Canyon (recommended for Wild and Scenic River status), the Silver Fork of the American River (a Wild and Scenic eligible river) and the Pyramid-Bassi Roadless Area (RARE II); lands along the Pony Express National Historic Trail are proposed for acquisition; along with other lands containing unique ecological values, valuable timber resources and important recreational opportunities. The lands to be exchanged also contain important resource values, including lands suitable for growth and harvest of commercial conifers and areas that contain quality wildlife habitat. Also considered is the opportunity to consolidate lands into contiguous blocks that can be more efficiently and economically managed, thereby facilitating the ownership objectives of both the Forest Service and Sierra Pacific Industries Corporation. All federal lands proposed for exchange are on the Eldorado National Forest and are in compliance with the land adjustment management direction in the 1989 Eldorado National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan.

The exchange meets the public interest requirements in 36 CFR 254.3(b): (1) The resource values and the public objectives served by the non-federal lands and interests to be acquired are equal or exceed the resource values and the public objectives served by the federal lands to be disposed; and (2) the intended use of the disposed federal land will not substantially conflict with established management objectives on adjacent federal lands.

Lands will be exchanged on a value for value basis, based on current fair market value appraisals. The appraisal is prepared in accordance with the Uniform Standards for Federal Land Acquisition. The appraisal prepared for the land exchange is reviewed by a qualified review appraiser to ensure that it is fair and complies with the appropriate standards. Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, all exchanges must be equal in value. Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 254.3(c) require that exchanges must be of equal value or equalized pursuant to 35 CFR 254.12 by cash payment after making all reasonable efforts to equalize values by adding or deleting lands. If lands proposed for exchange are not equal in value, either party may make them equal by cash payment not to exceed 25 percent of the federal land value.

The decision to be made is what lands, if any, should be exchanged as part of this proposal. The proposed action is to exchange approximately 2,126 acres of National Forest System land for approximately 3,994 acres of Sierra Pacific Industries Corporation land, adjusted for equal value as required by law. Other alternatives will be developed based on significant issues identified during the scoping process for the environmental impact statement. All alternatives will need to respond to the specific condition of providing benefits equal to or better than the current condition. Alternatives being considered at this time include: (1) no action and (2) exchanging lands as identified in the proposed action.

Public participation will be especially important at several points during the analysis. The Forest Service will be seeking information, comments, and assistance from the Federal, State, and local agencies and other individuals or organizations who may be interested in or affected by the proposed action. To facilitate public participation information about the proposed action was mailed to all who expressed interest in the proposed action based on publication in the Eldorado National Forest Schedule of Proposed Action. The Forest Service hosted a public meeting/open house to present the proposal at the Eldorado National Forest Headquarters at 100 Forni Road Placerville, CA on December 13, 2001. Notification of the additional public scoping periods will be published in the Mountain Democrat, Placerville, CA. The DEIS is scheduled to be available in June 2002 and the Forest will host another public meeting after the draft is mailed to interested parties.

Comments submitted during the scoping process should be in writing and should be specific to the proposed action. The comments should describe as clearly and completely as possible any issues the commenter has with the proposal. The scoping process includes:

(a) Identifying potential issues;

(b) Identifying issues to be analyzed in depth.

(c) Eliminating nonsignificant issues or those previously covered by a relevant previous environmental analysis;

(d) Exploring additional alternatives;

(e) Identifying potential environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives.

The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public review by June 2002. EPA will publish a notice of availability of the draft EIS in the Federal Register. The comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date the EPA notice appears in the Federal Register. At that time, copies of the draft EIS will be distributed to interested and affected agencies, organizations, and members of the public for their review and comment. It is very important that those interested in the management of the Eldorado National Forest participate at that time.

The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers notice at this early stage of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of a draft EIS must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft EIS stage, but that are not raised until after completion of the final EIS may be waived or dismissed by the courts, City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803f. 2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir, 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final EIS.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft EIS should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft EIS. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft EIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. (Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points).

The final EIS is scheduled to be completed in December 2002. In the final EIS, The Forest Service is required to respond to substantive comments received during the comment period that pertain to the environmental consequences discussed in the draft EIS and applicable laws, regulations, and policies considered in making the decision regarding this proposal.

John Berry, Forest Supervisor, Eldorado National Forest is the responsible official. As the responsible official he will document the decision and reasons for the decision in the Record of Decision. That decision will be subject to Forest Service appeal regulations (36 CFR part 215).

A Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement for the Airport Forest Health Timber Sale was published in the Federal Register on June 27, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 124, pp 39594-39596) announcing the intent to prepare and release a draft EIS in August 2000 with a final EIS scheduled for September 2000.

The original notice of intent informed the public of the agency's intention to document the analysis in an EIS. The primary reason for the cancellation is a change in management direction for the project area.

Yates Petroleum Corporation has filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management for a permit to drill and complete one exploration well. Drilling and completion of the well requires construction of access roads, and may include installation of testing and production equipment. As surface management agency, the Forest Service proposes to permit surface operations associated with the development of oil and/or gas resources with the drilling of one (1) well including construction of access roads and production facilities. The Forest Service will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. This EIS will disclose the environmental effects of the proposed oil and gas development.

In 1994, the Forest Service prepared the Thunder Basin Oil and Gas Leasing EIS and issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for future oil and gas development on NFS lands on the Thunder Basin National Grasslands. This development authorized the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to lease Federal oil and gas resources in the Duck Creek area subject to certain stipulations described in the ROD, and pertinent to the surface use of the NFS lands. Subsequent to this decision, the BLM offered the Federal lease for sale. Yates Petroleum purchased the lease in 1997. Pursuant to 43 CFR 3101.1-2 Surface Use Rights, the lessee has a right to develop the oil and gas resources on that lease area, subject to stipulations attached to the lease and other provisions as described.

The Medicine Bow National Forest and Thunder Basin National Grassland Land and Resource Management Plan of 1985, as amended by the April 22, 1994, Record of Decision for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Oil and Gas Leasing on the Thunder Basin National Grassland, provides stipulations for oil and gas leases, and standards and guidelines for oil and gas development on NFS lands. This proposal is consistent with the 1985 Land and Resource Management Plan.

The Thunder Basin National Grassland portion of the 1985 Plan is being revised through the Northern Great Plains Management Plan Revision process. The Final EIS and 2001 Revised Thunder Basin National Grassland Plan are completed. A record of decision is expected to be approved soon. This proposal is consistent with the 2001 Revised Thunder Basin National Grassland Plan and the preferred alternative in the Final EIS.

The Responsible Official will consider the results of the analysis and its findings and then document the final decision in a Record of Decision (ROD). The decision will include a determination of the terms, conditions, and mitigation measures under which the proponent may develop the oil and/or gas resources while also protecting the surface natural resources in the area and providing for public safety.

Rick Cables, Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, 740 Simms St., Golden, Colorado, 80401 is the official responsible for making the Forest Service decision on this action. He will document his decision and rationale in a Record of Decision.

Proposed construction/reconstruction of access roads to the proposed well location could alter the character of portions of the Creek Inventoried Roadless Area.

At this time, the Forest Service is seeking information, comments and other assistance from Federal, State and local agencies, and other individuals or organizations who have an interest in, or could be affected by the proposed action. The public is encouraged to take part in this process and to visit with Forest Service officials at any time during the analysis, and prior to the decision. While public comments are welcome at any time, comments received within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register will be most useful for the identification of issues and the analysis of alternatives. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to emoncrie@fs.fed.us. Written comments may be mailed to the Medicine Row—Routt National Forest Supervisors Office, 2468 Jackson Street, Laramie, Wyoming 82070-6535, attention Liz Moncrief. Please reference the Yates-Duck Creek O&G Well EIS on the subject line. The name and mailing address of the commenter should be provided with their comments so that future documents pertaining to this environmental analysis and the decision can be provided to interested parties.

The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public review during March 2002. At that time, the EPA will publish a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the draft EIS in the Federal Register. The comment period on the draft EIS will be for a period of not less than 45 days from the date the EPA publishes the NOA in the Federal Register. It is important that those interested in the management of this area to comment at that time. The final EIS is expected to be available in July 2002. In the final EIS, the Forest Service will respond to any comments received during the public comment period that pertain to the environmental analysis. Those comments and the Forest Service responses will be disclosed and discussed in the draft EIS, which will be considered when making the final decision about this proposal.

The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers an early notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of Draft Environmental Impact Statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised during the Draft Environmental Impact Statement stage, but are not raised until after completion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). As a result of these previous court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the Final Environmental Impact Statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns related to the proposed action, comments on this Draft Environmental Impact Statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft document. Comments may also address the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement or the merits of the alternatives displayed in the document. Reviewers should refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations at 40 CFR 1503.3 for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act for addressing these points. Please note that any comments that are submitted in relation to this DEIS will be considered as public information.

Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this Proposed Action and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those whose submit anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR parts 215 or 217. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that, under the FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding the request for confidentiality, and where the request is denied, the agency will return the submissions and notify the requester that the comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address within ten (10) days.

Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Review committee ground rules and goals; (2) review project evaluations and project list timetables; (3) review goals and objectives; (4) discuss public involvement strategies and the application process. 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.

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

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

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the information collection requirements pertaining to this Notice are approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and were assigned OMB control number 0570-0024.

The RBOG program is authorized under section 306 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (CONACT) (7 USC 1926(a)(11)). The Rural Development State Offices administer the RBOG program on behalf of RBS at the state level. The primary objective of the program is to improve the economic conditions of rural areas. Assistance provided to rural areas under this program may include technical assistance for business development and economic development planning.

