Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470f, requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (“Council”) a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such undertakings. The Council has issued the regulations that set forth the process through which Federal agencies comply with these duties. Those regulations are codified under 36 CFR part 800 (“Section 106 regulations”).

The National Historic Preservation Act (“Act”) authorizes the Council, with the concurrence of the National Park Service, to promulgate regulations for exempting undertakings “from any or all of the requirements of” the Act. 16 U.S.C. 470v. The section 106 regulations detail the process for the approval of such exemptions. 36 CFR 800.14(c).

In accordance with the Section 106 regulations, the Council may approve an exemption for an undertaking if it finds that: (1) The potential effects of the undertaking upon historic properties are foreseeable and likely to be minimal or not adverse; and (2) the exemption is consistent with the purpose of the Act.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“Commission”) has proposed an exemption regarding the effects of undertakings on historic natural gas pipelines. The Council has preliminarily approved that exemption, pending the results of the public comment opportunity provided through this notice. The full text of the exemption can be found at the end of this notice. Unless the Council decides (prior to April 5, 2002, and based on the results of this final round of public comments) to withdraw its preliminary approval, the exemption will go into effect on April 5, 2002.

On October 19, 2001, the Council published for public comment in the Federal Register a Draft Program Comment Regarding Historic Preservation Review Process for Projects Involving Historic Natural Gas Pipelines which was intended to streamline the historic preservation review process for projects involving natural gas pipelines (66 FR 53198). That draft Program Comment proposed an alternative way for the Commission to address its responsibilities under Section 106 with regard to effects on natural gas pipelines and related facilities when authorizing projects under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) by either applicants pursuant to 18 CFR part 157, subpart A, or certificate holders pursuant to 18 CFR part 157, Subpart F, and 18 CFR part 284 of the regulations of the Commission.

The draft Program Comment was meant to apply only to those undertakings affecting natural gas pipelines determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (“National Register”) by the applicant/certificate holder and the respective State Historic Preservation Office (“SHPO”). When the applicant or certificate holder implemented a level and type of documentation agreeable to the applicant/certificate holder and the SHPO, and deposited that record in an appropriate repository, the project could not then be found to have an effect upon the characteristics that make the pipeline eligible for inclusion in the National Register.

The Commission noted on its review of this Program Comment that it “provide(d) guidance and a basic mechanism for section 106 compliance that could make more complex and time consuming processes unnecessary.” Indeed, the Council developed the Program Comment to respond directly to the delays in project review under the blanket certificate procedures when there was an effect to a historic natural gas pipeline. The Commission supported that objective, and the Council's efforts to keep them involved throughout the initiative.

After the Council and the Commission staff had reviewed the public comments on that proposal, the Commission proposed that the Council use the Exempted Categories alternatives pursuant to 36 CFR 800.14(c) to streamline the historic preservation review process for historic natural gas pipelines.

Based on a number of factors discussed below, the Council believes that using the Exempted Categories program alternative offers a more focused, practical, predictable, and elegant way to address section 106 review for projects involving natural gas pipelines. In addition, comments from the affected industry reflected a preference for such an approach as opposed to the Program Comment alternative.

The exemption would release all Federal agencies from the Section 106 requirement of having to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic natural gas pipelines. Historic natural gas pipelines are defined as those natural gas pipelines that meet the criteria for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

A public comment stated that the Act never intended pipelines to be eligible for the National Register. The Council disagrees. The Act specifically states that the National Register is composed of “districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering and culture.” 16 U.S.C. 470a(a)(1)(a) (emphasis added). This statement does not explicitly exclude pipelines from consideration, but rather, it acknowledges that a variety of types of properties could be significant to American engineering. As one of type of property which can be eligible for inclusion in the National Register, a structure is defined as one “made up of interdependent and interrelated parts in a definite pattern of organization [and] constructed by man it is often an engineering project large in scale.” 36 CFR 60.3(p). Again, such a definition appears to be intentionally broad so as to embrace a variety of different structures, which arguably include natural gas pipelines.

The exemption would apply unconditionally for all undertakings except for those that entail the abandonment of a historic natural gas pipeline. The sole condition for those cases would be that the historic natural gas pipeline gets documented prior to abandonment. The documentation requirements are enumerated in the exemption document, as opposed to being subject to negotiations with SHPOs or others.