A total of $2,100,000 of non-earmarked funds is available for the RBOG program for FY 2002. To ensure that a broad range of communities have the opportunity to benefit from the available funds, no grant will exceed $50,000, unless it is a multi-state project where funds may not exceed $150,000. Pursuant to the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 2002 (Pub. L. No. 107-76) a total of $3,000,000 has been earmarked for Native Americans, the Mississippi Delta area, and Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities, and Rural Economic Area Partnerships. There is no project dollar amount limitation on applications for earmarked funds. Awards are made on a competitive basis using specific selection criteria contained in 7 CFR part 4284, subpart G. 7 CFR part 4284, subpart G, also contains the information required to be in the application package. The State Director may assign up to 15 discretionary points to an application, and the Agency Administrator may assign up to 20 additional discretionary points based on geographic distribution of funds, special importance for implementation of a strategic plan in partnership with other organizations, or extraordinary potential for success due to superior project plans or qualifications of the grantee. The projects that score the greatest number of points based on the selection criteria and discretionary points will be selected. Applications will be tentatively scored by the State Offices and submitted to the National Office for review, final scoring, and selection.

The National Office will review the scores based on the grant selection criteria and weights contained in 7 CFR part 4284, subpart G. All applicants will be notified by RBS of the Agency decision on the awards.

AEPCO is proposing to install a 40 MW GE model LM6000 Sprint gas combustion turbine generation facility and modify the switchyard at their existing Apache Generating Station which is located at 3525 North Highway 191 South near Cochise, Arizona. Gas Turbine #4 will be configured to operate in the simple cycle mode. A new 100-foot tall stack will be required. Approximately 0.5 acres of the existing Apache Generation site will be needed for the proposed project. The existing plant infrastructure will be utilized for the new generation addition including gas lines, cooling water and transmission facilities.

Copies of the Environmental Assessment and FONSI are available at, or can be obtained from, RUS at the address provided herein, or from Ms. Teri McCaulou, AEPCO, 1000 South Highway 80, Benson, Arizona 85602, telephone: (520) 586-5122.

At the Board meeting, the Access Board will consider the following agenda items.

• Executive Director's report

• Approval of the minutes of the January 9, 2002 board meeting

• Technical Programs Committee: On-going research and technical assistance projects.

• Planning and Budget Committee: Budget spending plan for fiscal year 2002; fiscal year 2003; and out-of-town meetings.

• Nominating Committee: Review of the Nominating Committee charter.

• Ad Hoc Committee on Public Rights-of-Way

All meetings are accessible to persons with disabilities. Sign language interpreters and an assistive listening system are available at all meetings. Persons attending Board meetings are requested to refrain from using perfume, cologne, and other fragrances for the comfort of other participants.

On December 19, 2000, the Department of Commerce published a retraction of the amended final results of reviews for the respondent-company FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schaefer AG (FAG) with respect to the antidumping duty orders on antifriction bearings (other than tapered roller bearings) and parts thereof from Germany (see 65 FR 79341). The classes or kinds of merchandise covered by these reviews are ball bearings and parts thereof, cylindrical roller bearings and parts thereof, and spherical plain bearings and parts thereof. The period of review is May 1, 1993, through April 30, 1994. At the time of our December 19th notice, one matter, relating to the reviews of the orders on antifriction bearings and parts thereof from Germany, was pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Pursuant to the remand order from the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) in SKF USA Inc. v. United States , Consol. Court No. 97-01-00054-S, Slip Op. 01-86 (CIT July 16, 2001), the Department of Commerce prepared the final results of redetermination. In accordance with the CIT's instructions, we reconsidered our calculation of FAG's general and administrative expenses, and we recalculated FAG's margins accordingly. As there is now a final and conclusive court decision in this action, we are amending our final results of reviews in this matter, and we will subsequently instruct the Customs Service to liquidate entries subject to these reviews.

Pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act, we are now amending the final results of administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on antifriction bearings (other than tapered roller bearings) and parts thereof from Germany, for the period May 1, 1993, through April 30, 1994. The revised weighted-average margins are as follows:

Accordingly, the Department will determine and the Customs Service will assess appropriate antidumping duties on entries of the subject merchandise made by the firm covered by these reviews. Individual differences between United States price and foreign market value may vary from the percentages listed above. For the company covered by these amended results, the Department will issue appraisement instructions to the Customs Service after publication of these amended final results of reviews.

This notice is published pursuant to section 751(a) of the Tariff 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. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (“the Department”) regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (2000).

On July 11, 2001, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of its administrative review of helical spring lock washers (“HSLWs”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) ( Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers from the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 36251 (July 11, 2001) (“ Preliminary Results ”). We received surrogate value information from the petitioner, Shakeproof Assembly Components Division of Illinois Tool Works Inc. (“petitioner”), and the respondent, Hang Zhou Spring Washer Co., Ltd. also known as Zhejiang Wanxin Group Co., Ltd. (“Hangzhou”), on July 31, 2001. The petitioner and the respondent submitted case briefs and rebuttal briefs on August 10 and 15, 2001, respectively. The Department has now completed the antidumping duty administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

The products covered by this review are HSLWs of carbon steel, of carbon alloy steel, or of stainless steel, heat-treated or non-heat-treated, plated or non-plated, with ends that are off-line. HSLWs are designed to: (1) Function as a spring to compensate for developed looseness between the component parts of a fastened assembly; (2) distribute the load over a larger area for screws or bolts; and, (3) provide a hardened bearing surface. The scope does not include internal or external tooth washers, nor does it include spring lock washers made of other metals, such as copper.

HSLWs subject to this review are currently classifiable under subheading 7318.21.0030 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

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

We calculated export price and normal value based on the same methodology used in the Preliminary Results with the following exceptions:

1. We used values that were more contemporaneous with the POR for steam coal, lubricating oil, nitric acid, hydrofluoric acid, caustic soda-lye, caustic soda, sodium hydroxide, chromicacid, sodium nitrate, barium carbonate, sodium cyanide, potassium chromate, methalymine, potassium aluminum sulfate, adhesive tape, packing sheet, plastic bags, cartons, steel scrap, packing strips, nails, and zinc dust

2. We used an Indonesian import value for hydrochloric acid.

3. We revised the value for inland shipping, using a different source and data more contemporaneous with the POR. We corrected errors in our calculation of shipping distances.

4. We corrected an error in the sales database.

5. For labor, we used the regression-based wage rate for the PRC, revised September, 2001, in “Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries” located on the Internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/99wages/99wages/htm.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this proceeding are addressed in the February 15, 2002, Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Decision Memorandum”) which is hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this notice as an appendix is a list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded in the Decision Memorandum. 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 Department. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/list.htm. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

The weighted-average dumping margin for the period October 1, 1999 through September 30, 2000, is as follows:

Because the duty assessment rates for Hangzhou are zero or de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.5 percent), we will instruct the Customs Service to liquidate entries made during this review period without regard to antidumping duties for subject merchandise exported by Hangzhou. All other entries of the subject merchandise during the POR will be liquidated at the antidumping rate in place at the time of entry.

Furthermore, the following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of these final results for all shipments of HSLWs from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1) For Hangzhou, which has had a separate rate in the investigation and all reviews, no deposit will be required because the company had a de minimis rate in this review; (2) for all other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate, 128.63 percent, which is the All Other PRC Manufacturers, Producers and Exporters rate from the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers from the PRC, 58 FR 48833 (September 20, 1993); and, (3) for non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These deposit rates shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

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

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). 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 the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

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

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “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. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (“Department”) regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (2001).

On September 4, 1996, the Department issued the antidumping duty orders on LNPPs from Japan (61 FR 46621) and Germany (61 FR 46623). Pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218, the Department initiated sunset reviews of these orders by publishing a notice of the initiation in the Federal Register August 1, 2001 (66 FR 39731). In addition, as a courtesy to interested parties, the Department sent letters, via certified and registered mail, to each party listed on the Department's most current service list for this proceeding to inform them of the automatic initiation of sunset reviews of these orders.

On August 16, 2001, within the applicable deadline, the Department received notice of intent to participate from Goss Graphic Systems, Inc. (“Goss”), the only domestic interested party in the sunset proceedings. As such, the Department concluded that Goss provided an adequate response to participate in the sunset reviews on LNPPs from Japan and Germany. On August 31, 2001, Goss filed substantive responses with respect to LNPPs from Japan and Germany. In the sunset review on LNPPs from Japan, the Department did not receive any response from respondent interested parties; therefore, we determined to conduct an expedited sunset review. In the sunset review on LNPPs from Germany, the Department determined that domestic and respondent interested parties provided adequate response to conduct a full sunset review under section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act, and §§ 351.218(e)(1)(i) and 351.218(e)(1)(ii). However, over the course of these reviews significant questions were raised concerning Goss' claim as to whether it was actually a domestic manufacturer of the subject merchandise. Consequently, in order to investigate this issue more fully, on November 19, 2001, the Department aligned the sunset review on LNPPs from Japan with the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on LNPPs from Germany. See 66 FR 58713 (November 23, 2001). 1 On December 21, 2001, Goss withdrew its participation in these proceedings. We interpret Goss' withdrawal of participation as a withdrawal of interest. Because Goss (the only domestic interested party in the sunset proceeding) withdrew its interest in these reviews, the Department has determined to treat this situation as if no domestic interested party responded to the notice of initiation of these sunset reviews. Therefore, we are not publishing preliminary determinations and are hereby revoking the antidumping duty orders on LNPPs from Japan and Germany.

Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(3), if no domestic interested party responds to the notice of initiation, the Department shall issue a final determination, within 90 days after the initiation of the review, revoking the order. 2 Because the only domestic interested party withdrew its interest in both proceedings ( see 351.218(d)(1)(i) and 351.218(e)(1)(i)(C)(1) of the Sunset Regulations ), consistent with the provision of section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act, we are revoking these antidumping duty orders.

In accordance with sections 751(c)(3)(A) and 751(d)(2) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the Department will instruct the Customs Service to terminate the suspension of liquidation of the merchandise subject to the orders entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after September 4, 2001. The instructions for entries of LNPPs from Germany will not be issued until either the conclusion of the ongoing litigation with respect to the final determination of the Department's less-than-fair value investigation of LNPPs from Germany, pursuant to which entries have been enjoined from liquidation, or the injunction has been lifted or amended. ( See Koenig & Bauer Albert v. United States, Fed. Cir. Court No. 00-1387 (CIT 96-10-02298).) This injunction does not cover entries of subject merchandise from Japan. Entries of subject merchandise prior to the effective date of revocation will continue to be subject to suspension of liquidation and antidumping duty deposit requirements. The Department will complete any pending administrative reviews of these orders and will conduct administrative reviews of subject merchandise entered prior to the effective date of revocation in response to appropriately filed requests for review.

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

On January 30, 2002, the petitioner, Columbian Home Products, LLC (“Columbian”), requested that the Department revoke the antidumping duty order on porcelain-on-steel cookware from Mexico as of December 1, 1995, stating that it no longer has an interest in maintaining this order. Columbian is a domestic interested party and is the successor company to the petitioner in the less-than-fair-value investigation. Columbian stated that it is the only U.S. producer of porcelain-on-steel cookware, and therefore, it accounts for “substantially all of the production of the domestic like product,” within the meaning of section 782(h)(2) of the Act.

The products covered by this order are porcelain-on-steel cookware, including tea kettles, which do not have self-contained electric heating elements. All of the foregoing are constructed of steel and are enameled or glazed with vitreous glasses. This merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheading 7323.94.00. Kitchenware currently classifiable under HTSUS subheading 7323.94.00.30 is not subject to the order. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Pursuant to section 751(d)(1) of the Act, the Department may revoke, in whole or in part, an antidumping duty order based on a review under section 751(b) of the Act (i.e., a changed-circumstances review). The Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.216(d) require the Department to conduct a changed-circumstances review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221 if it decides that changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review exist. Section 782(h)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(g)(1)(i) provide that the Department may revoke an order (in whole or in part) if it determines that producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product have no further interest in the order. In addition, in the event that the Department concludes that expedited action is warranted, 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3) permits the Department to combine the notices of initiation and preliminary results.

The petitioner is a domestic interested party as defined by section 771(9)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b). Columbian is the only U.S. producer of porcelain-on-steel cookware and therefore represents at least 85 percent of the domestic production of the domestic like product to which this order pertains, and thus accounts for “substantially all” of the production of the domestic like product. Therefore, based on the lack of interest by the domestic industry in the continued application of the antidumping duty order on porcelain-on-steel cookware from Mexico, we are initiating this changed-circumstances review. Because of the on-going and pending administrative reviews, we have determined that expedited action is warranted, and we are combining the notices of initiation and preliminary results. We have preliminarily determined that the petitioner's statement of no interest in the continuation of the order constitutes changed circumstances sufficient to warrant revocation of the order in whole. We are hereby notifying the public of our intent to revoke the antidumping duty order on porcelain-on-steel cookware from Mexico as of December 1, 1995.

If these preliminary results become final, we intend to rescind the current antidumping duty administrative reviews, covering the periods December 1, 1999 through November 30, 2000, and December 1, 2000 through November 30, 2001.

If final revocation of the order occurs, we intend to instruct the Customs Service to discontinue the suspension of liquidation and to refund any estimated antidumping duties collected for all unliquidated entries of porcelain-on-steel cookware from Mexico entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after December 1, 1995. We will also instruct the Customs Service to pay interest on any refunds with respect to the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after December 1, 1995, in accordance with section 778 of the Act. The current requirement for a cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties will continue until publication of the final results of this changed-circumstances review.

Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Any interested party may request a hearing within 10 days of the date of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held no later than 21 days after the date of publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter. Case briefs may be submitted by interested parties not later than 7 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 12 days after the date of publication of this notice. All written comments shall be submitted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303 and shall be served on all interested parties on the Department's service list in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303. Persons interested in attending the hearing should contact the Department for the date and time of the hearing. The Department will publish the final results of this changed-circumstances review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written comments.

We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222.

On August 20, 2001, in response to requests from the respondent and petitioners, we published a notice of initiation of this administrative review in the Federal Register. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 66 FR 43570. Pursuant to the time limits for administrative reviews set forth in section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the current deadlines are April 2, 2002 for the preliminary results and July 31, 2002 for the final results. It is not practicable to complete this review within the normal statutory time limit due to a number of significant case issues, such as major inputs purchased from affiliated and unaffiliated suppliers and the use of downstream sales. Therefore, the Department is extending the time limits for completion of the preliminary results until July 31, 2002 in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. The deadline for the final results of this review will continue to be 120 days after publication of the preliminary results.

This extension is in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

8:30 a.m.--Convene.

8:45 a.m.-- 12 noon--Receive public testimony on Draft Shrimp Amendment 10/Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review (EA/RIR), the Red Grouper Amendment, total allowable catch (TAC) recommendations for gag grouper, a greater amberjack rebuilding program, and a coastal migratory pelagic (CMP) status determination criteria. Although the Council will hear public testimony on the Red Grouper Amendment, final action will not be taken until the July 8-12, 2002 Council meeting in Sarasota, FL.

1:30 p.m.- 5:30 p.m.--Continue public testimony if necessary.

8:30 a.m.-- 9:30 a.m.--Receive a report of the Shrimp Management Committee.

9:30 a.m.- 5:00 p.m.--Receive the report of the Reef Fish Management Committee.

8:30 a.m. - 9 a.m.--Receive a report of the Personnel Committee.

9 a.m. - 9:30 a.m--Receive a report of the Mackerel Management Committee.

9:30 a.m. - 9:45 a.m.--Receive a report of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas Advisory Committee.

9:45 a.m. - 10 a.m.--Receive a report of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council Liaison.

10 a.m. - 10:15 a.m.--Receive Enforcement Reports.

10:15 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.--Receive the NMFS Regional Administrator’s Report.

10:30 a.m. - 11 a.m.--Receive Director’s Reports.

11 a.m. - 11:15 a.m.--Other Business.

10:30 a.m. - 12 noon--Convene the Mackerel Management Committee to develop recommendations for mackerel and cobia status determination criteria. The full Council will consider these recommendations on Friday morning.

1:30 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.--Convene the Shrimp Management Committee to hear a staff presentation on a revised Draft Shrimp Amendment 10/EA/RIR and develop recommendations for final action by the full Council on Thursday morning.

4:30 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.--(CLOSED SESSION) Briefing on litigation.

8:30 a.m. - 12 noon--Convene the Reef Fish Management Committee to review a draft Red Grouper Amendment containing alternatives for rebuilding of the red grouper stock. The committee will also discuss TAC recommendations for gag, and a greater amberjack rebuilding program. The full Council will consider these recommendations on Thursday.

1:30 p.m. - 5 p.m.--Continue the Reef Fish Management Committee.

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

A copy of the Committee schedule and agenda can be obtained by calling (813) 228-2815.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Anne Alford at the Council (see ADDRESSES ) by March 4, 2002.

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:

Endangered Shortnose Sturgeon ( Acipenser brevirostrum )

The applicant requests a modification to Permit 1189. Permit 1189 authorizes the capture of up to 300 juvenile shortnose sturgeon by gill net and trot line. Up to 20 of these may be surgically implanted with radio/sonic tags. Modification #3 would also allow the use of trawling for the purpose of capturing shortnose sturgeon less than 8 years old.

The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq .), and the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216).

A notice of receipt of this application was published on November 30, 2001 (66 FR 59781). The comment period closed on December 31, 2001. Based on substantive comments received during the initial comment period, NMFS requested additional information from the applicant. On February 12, 2002, the applicant submitted additional information in support of their application. This action, reopening of the comment period, will allow all interested parties to review the new information and provide NMFS with any additional comments regarding this application. In reopening this comment period NMFS finds that a public hearing is not warranted because NMFS has determined that the issues raised by the comments can be clarified in writing. However, NMFS is providing through this action an opportunity for additional written comments or requests.

Respondents will be separated and retired Community College of the Air Force graduates. Approximately 2,000 Community College of the Air Force graduates will be surveyed biennially to determine the effectiveness of the institution and the usefulness of the Community College of the Air Force degree in the civilian sector. A notification letter will be mailed directly to respondents' home addresses inviting them to complete the Alumni Survey on the Community College of the Air Force's Internet homepage. The survey will take about 20 minutes to complete, and we expect to have about 400 responses. Survey results will be compiled and evaluated at the Community College of the Air Force Administrative Center at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. While results will be used primarily in-house to make program improvements, findings may be publicized in the Air Force and civilian education communities.

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

Type of Review: New.

Title: Application for State Grants for Reading First.

Abstract: This application will be used to award grants to State educational agencies to improve K-3 reading instruction and student achievement through the application of scientifically based reading research, and the proven instructional and assessment tools consistent with this research.

Additional Information: The Department of Education is requesting emergency processing for the Reading First Application by March 18 due to an unanticipated event and possibly causing public harm. The late passage and signing of this legislation leaves the Department with no choice but to request an emergency collection if it is to meet the goal of awarding grant funds to states with approved applications on July 1. If normal processing were to be followed, States would not have sufficient time to prepare high quality applications and make revisions as necessary before July 1, 2002, and funds would not be received in time.

Frequency: Other: Grants awarded for a period of six years; SEAs not required to reapply until that period ends.

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

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden: Responses: 57; Burden Hours: 3,306.

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

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements, contact Kathy Axt at (540) 776-7742 or via her internet address Kathy.Axt@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.

The DOE Office of Industrial Technologies does not fund product development R&D. Applications submitted in response to this solicitation will only be funded if the proposed research and development addresses improving the energy efficiency of mineral processing technologies. Applications for literature reviews only will not be considered. Additionally, applications offering emissions or waste disposal, remediation, or treatment as a primary focus are not eligible for funding under this solicitation. This limitation does not include applications that target materials recycling or by-product utilization as their primary focus.

The U. S. Congress looks to the Department of Energy (DOE) to work toward improving the energy efficiency of America's most energy-intensive industries with special interest on industrial processing. DOE, through its Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT), supports industries in their efforts to increase energy efficiency, reduce waste, and increase productivity. The goal of OIT is to accelerate the development and use of advanced, energy efficient, renewable, and pollution prevention technologies that benefit industry, the environment, and U.S. energy security. OIT's core program is the Industries of the Future (IOF) Program that focuses on basic materials and processing industries such as the Mining Industry. In June 1998, the National Mining Association (NMA) and the Secretary of Energy signed a Compact pledging to work together through research and development partnerships. The objective of Solicitation No. DE-PS26-02NT41450 is another step in continuing to support this pledge by funding research and development projects which address research needs described in the Mineral Processing Technology Roadmap. The three key industry-identified areas, as presented in the Mineral Processing Technology Roadmap and which form the bases for the areas of interest under this solicitation, are: Mineral preparation, physical separations, and chemical separations. Additional background information is provided in the National Mining Association's Report, “The Future Begins with Mining, A Vision of the Mining Industry of the Future (Sept. 1998)”, which can be accessed at: http://www.oit.doe.gov/mining/pdfs/vision.pdf . No fiscal year 2002 (FY02) funds are available for this solicitation; selection and negotiation of successful offers leading to award of cost-shared financial assistance cooperative agreements is subject to availability of funding in FY03 and beyond. An estimated $3.9 million in DOE funds is planned for this initiative as follows: approximately $1.3 million in FY03; $1.4 million in FY04; and $1.2 million in FY05. Selection of successful offers are expected to be made on or before January 1, 2003, subject to availability of funding, with completion of negotiations and issuance of awards anticipated to occur within a reasonable timeframe thereafter. Multiple (three to ten) awards are contemplated.

A minimum fifty percent (50%) cost-share is required, i.e., if the total proposed project cost is estimated as $2 million, the government's share would be no more than $1 million and the recipient's share would be no less than $1 million.

Any for-profit or non-profit organization, university or other institution of higher education, or non-federal agency or entity is eligible to apply, unless otherwise restricted by the Simpson-Craig amendment. Applicants for financial assistance under this solicitation are subject to the eligibility requirements of section 2306 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct), Foreign Company Participation. EPAct provides further guidelines for companies who apply for financial assistance herein where the company's participation is to be in the economic interest of the U.S. and the company must either be U.S.-owned or incorporated in the U.S. with its parent company incorporated in a country that provides similar protections and privileges under U.S. law. Applications submitted by or on behalf of (1) Another Federal agency, a Federally-funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) or (3) a DOE Management and Operating (M&O) contractor will not be eligible for award under this solicitation. However, these organizations may be proposed as team members subject to the guidelines provided in the solicitation. Applicants must include at least two (2) mining companies as members of the multi-disciplinary team. Multi-partner collaborations are encouraged.

Once released, the solicitation will be available for downloading from the Industry Interactive Procurement System (IIPS) Internet page ( http://e-center.doe.gov ). You must register with IIPS, to enable you to submit an application. If you need technical assistance in registering, or for any other IIPS function, call the IIPS Help Desk at (800) 683-0751 or E-mail the Help Desk personnel at IIPS_HelpDesk@e-center.doe.gov (do not contact the Contract Specialist). The solicitation will only be made available through IIPS, no hard (paper) copies of the solicitation and related documents will be distributed.

Prospective applicants who would like to be notified as soon as the solicitation is available should subscribe to the Business Alert Mailing List at http://www.netl.doe.gov/business . Once you subscribe, you will receive an announcement by E-mail that the solicitation has been released to the public. Telephone requests, written requests, e-mail requests, or facsimile requests for a copy of the solicitation package will not be accepted and/or honored. Applications must be prepared and submitted in accordance with the instructions and forms referenced in the solicitation. The actual solicitation document will allow for requests for explanation and/or interpretation.

The Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-275, 15 U.S.C. 761 et seq. ) and the DOE Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91, 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq. ) require the EIA to carry out a centralized, comprehensive, and unified energy information program. This program collects, evaluates, assembles, analyzes, and disseminates information on energy resource reserves, production, demand, technology, and related economic and statistical information. This information is used to assess the adequacy of energy resources to meet near and longer-term domestic demands.

The EIA, as part of its effort to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), provides the general public and other Federal agencies with opportunities to comment on collections of energy information conducted by or in conjunction with the EIA. Any comments received help the EIA to prepare data requests that maximize the utility of the information collected, and to assess the impact of collection requirements on the public. Also, the EIA will later seek approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under section 3507(h)(1) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

The natural gas surveys included in the Natural Gas Data Collection Program Package collect information on natural gas production, underground storage, transmission, distribution, consumption by sector, and wellhead and consumer prices. This information is used to support public policy analyses of the natural gas industry and is posted to the EIA Web site ( www.eia.doe.gov ) in various EIA products, including the Natural Gas Weekly Update, Natural Gas Monthly, Natural Gas Annual, Monthly Energy Review, and Annual Energy Review. Respondents to natural gas surveys include State agencies, underground storage operators, transporters, marketers, and distributors. The forms are discussed in detail below.

The Form EIA-176 provides EIA with the major elements of information required in conjunction with data collected in other EIA surveys to develop annual gas supply and disposition balances and relevant cost, price, and related information at the State level.

The information collected on the Form EIA-176 is needed and used for the following purposes:

(1) To develop and make available to Congress, the States, and the public an accurate quantified overview of the supply of natural and supplemental gas available to each of the States from all sources both internal and external to the State, and the manner in which such supply was utilized or otherwise disposed of,

(2) To determine the quantity of natural and supplemental gas consumed within each of the States by market sector, the average sales prices for such gas, and the changes in consumption and price patterns over time, and

(3) For dissemination in various EIA data products including the Natural Gas Annual (NGA), Natural Gas Monthly (NGM), Annual Energy Review (AER), Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO), Winter Fuels Report , and Monthly Energy Review (MER) , which are widely used by both public and private organizations and individuals.

Form EIA-191 requests monthly data on the location, capacity, and operations of all active underground natural gas storage fields. Storage data are a critical link in understanding the deliverability of the natural gas system of the United States and overall system operations.

The information collected on Form EIA-191 will be used in the following ways:

(1) To provide State-level data on underground natural gas storage with respect to injections, withdrawals, inventories, type of storage facility, location, and capacity. These data will be made available to EIA's NGM, NGA, MER, and AER. Monthly data collection also provides reliable baseline data on storage operations necessary for analyses, modeling, and comparison with normal industry operations in cases of severe weather, natural disaster, or other extreme circumstances,

(2) To provide data on underground natural gas storage inventories for EIA's AEO and STEO , and

(3) To provide data on all aspects of underground natural gas storage to enable EIA and other elements of DOE to identify and assess the supplies of gas in storage by geographic location.

Monthly State-level data collected on the Form EIA-857 consist of average price of natural gas purchased by local distribution companies at their city gates, consumption of natural gas by sector, and average sales price by sector. These data are necessary to provide timely information needed to measure the combined impact of government, industry, and consumer actions; geographic location; climatic conditions; and other factors on the natural gas industry and natural gas consumers.

The data collected on the Form EIA-857 are used to develop information for publication in EIA's STEO, NGM, Winter Fuels Report, and MER, and to make the data available to Congress, State governments, industry, and the public.

Form EIA-895 collects monthly information from the appropriate State agencies concerning natural gas production. It provides details on gross withdrawals from gas and oil wells and from coalbed methane wells, volumes vented and flared, volumes of nonhydrocarbon gases removed, gas used as fuel on leases, and the amount of natural gas available for market. These data are routinely collected by the States for taxation, conservation, or statistical purposes. The aggregate data are published in the NGM, NGA, MER, Winter Fuels Report, and AER.

Form EIA-910 collects monthly information for developing accurate estimates of State-level prices paid by residential and commercial consumers of natural gas. Data from the EIA-910 are combined with data from other EIA natural gas surveys to produce more complete and accurate price estimates than are currently available from data based on the EIA-857. The data are incorporated into EIA's monthly publications, used by modelers and analysts, and used to answer questions from policymakers, Congress, and the general public.

EIA has developed a survey instrument and report format to provide a weekly data series on underground storage of natural gas similar to that currently published by the American Gas Association. AGA has announced that it will discontinue its data collection by May 1, 2002. The EIA-912 data collection responds to requests to provide weekly measures of natural gas underground storage operations. EIA has received emergency clearance for the operation of the new series and will release data from the survey on May 9, 2002. However, EIA must obtain a standard (3-year) clearance for the survey and will include a request for a standard (non-emergency) clearance in its Natural Gas Data Collection Program Package to be sent to OMB for approval in September 2002.

EIA will use the data to prepare analytical products assessing storage operations in the three AGA regions and their impact on supplies available for the winter heating season and in more detailed analyses correlating demand, heating-degree-days, and prior inventory levels. Such correlations will help EIA to understand the impact of storage operations on natural gas supply and demand.

EIA will be requesting a three-year extension of the collection authority for each of the above-referenced surveys. In addition, EIA proposes the changes outlined below that affect the EIA-176, EIA-191, EIA-857, and EIA-895. The request for extension of collection authority will include two surveys, Forms EIA-910 and EIA-912 cited above, which received approvals for implementation in separate clearance requests to OMB.

EIA is proposing significant revisions to the Form EIA-176. Those revisions included elimination of the “Company Activities” and “Continuations” sections of the Form. Numerous line items have been eliminated or combined to simplify reporting requirements and reduce respondent burden. One new reporting item has been added. The line item will collect volume of liquefied natural gas (LNG) in inventory as of December 31 of the report year. The Form has also been extensively reformatted and the instructions have been simplified and reviewed for increased clarity.

The Form EIA-191 has been reformatted and several data elements have been eliminated in order to reduce respondent burden. The instructions have been reviewed and edited to provide greater clarity and simplicity.

No significant changes are proposed for the Form EIA-857, although EIA did add items on total gas deliveries for reporting in 2002, and is interested in receiving comments about that revision. The instructions have been redrafted to provide simplicity and clarity.

EIA is adding the word “Production” to the survey title for clarity. The proposed Form EIA-895 will include an additional category for reporting monthly production of natural gas from coalbed wells.

EIA is requesting extended clearance of the currently approved EIA-910 in order to align the expiration dates for all forms in the Natural Gas Data Collection Program Package. No changes are proposed for either the survey form or instructions. EIA is requesting comments on whether the sample population (currently five States) covered by the EIA-910 should be expanded.

The EIA-912 was recently approved to operate for six months under an emergency clearance under section 3507(j)(1) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. EIA will request further clearance to conduct the survey until the end of 2002. In this collection request, EIA will ask for approval to conduct the survey for three years beginning January 2003. The emergency clearances and continued approval are intended to continue the weekly data series (produced by the American Gas Association until May 2002) without interruption. Including the EIA-912 in the Fall 2002 clearance proposal will keep all Forms in the Natural Gas Data Collection Program Package on the same schedule. EIA is also requesting comments on the timing of dissemination of the information collected on Form EIA-912. Copies of the draft forms and instructions are available on the EIA Web site http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/fwd/proposed.html.

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

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

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

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

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

C. Public reporting burden for the surveys included in the Natural Gas Data Collection Program Package is shown below as an average hour(s) per response. The estimated burden includes the total time necessary to provide the requested information. In your opinion, how accurate is this estimate for the proposed forms?

(1) Form EIA-176, “Annual Report of Natural and Supplemental Gas Supply and Disposition”; 12 hours per response.

(2) Form EIA-191, “Monthly Underground Gas Storage Report”; 3.6 hours per response.

(3) Form EIA-857, “Monthly Report of Natural Gas Purchases and Deliveries to Consumers”; 3.5 hours per response.

(4) Form EIA-895, “Monthly Quantity and Value of Natural Gas Production Report”; .5 hour per response.

(5) Form EIA-910, “Monthly Natural Gas Marketer Survey”; 2 hours per response.

(6) Form EIA-912, “Weekly Underground Natural Gas Storage Report”; .5 hour per response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Clean Air Act requires EPA to take action to approve or disapprove a State implementation plan revision within 12 months of a determination by the Administrator that such revision is complete. See section 110(k)(1)-(4), 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(1)-(4). In 1997, the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) submitted to EPA the PM-10 Attainment Demonstration Plan (“1997 Plan”) for the SJV as a proposed revision to the California State Implementation Plan (“SIP”). This SIP revision was deemed complete by operation of law in 1998 pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(1)(B). The proposed consent decree provides that the Administrator or her delegatee shall sign no later than March 1, 2002, a notice for publication in the Federal Register proposing action on the 1997 Plan and shall sign no later than August 16, 2002 a notice for publication in the Federal Register taking final action pursuant to section 110(k) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7410(k).

From 1993 through 1998, CARB also submitted six rules adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Control District for the control of PM-10 and NO X in the SJV and EPA found them to be complete pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(1)(B) as follows: Rules 4201 (1992), 4901 (1994), 4351 (1996), 4305 (1997), 4701 (1998) and 4703 (1998). EPA has proposed action on these rules pursuant to section 110(k) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7410(k). The proposed consent decree provides that the Administrator or her delegatee shall sign no later than January 15, 2002, a notice or notices for publication in the Federal Register taking final action on Rules 4901, 4351, 4305, 4701 and 4703 and shall sign such a notice taking final action on Rule 4201 no later than April 7, 2002. The Administrator signed notices by January 15, 2002, taking final action on Rules 4901, 4351, 4305, 4701 and 4703.

For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will receive written comments relating to the proposed consent decree from persons who were not named as parties to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withhold or withdraw consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments disclose facts or circumstances that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines, following the comment period, that consent is inappropriate, the final consent decree will then be executed by the parties.

Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and §3.25(f) of the Commission's rules of practice, 16 CFR 3.25(f), notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for February 19, 2002), on the World Wide Web, at “ http://www.ftc.gov/os/2002/02/index.htm .” A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room 130-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-2222.

Public comments are invited, and may be filed with the Commission in either paper or electronic form. Comments filed in paper form should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, Room 159-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. If a comment contains nonpublic information, it must be filed in paper form, and the first page of the document must be clearly labeled “confidential.” Comments that do not contain any nonpublic information may instead be filed in electronic form (in ASCII format, WordPerfect, or Microsoft Word) as part of or as an attachment to e-mail messages directed to the following e-mail box: consentagreement@ftc.gov. Such comments will be considered by the Commission and will be available for inspection and copying at its principal office in accordance with §4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission's rules of practice, 16 CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)).

The Federal Trade Commission has accepted for public comment an agreement and proposed consent order with American Home Products Corporation. The proposed consent order would settle charges that AHP unlawfully agreed with Schering-Plough Corporation to delay selling its generic version of Schering's K-Dur 20, in exchange for payments from Schering. The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for 30 days to receive comments by interested persons. The proposed consent order has been entered into for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by AHP that it violated the law or that the facts alleged in the complaint, other than the jurisdictional facts, are true. In July 2001, AHP advised its customers that it intends to phase out its oral generic drug product line.

Schering develops and markets brand name and generic drugs, as well as over-the-counter health care and animal care products. Schering manufactures and markets an extended-release micro-encapsulated potassium chloride product, K-Dur 20. K-Dur 20, marketed as a brand name drug, has sales over $200 million per year. K-Dur 20 is used to treat patients who suffer from insufficient levels of potassium, a condition that can lead to serious cardiac problems.

AHP develops and markets brand name and generic drugs, as well as over-the-counter medications. ESI Lederle, Incorporated, a division of AHP, received tentative approval from the Food and Drug Administration in May 1999 for a generic version of Schering's K-Dur 20.

Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. develops and markets brand name and generic drugs. Upsher-Smith received final approval from the Food and Drug Administration in November 1998 for a generic version of Schering's K-Dur 20.

Generic drugs are chemically identical to their branded counterparts, but typically are sold at substantial discounts from the branded price. A Congressional Budget Office Report estimates that purchasers saved an estimated $8-10 billion on prescriptions at retail pharmacies in 1994 by purchasing generic drugs instead of the brand name product.  1

The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as “the Hatch-Waxman Act,” establishes certain rights and procedures in situations where a company, such as AHP or Upsher, seeks FDA approval to market a generic product prior to the expiration of a patent or patents relating to a brand name drug upon which the generic is based. In such cases, the applicant must: (1) Certify to the FDA that the patent in question is invalid or is not infringed by the generic product (known as a “paragraph IV certification”); and (2) notify the patent holder of the filing of the certification. If the holder of patent rights files a patent infringement suit within 45 days of the notification, FDA approval to market the generic drug is automatically stayed for 30 months, unless before that time the patent expires or is judicially determined to be invalid or not infringed. This automatic 30-month stay allows the patent holder time to seek judicial protection of its patent rights before a generic competitor is permitted to market its product.

In addition, the Hatch-Waxman Act provides an incentive for generic drug companies to bear the cost of patent litigation that may arise when they challenge invalid patents or design around valid ones. The Act, as currently interpreted, grants the first company to file an ANDA in such cases a 180-day period during which it has the exclusive right to market a generic version of the brand name drug. No other generic manufacturer may obtain FDA approval to market its product until the first filer's 180-day exclusivity period has expired.

Upsher-Smith was the first company to file an ANDA for a generic version of Schering's K-Dur 20. Upsher-Smith filed a paragraph IV certification with the FDA, stating that its product did not infringe any valid patent held by Schering covering K-Dur 20. In 1995, Schering sued Upsher-Smith for patent infringement. The complaint alleges that at all times relevant herein, FDA final approval of an ANDA for a generic version of K-Dur 20 for anyone other than Upsher-Smith was blocked. Pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, Upsher-Smith was eligible for the right to a 180-day Exclusivity Period for the sale of a generic version of K-Dur 20. The complaint further alleges that as a result, no company could obtain final FDA approval of an ANDA to market or sell a generic version of K-Dur 20 until 180 days after Upsher-Smith first sold its product, or until Upsher-Smith's exclusivity right is relinquished, forfeited or otherwise expired.

ESI was the second company to file an ANDA for K-Dur 20. ESI also filed a paragraph IV certification with the FDA stating that its product did not infringe any valid patent held by Schering covering K-Dur 20. In 1996, Schering sued ESI for patent infringement.

The complaint challenges unlawful agreements between Schering and Upsher-Smith and among Schering, AHP and ESI to delay the entry of low-cost generic competition to Schering's highly profitable prescription drug K-Dur 20. According to the complaint, when confronted with the prospect of competition to K-Dur 20 through generic entry by Upsher-Smith and ESI, Schering entered into these agreements that kept Upsher, ESI and all other potential generic competitors out of the market. The complaint alleges that the Upsher-Smith/Schering agreement delayed the start of Upsher-Smith's 180-day Exclusivity Period until September 2001 and, as a result, the entry of competition from other generic manufacturers until March 2002.

With respect to AHP and ESI, the complaint alleges that in January 1998, Schering, AHP, and ESI reached an agreement to settle their patent litigation. Pursuant to that agreement: Schering agreed to pay ESI up to $30 million; AHP and ESI agreed to refrain from marketing the allegedly infringing generic version of K-Dur 20 or any other generic version of K-Dur 20, regardless of whether such product would infringe Schering's patents, until January 2004; AHP and ESI agreed to refrain from marketing more than one generic version of K-Dur 20 between January 2004 and September 2006, when the K-Dur 20 patent will expire; and AHP and ESI agreed not to conduct, sponsor, file or support a study of the bio-equivalence of any product to K-Dur 20 prior to September 2006. Schering agreed to pay ESI $5 million up front; an additional $10 million if ESI could demonstrate that its generic version of K-Dur 20 was able to be approved by the FDA under an ANDA on or before June 30, 1999; and another $15 million for licenses to two generic products that ESI was developing.

The complaint further alleges that the patent litigation between Schering and ESI was dismissed. Schering has paid ESI over $20 million and continues to make payments under the terms of their agreement. Schering has made no sales to date of the two products it licensed from ESI.

Generic drugs can have a swift marketplace impact, because pharmacists generally are permitted, and in some instances are required, to substitute lower-priced generic drugs for their branded counterparts, unless the prescribing physician directs otherwise. In addition, there is a ready market for generic products because certain third-party payers of prescription drugs (e.g., state Medicaid programs and many private health plans) encourage or insist on the use of generic drugs wherever possible.

The complaint charges that the challenged agreement among Schering, AHP and ESI injured competition by preventing or discouraging the entry of generic K-Dur 20. The complaint also alleges that by making cash payments to ESI, Schering induced it to agree to delay launching its generic version of K-Dur 20. According to the complaint, absent those payments, ESI would not have agreed to delay its entry for so long. The complaint charges that by making cash payments to ESI, Schering protected itself from competition from ESI until 2004. The complaint also alleges that without lower-priced generic competition from Upsher-Smith and ESI, consumers, pharmacies, hospitals, insurers, wholesalers, government agencies, managed care organizations, and others are forced to purchase Schering's more expensive K-Dur 20 product.

The proposed order is designed to remedy the unlawful conduct charged against AHP in the complaint and prevent recurrence of such conduct. As described more fully below, the proposed order would essentially prohibit two categories of conduct:

• Agreements in which the NDA holder makes payments to an ANDA filer and the ANDA filer agrees not to market its product for some period of time (except in certain limited circumstances) (Paragraph II deals with agreements that resolve a patent infringement dispute and Paragraph IV covers “interim” agreements that apply during the pendency of ongoing patent litigation); and

• Agreements between the NDA holder and an ANDA filer in which the generic competitor agrees not to enter the market with a non-infringing generic product (Paragraph III).

The proposed order would apply to AHP whether it is acting as potential generic competitor (an ANDA filer) or as a branded drug seller (an NDA holder). As noted above, AHP has advised its customers that it intends to phase out its oral generic pharmaceutical product line. It will continue to develop, manufacture, and market brand name drugs and injectable generic drugs. Notwithstanding AHP's plans to phase out its oral generic products—the line of business that includes its generic version of K-Dur 20—an order is appropriate here to prevent a recurrent violation.

Paragraph II of the order covers agreements to resolve patent infringement disputes. It bars agreements wherein (1) The NDA holder makes payments or otherwise transfers something of value to the ANDA filer and (2) the ANDA filer agrees not to market its product for some period of time, except under certain limited circumstances described below. The ban in Paragraph II includes not only settlements of ongoing patent infringement litigation, but also agreements resolving claims of patent infringement that have not resulted in a lawsuit (see Paragraph I.O.). In addition, by virtue of the definition of “Agreement” in Paragraph I.D., the order makes it clear that the prohibition on payments for delayed generic entry would cover such arrangements even if they are achieved through separate agreements (for example, where one agreement resolves the patent infringement dispute and another provides for the payment for delayed entry).

The order prohibits not merely cash payments to induce delayed entry, but, more broadly, agreements in which the NDA holder provides something of value to the potential generic entrant, and the ANDA filer agrees in some fashion not to sell its product. Although all of the pharmaceutical agreements that the Commission has challenged to date have involved cash payments, a company could easily evade a prohibition on such agreements by substituting other things of value for cash payments. Thus, to protect against a recurrent violation, the order is not limited to cash payments.

The proposed order distinguishes between the first ANDA filer (the party eligible for the 180-day market exclusivity period under the Hatch-Waxman Act) and later filers. It bars giving “anything of value” to the first ANDA filer, but would permit NDA holders to grant other ANDA filers a delayed license to manufacture the ANDA product. The proposed order makes this distinction because an agreement by a later filer to refrain from entering does not block entry by other potential competitors. Where the only value granted by the NDA holder is the license to sell the ANDA product, there is no payment to distort the generic's incentive to seek the earliest possible entry date. In the case of the first ANDA filer, however, any agreement with an NDA holder that involves a promise by the generic firm not to enter the market risks blocking entry by other potential generic competitors, and therefore such agreements are subject to the general prohibition of Paragraph II of the proposed order.

As noted above, the proposed order would create a limited exception to Paragraph II's ban on giving value for delayed entry. This exception addresses the possibility that there might be some agreements that fall within the terms of the prohibition in Paragraph II that the Commission would not wish to prohibit. For example, as was previously discussed, the proposed order would ban not only agreements involving cash payments of the type that the Commission has challenged to date, but also the giving of other things of value. It is possible, however, that the giving of some non-cash items in a settlement that did not provide for immediate entry by the ANDA filer could promote competition. Thus, the order includes a mechanism that would permit consideration of such arrangements.

The exception that has been crafted in this matter could arise only in situations where Respondent AHP presents the agreement to a court in connection with a joint stipulation for a permanent injunction. In that circumstance, Paragraph II will not bar an otherwise prohibited agreement, if the following conditions are met:

• First, Respondent must follow certain procedures designed to provide notice and information both to the Commission and the court: (1) Along with the joint stipulation for permanent injunction and the proposed agreement, Respondent must provide the court with a copy of the Commission's complaint, order, and the Analysis to Aid Public Comment in this matter; (2) at least 30 days before submitting the stipulation to the court, Respondent must provide written notice (as set forth in Paragraph V of the order) to the Commission; and (3) Respondent may not oppose Commission participation in the court's consideration of the request for permanent injunction; and

• Second, either: (1) The court issues a permanent injunction and the parties' agreement conforms to the court's permanent injunction order; or (2) the Commission determines that the agreement does not raise issues under section 5 of the FTC Act.

The proviso to Paragraph II also makes it clear that the order would not prevent Respondent AHP from unilaterally seeking relief from the court. The proviso sets forth conditions under which AHP could seek to avoid, though court action, the bar on agreements that is set forth in the core prohibition of Paragraph II of the proposed order. These conditions would not affect AHP's ability to take action that did not involve an agreement otherwise prohibited in Paragraph II.

The Commission recognizes that, outside of the class action context, final settlements between private litigants ordinarily are not scrutinized by courts. Unlike the case of a court-ordered preliminary injunction based on a stipulation of the parties (the situation addressed in Paragraph IV, discussed below), the court in the final settlement context has no express legal mandate to consider the public interest. Thus, there remains some degree of risk that an anticompetitive agreement could escape the prohibition of Paragraph II if the parties were able to persuade a court to issue their agreement as a permanent injunction. On the other hand, it is also relatively rare for courts in ordinary private litigation to issue settlement agreements as permanent injunction orders. This is likely to reduce the risk that an anticompetitive agreement would evade the order, because, as noted above, the exception to the prohibitions of Paragraph II does not arise unless the court issues a permanent injunction order. On balance, in light of all the circumstances of this proposed consent order (including that it is the first involving a challenge to a final settlement with a second ANDA filer), the Commission believes that the exception contained in Paragraph II is appropriate here.

Paragraph III prohibits agreements between an NDA holder and an ANDA filer in which the ANDA filer agrees not to develop or market a generic drug product that is not the subject of a claim of patent infringement. The Commission has previously considered this type of restraint in the context of an agreement between an NDA holder and an ANDA first filer (that is, the party possessing an unexpired right to Hatch-Waxman 180-day exclusivity), and had limited the bans in previous orders to that context. Having now considered a similar restraint in an agreement involving a later ANDA filer, the Commission believes it is appropriate to extend this prohibition to agreements between an NDA holder and any ANDA filer.

Paragraph IV addresses what are sometimes referred to as interim settlement agreements. It covers agreements that involve payment to an ANDA filer and in which the ANDA filer agrees not to enter the market for a period of time, but the patent infringement litigation continues. AHP would be barred from entering into such interim agreements. As in Paragraph II, it extends beyond cash payments to cover the NDA holder's providing “anything of value” to the ANDA filer, and provides an exception in limited circumstances, similar to those described in connection with Paragraph II of the proposed order. Although the challenged conduct here was an agreement in connection with a final settlement of litigation, rather than an interim agreement, this provision is appropriate in light of the serious antitrust concerns raised by interim agreements and the need to impose an order to prevent recurrence of violations similar to that with which AHP is charged.

The form of notice that Respondent AHP must provide to the Commission under Paragraphs II and IV of the order is set forth in Paragraph V. In addition to supplying a copy of the proposed agreement, AHP is required to provide certain other information to assist the Commission in assessing the potential competitive impact of the agreement. Accordingly, the order requires Respondent to identify, among other things, all others known by AHP to have filed an ANDA for a product containing the same chemical entities as the product at issue, as well as the court that is hearing any relevant legal proceedings involving Respondent. In addition, Respondent AHP must provide the Commission with certain documents that evaluate the proposed agreement.

The proposed order also contains certain reporting and other provisions that are designed to assist the Commission in monitoring compliance with the order and are standard provisions in Commission orders.

The proposed order would expire in 10 years.

The proposed order has been placed on the public record for 30 days in order to receive comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make the proposed order final.

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

Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and § 2.34 of the Commission's rules of practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for February 19, 2002), on the World Wide Web, at http:// www.ftc.gov/os/2002/02/index.htm. A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room 130-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-2222.

Public comments are invited, and may be filed with the Commission in either paper or electronic form. Comments filed in paper form should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, Room 159-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. If a comment contains nonpublic information, it must be filed in paper form, and the first page of the document must be clearly labeled “confidential.” Comments that do not contain any nonpublic information may instead be filed in electronic form (in ASCII format, WordPerfect, or Microsoft Word) as part of or as an attachment to email messages directed to the following e-mail box: consentagreement@ftc.gov. Such comments will be considered by the Commission and will be available for inspection and copying at its principal office in accordance with § 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission's rules of practice, 16 CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)).

The Federal Trade Commission has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement to a proposed consent order from respondents TechnoBrands, Inc., and Charles J. Anton, individually and as president of the corporate respondent.

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

This matter concerns practices related to the advertising, offering for sale, sale, and distribution of various products to the public, including the Hollywood 48-Hour Miracle Diet, a liquid diet; the Enforma System, a diet product combination consisting primarily of chitosan and pyruvate; the BMI Magnetic Kit, a set of magnets with purported analgesic properties; the Nisim New Hair Biofactors System, a purported hair-growth product; the Clarion Ionic Filter Ceiling Fan, an air-cleaning device; and the Sila Ionic Air Purifier, another air-cleaning device. The Commission's complaint charges that respondents violated the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 41 et seq. , by making numerous representations that were false and/or for which they lacked a reasonable basis of substantiation. These representations concerned: the weight loss that consumers can achieve with the Hollywood Diet and Enforma; the pain relief that can be achieved with the BMI Magnetic Kit; the effectiveness of Nisim in stopping hair loss and stimulating hair growth; the ability of the air cleaners to eliminate various pollutants from indoor space; the health benefits of using the Clarion Fan; the scientific evidence for the efficacy of some of these products; the comparative efficacy of some of these products; and the experiences of consumers and celebrities who purportedly have used some of these products.

Part I of the proposed order prohibits a representation that consumers who use the Hollywood Diet, or any substantially similar product, can lose 10 lbs. in 48 hours, unless respondents possess competent and reliable scientific evidence that substantiates the representation. In addition, Part I prohibits representations that celebrities, such as actors and actresses in popular television programs, have lost substantial weight by using the product, unless the respondents possess competent and reliable evidence that substantiates the representations.

Part II of the proposed order prohibits representations that by using Enforma, or any substantially similar product, consumers can achieve substantial weight loss, or avoid weight gain, without a restricted calorie diet or exercise, unless respondents possess competent and reliable scientific evidence that substantiates the representations.

Part III of the proposed order prohibits representations that use of the BMI Magnetic Kit, or any substantially similar product, relieves severe pain; relieves pain more effectively than other kinds of treatment; and relieves pain by enlarging blood vessels, increasing blood flow, reducing inflammation, or suppressing the body's production of pain-causing chemicals, unless respondents possess competent and reliable scientific evidence that substantiates the representations.

Part IV of the proposed order prohibits representations that Nisim, or any substantially similar product, stops hair loss in a matter of days or stimulates hair growth as effectively as prescription products, unless respondents possess competent and reliable scientific evidence that substantiates the representations.

Part V of the proposed order prohibits representations that the Clarion Ceiling Fan, or any substantially similar product, eliminates dust mites and pet dander from the user's environment, or that consumers who use the product will experience relief from allergies and other respiratory problems, unless respondents possess competent and reliable scientific evidence that substantiates the representations.

Part VI of the proposed order prohibits representations that the Sila Air Purifier, or any substantially similar product, eliminates mold, mildew, bacteria, chemicals, and other pollutants from a user's environment, unless respondents possess competent and reliable scientific evidence that substantiates the representations.

Part VII of the proposed order prohibits unsubstantiated representations about the comparative or absolute benefits, performance, or efficacy of any product or service.

Part VIII of the proposed order prohibits misrepresentations about the existence, contents, validity, results, conclusions, or interpretations of any test, study, or research.

Part IX of the proposed order prohibits representations that any user testimonial or endorsement of a product reflects the actual experience of the user or that the user's experience is the typical experience of members of the public using the product, unless: (1) The representation is true and substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence; or (2) there is a disclosure of either the generally expected results for users of the product, or that consumers should not expect to experience similar results.

Part X of the proposed order requires that respondents pay to the Federal Trade Commission the sum of $200,000.

Part XI of the proposed order is a record keeping provision that requires the respondents to maintain certain records for three (3) years after the last date of dissemination of any representation covered by the order. These records include: (1) All advertisements and promotional materials containing the representation; (2) all materials relied upon in disseminating the representation; and (3) all evidence in respondents' possession or control that contradicts, qualifies, or calls into question the representation or the basis for it.

Part XII of the proposed order requires distribution of the order to current and future principals, officers, directors, and managers of the corporation.

Part XIII of the proposed order requires distribution of Attachment A to the order to current and future employees, agents, and representatives having responsibilities with respect to the advertising and sale of products to the public. Attachment A is entitled “Legal Notice” and is a summary of the injunction provisions of the proposed order.

Part XIV of the proposed order requires that the Commission be notified of any change in the corporation that might affect compliance obligations under the order. Part XV of the proposed order requires that for a period of three (3) years, the individual respondent notify the Commission of the discontinuance of his current business or employment or of his affiliation with any new business or employment involving the sale of consumer products and/or services.

Part XVI of the proposed order requires the respondents to file a compliance report with the Commission.

Part XVII of the proposed order states that, absent certain circumstance, the order will terminate twenty (20) years from the date it is issued.

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

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Sections 201, 502, 505, and 701 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 321, 352, 355, and 371) require that marketed drugs be safe and effective. In order to know whether drugs that are not safe and effective are on the market, FDA must be promptly informed of adverse experiences occasioned by the use of marketed drugs. In order to help ensure this, FDA issued regulations (§§ 310.305 and 314.80 (21 CFR 310.305 and 314.80)) to impose reporting and recordkeeping requirements on the drug industry that would enable FDA to take action necessary for protection of the public health from adverse drug experiences.

All applicants who have received marketing approval of drug products are required to report to FDA serious, unexpected adverse drug experiences, as well as followup reports when needed (§ 314.80(c)(1)). This includes reports of all foreign or domestic adverse experiences as well as those obtained in scientific literature and from postmarketing epidemiological/surveillance studies. Under § 314.80(c)(2) applicants must provide periodic reports of adverse drug experiences. A periodic report includes, for the reporting interval, reports of serious, expected adverse drug experiences and all nonserious adverse drug experiences, a narrative summary and analysis of adverse drug experiences and a history of actions taken because of adverse drug experiences. Under § 314.80(i) applicants must keep for 10 years records of all adverse drug experience reports known to the applicant.

For marketed prescription drug products without approved new drug applications or abbreviated new drug applications, manufacturers, packers, and distributors are required to report to FDA serious, unexpected adverse drug experiences as well as followup reports when needed (§ 310.305(c)). Under § 310.305(f) each manufacturer, packer, and distributor shall maintain for 10 years records of all adverse drug experiences required to be reported.

The primary purpose of FDA's adverse drug experience reporting system is to provide a signal for potentially serious safety problems with marketed drugs. Although premarket testing discloses a general safety profile of a new drug's comparatively common adverse effects, the larger and more diverse patient populations exposed to the marketed drug provides, for the first time, the opportunity to collect information on rare, latent, and long-term effects. Signals are obtained from a variety of sources, including reports from patients, treating physicians, foreign regulatory agencies, and clinical investigators. Information derived from the adverse drug experience reporting system contributes directly to increased public health protection because the information enables FDA to make important changes to the product's labeling (such as adding a new warning) and when necessary, to initiate removal of a drug from the market.

Respondents to this collection of information are manufacturers, packers, distributors, and applicants. FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

In a notice published in the Federal Register of January 19, 1982 (47 FR 2791), FDA announced that a food additive petition (FAP 2B3593) had been filed by Abbott Laboratories, North Chicago, IL 60064 (now 100 Abbott Park Rd., Abbott Park, IL 60064-6091). The petition proposed to amend the food additive regulations to provide for the safe use of cyclohexylsulfamic acid as a catalyst in resinous and polymeric coatings. Abbott Laboratories has now withdrawn the petition without prejudice to a future filing (21 CFR 171.7).

The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Public Law 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted, as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).

FDA recently approved for marketing the human drug product Celexa (citalopram hydrobromide). Celexa is indicated for the treatment of depression. Subsequent to this approval, the Patent and Trademark Office received a patent term restoration application for Celexa (U.S. Patent No. 4,650,884) from H. Lundbeck A/S, and the Patent and Trademark Office requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated December 19, 2000, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark Office that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of Celexa represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Shortly thereafter, the Patent and Trademark Office requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for Celexa is 5,498 days. Of this time, 5,061 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 437 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective : July 30, 1983. The applicant claims August 4, 1983, as the date the investigational new drug application (IND) became effective. However, FDA records indicate that the IND effective date was July 30, 1983, which was 30 days after FDA receipt of the IND.

2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the human drug product under section 505(b) of the act : May 7, 1997. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug application (NDA) for Celexa (NDA 20-822) was initially submitted on May 7, 1997.

3. The date the application was approved : July 17, 1998. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 20-822 was approved on July 17, 1998.

This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,826 days of patent term extension.

Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published is incorrect may submit to the Dockets Management Branch (address above) written or electronic comments and ask for a redetermination by April 26, 2002. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by August 26, 2002. To meet its burden, the petition must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.

Comments and petitions should be submitted to the Dockets Management Branch. Three copies of any information are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Comments and petitions may be seen in the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Public Law 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For medical devices, the testing phase begins with a clinical investigation of the device and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the device and continues until permission to market the device is granted. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks may award (half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a medical device will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(3)(B).

FDA recently approved for marketing the medical device Menicon Z Rigid Gas Permeable Contact Lens. This product is indicated for extended wear (from 1 to 7 days between removals for cleaning and disinfection of the lenses, as recommended by the eyecare practitioner) for the correction of refractive error (myopia, hyperopia, presbyopia and/or astigmatism) in non-aphakic persons with non-diseased eyes. Subsequent to this approval, the Patent and Trademark Office received a patent term restoration application for Menicon Z Rigid Gas Permeable Contact Lens (U.S. Patent No. 4,594,401) from Menicon Co., and the Patent and Trademark Office requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated September 6, 2001, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark Office that this medical device had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of Menicon Z Rigid Gas Permeable Contact Lens represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Shortly thereafter, the Patent and Trademark Office requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for Menicon Z Rigid Gas Permeable Contact Lens is 1,917 days. Of this time, 1,435 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 482 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

1. The date a clinical investigation involving this device was begun : April 14, 1995. The applicant claims that the investigational device exemption (IDE) required under section 520(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360j(g)) for human tests to begin became effective on April 4, 1995. However, FDA records indicate that the IDE was determined substantially complete for clinical studies to have begun on April 14, 1995, which represents the IDE effective date.

2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the device under section 515 of the act (21 U.S.C. 360e) : March 18, 1999. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the premarket approval application (PMA) for Menicon Z Rigid Gas Permeable Contact Lens (PMA P990018) was initially submitted March 18, 1999.

3. The date the application was approved : July 11, 2000. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that PMA P990018 was approved on July 11, 2000.

This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,205 days of patent term extension.

Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit to the Dockets Management Branch (address above) written or electronic comments and ask for a redetermination by April 26, 2002. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA by for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by August 26, 2002. To meet its burden, the petition must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.

Comments and petitions should be submitted to the Dockets Management Branch. Three copies of any information are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Comments and petitions may be seen in the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

The Centennial Commission was established by Title III, Section 303 of the Fish and Wildlife Programs Improvement and National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial Act of 2000 (H.R. 3671). The purpose of the Commission is to prepare, in cooperation with Federal, State, local, and nongovernmental partners, a plan to commemorate the centennial of the National Wildlife Refuge System beginning on March 14, 2003. They are also charged with planning a conference for the Centennial year.

The meeting will be open to the public, however, facilities and space of accommodating members of the public are limited and persons will be accommodated on a first-come first-served basis.

The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. If you plan to attend and will need an auxiliary aid or service to participate in the meeting (e.g., interpreting service, assistive listening device or materials in an alternate format), notify the contact person listed in this notice at least 2 weeks before the scheduled meeting date. We will make attempts to meet any request(s) received after that date, however, the requested auxiliary aid or service may not be available due to insufficient time.

Anyone may file with the Commission a written statement concerning matters to be discussed. The Commission may also permit attendees to address the Commission but may restrict the length of the presentations, as necessary, to allow the Commission to complete its agenda within the allotted time.

Interested persons may make oral/written presentations to the Commission during the business meeting or file written statements. Make requests to the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, attention: Centennial Commission Coordinator at least 7 days prior to the meeting. Further information regarding the meeting may be obtained from the Division of Visitor Services and Communications, National Wildlife Refuge System, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203. Telephone: 703-358-2035.

Draft minutes of the meeting will be available for public inspection approximately 6 weeks after the meeting in Room 600, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203.

Major topics for discussion during this meeting include:

Welcome

Objectives of the meeting

Addition and corrections to the agenda

Business:

1. Introduction to the National Wildlife Refuge System

2. Commission—Purpose, Objectives, Rules, Staffing, Budget, Other Resources

3. Centennial Events and Plans

4. Conference Proposal

5. Funding opportunities and partnerships

Closing remarks (including summary of accomplishments of the meeting, date of next proposed meeting, assignment of tasks). The Commission will also discuss organizational and administrative needs.

Authority for this program is contained in the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, Public Law 95-124 (42 U.S.C. 7701, et. seq. ). The Office of Management and Budget Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number is 15.807.

By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (1994), it is ordered as follows:

1. Subject to valid existing rights, the following described public land is hereby withdrawn from settlement, sale, location, or entry under the general land laws, including the United States mining laws (30 U.S.C. Ch. 2, (1994)), to protect a Bureau of Land Management wildland fire station site:

2. The withdrawal made by this order does not alter the applicability of those public land laws governing the use of the land under lease, license, or permit, or governing the disposal of the mineral or vegetative resources other than under the mining laws.

3. This withdrawal will expire 20 years from the effective date of this order, unless, as a result of a review conducted before the expiration date pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f) (1994), the Secretary determines that the withdrawal shall be extended.

The meeting will be open to the public. Any member of the public may file with the Commission a written statement concerning agenda items. The statement should be addressed to the Gettysburg National Military Park Advisory Commission, 97 Taneytown Road, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania 17325.

Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-13), NARA invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed information collections. NARA published a notice of proposed collection for this information collection on December 3, 2001 (66 FR 60225). No comments were received. NARA has submitted the described information collection to OMB for approval.

In response to this notice, comments and suggestions should address one or more of the following points: (a) Whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NARA; (b) the accuracy of NARA's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of information technology. In this notice, NARA is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:

Title: Customer Request for Information and Order Forms.

OMB number: 3095-NEW.

Agency form number: NA Form 14116.

Type of review: Regular.

Affected public: Individuals and households.

Estimated number of respondents: 130,000.

Estimated time per response: 5 minutes.

Frequency of response: On occasion.

Estimated total annual burden hours: 10,833 hours.

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

Title of Collection: NSF Surveys to Measure Customer Service Satisfaction.

OMB Number: 3145-0157.

Expiration Date of Approval: September 30, 2002.

Type of Request: Intent to seek approval to renew an information collection.

Proposed Project: On September 11, 1993, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12862, “Setting Customer Service Standards,” which calls for Federal agencies to provide service that matches or exceeds the best service available in the private sector. Section 1(b) of that order requires agencies to “survey customers to determine the kind and quality of services they want and their level of satisfaction with existing services.” The National Science Foundation (NSF) has an ongoing need to collect information from its customer community (primarily individuals and organizations engaged in science and engineering research and education) about the quality and kind of services it provides and use that information to help improve agency operations and services.

Estimate of Burden: The burden on the public will change according to the needs of each individual customer satisfaction survey; however, each survey is estimated to take approximately 30 minutes per response.

Respondents: Will vary among individuals or households; business or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions; farms; Federal government; State, local or tribal governments.

Estimated Number of Responses per Survey: This will vary by survey.

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

Title of Collection: “National Science Foundation Applicant Survey.”

OMB Approval Number: 3145-0096.

Expiration Date of Approval: August 31, 2002.

Type of Request: Intent to seek approval to extend with revision an information collection for three years.

Proposed Project: The current National Science Foundation Applicant survey has been in use for several years. Data are collected from applicant pools to examine the racial/sexual/disability composition and to determine the source of information about NSF vacancies.

Use of the Information: Analysis of the applicant pools is necessary to determine if NSF's targeted recruitment efforts are reaching groups that are underrepresented in the Agency's workforce and/or to defend the Foundation's practices in discrimination cases.

Burden on the Public: The Foundation estimates about 5,000 responses annually at 3 minutes per response; this computes to approximately 250 hours annually.

Title of Collection: Fellowship Applications and Award Forms.

OMB Approval Number: 3145-0023.

Expiration Date of Approval: September 30, 2002.

Type of Request: Intent to seek approval to extend without revision an information collection for three years.

Section 10 of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861 et seq. ), as amended, states that “The Foundation is authorized to award, within the limits of funds made available * * * scholarships and graduate fellowships for scientific study or scientific work in the mathematical physical, medical, biological, engineering, social, and other sciences at appropriate nonprofit American or nonprofit foreign institutions selected by the recipient of such aid, for stated periods of time.”

The Foundation Fellowship Programs are designed to meet the following objectives:

• To assure that some of the Nation's most talented students in the sciences obtain the education necessary to become creative and productive scientific researchers.

• To train or upgrade advanced scientific personnel to enhance their abilities as teachers and researchers.

• To promote graduate education in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering at institutions that have traditionally served ethnic minorities.

• To encourage pursuit of advanced science degrees by students who are members of ethnic groups traditionally under-represented in the Nation's advanced science personnel pool.

The list of fellowship award programs sponsored by the Foundation includes, but may not be limited to, the following:

Estimate of Burden : These are annual award programs with application deadlines varying according to the fellowship program. Public burden may also vary according to program, however, it is estimated that each submission is averaged to be 12 hours per respondent.

Respondents: Individuals.

Estimated Number of Responses: 13,000.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 156,000 hours.

Frequency of Responses: Annually.

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

“ADR” is a term that refers to a number of voluntary processes, such as mediation and facilitated dialogues, that can be used to assist parties in resolving disputes and potential conflicts. The Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996 (ADRA) encourages the use of ADR by Federal agencies, and defines ADR as “any procedure that is used to resolve issues in controversy, including but not limited to, conciliation, facilitation, mediation, fact finding, mini trials, arbitration, and use of an ombudsman, or any combination thereof.” 5 U.S.C. 571(3). These techniques involve the use of a neutral third party, either from within the agency or from outside the agency, and are typically voluntary processes in terms of the decision to participate, the type of process used, and the content of the final agreement. Federal agency experience with ADR has demonstrated that the use of these techniques can result in the more efficient resolution of issues, more effective outcomes, and improved relationships between the agency and the other party.

The NRC has a general ADR Policy, 57 FR 36678, August 14, 1992 that supports and encourages the use of ADR in NRC activities. In addition, the NRC has used ADR effectively in a variety of circumstances, including rulemaking and policy development, and EEO disputes. There has been no systematic evaluation of the need for ADR in the enforcement process. As part of the NRC's participation in an interagency process in 1998 by the Clinton Administration to encourage a broader use of ADR by Federal agencies, and an inquiry in regard to the use of ADR in a specific enforcement case, have caused the NRC to consider whether a new, specific ADR policy would be beneficial in the enforcement area.

The Commission previously requested public comment on the potential use of ADR in the Commission's enforcement process at 66 FR 64890, on December 14, 2001. In that Notice, the Commission identified a number of issues on which it specifically requested comment:

1. Is there a need to provide for additional avenues, other than that provided for in 10 CFR 2.203, for the use of ADR in NRC enforcement activities?

2. What are the potential benefits of using ADR in the NRC enforcement process?

3. What are the potential detriments of using ADR in the NRC enforcement process?

4. What would be the scope of disputes for which ADR techniques could be utilized?

5. At what points in the existing enforcement process might ADR be used?

6. What types of ADR techniques might most effectively be used in the NRC enforcement process?

7. Does the nature of the existing enforcement process for either reactor or materials licensees limit the effectiveness of ADR?

8. Would any need for confidentiality in the ADR process be perceived negatively by the public?

9. For policy reasons, are there any enforcement areas where it shouldn't be used, e.g., wrongdoing, precedent-setting areas?

10. What factors should be considered in instituting an ADR process for the enforcement area?

11. What should serve as the source of neutrals for use in the ADR process for enforcement?

Several responses have been received on these and other issues in response to the request for public comment. The NRC is now taking two actions:

1. The NRC is extending the public comment period on the original (December 14, 2001) Federal Register Notice to March 29, 2002; and

2. The NRC is convening a workshop to more fully explore the potential use of ADR in its enforcement program. The objectives and format for the workshop are stated in the SUMMARY section of this notice.

Francis X. Cameron, the Commission's Alternative Dispute Resolution Specialist, will be the convener and facilitator for the workshops. Questions about participation may be directed to the facilitator, Francis X. Cameron. Copies of the original Federal Register Notice requesting comment on the potential use of ADR in the NRC enforcement process, the NRC's existing ADR policy statement, the public comments received, the agenda for the workshop, and the roundtable participants, can be obtained at the NRC Web site ( www.nrc.gov ) at url http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/regulatory/enforcement/public-involvement.html

Copies also can be obtained from either of the NRC contacts identified at the beginning of this notice. The workshop commentary will be transcribed and made available to the participants and the public.