Public comments raised a concern that the earlier, proposed Program Comment only applied to the Commission and did not bind other Federal agencies whose lands the pipeline may cross. It was argued that such other Federal agencies could insist on a different, and possibly higher, process and documentation standard for pipelines crossing their lands. The comments also mentioned that unless the approach to historic natural gas pipelines was uniformly applicable to all Federal agencies, the benefit of the approach would be negated if any Federal land manager elected to impose a new or different standards. In response to this comment, the exemption now applies to all Federal agencies. The Council believes this makes sense since the approach is based on the type of resource involved (i.e., natural gas pipelines), and such resources are the same no matter what Federal agency is confronted with an undertaking affecting them.

Some of the public comments also expressed a concern that disputes over eligibility and documentation issues under the earlier, proposed Program Comment would result in serious project delays. The Council agreed that such disputes could be time consuming, and therefore drafted the exemption in a way that will alleviate those concerns by: (1) Limiting the documentation requirement to only one type of pipeline activity (i.e., abandonment); (2) establishing a single, definitive documentation standard for such abandonments; and (3) clarifying that once a pipeline was documented, future undertakings would not have to consider effects to that pipeline. Since the exemption unconditionally applies to all activities other than abandonment, eligibility can only become an issue for abandonments.

Finally, the exemption would not apply on tribal land. Such application would require substantial and lengthy tribal consultation. 36 CFR 800.14(c)(4) and 800.14(f). It is our understanding from discussions with the Commission staff that, due to tribal sovereignty issues, pipeline projects through tribal lands are handled through separate agreements with the tribes. Moreover, the Council believes that such particularized consultation is not warranted since it is not aware of any natural gas pipeline that would be of religious and cultural significance to tribes, regardless of its location.

On a more general note, a public comment criticized the earlier, proposed Program Comment by stating that it was not binding on the SHPO and, therefore, could be disregarded. This is incorrect. The Council is the only entity with the authority to enact regulations implementing Section 106 (16 U.S.C. 470s) and to provide exemptions from compliance with Section 106 (16 U.S.C. 470v). An exemption or program comment approved by the Council defines the legal requirements of section 106 and, as such, cannot be disregarded by SHPOs.

Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.14(c)(1), Section 106 exemptions must meet certain criteria. Only actions that qualify as undertakings, as defined in 36 CFR 800.16, may be considered for exemption, and the exemption itself must be consistent with the purposes of NHPA. Furthermore, in order to be considered exempted, the potential effects on historic properties of those undertakings should be “foreseeable and likely to be minimal or not adverse.” The Council believes that the proposed exemption meets these conditions.

In considering this proposition, it is important to recognize that neither the Commission nor any other Federal agency regulates all of the activities which might affect historic natural gas pipelines. Because physically deteriorated or obsolete facilities are specifically excluded by regulation from section 7(c) of the NGA, pursuant to 18 CFR part 2.55, most repair and maintenance of historic pipelines will not need Commission authorization prior to implementation. As a result, the integrity of an historic natural gas pipeline is likely to vary considerably over its full extent. Although these maintenance activities may result in the loss of some historic fabric, these changes allow the continued safe operation of the historic property as a pipeline and, as such, serve to protect the use of the property.

The Council also believes that evaluation of the integrity of the pipeline as a historic property and the effect of any of these undertakings must be considered within the context of the totality of the historic natural gas pipeline, particularly when the historic significance of natural gas pipelines lies in both their engineering characteristics (Criterion C of the National Register) and their relationship to events (Criterion A of the National Register). From that perspective, for example, a 12 inch diameter tap inserted into a 1,000 mile pipeline is of minor consequences for the whole historic property, especially when the property exhibits considerable redundance and uniformity in form over its entire extent.

With abandonment, although a portion of the historic pipeline will cease to function as such, it usually remains in place. Moreover, for reasons of safety and because they are buried resources, historic natural gas pipelines cannot be experienced by the public during their productive life. Accordingly, we believe that potential effects of abandonment can be adequately minimized through documentation of the historic pipeline. This approach is also in keeping with the earlier, draft Program Comment. Working with Commission staff, the Council has established a standard for documenting historic natural gas pipelines that would apply under the exemption whenever there is an abandonment. As the comments on the Council's Program Comment indicate, setting a standard is needed because it would largely eliminate the possibility for disagreement between applicants or certificate holders, and SHPOs regarding the appropriate level and type of documentation.

In accordance with 36 CFR 800.14(c)(2), public participation must be arranged on a level commensurate with the subject and scope of the exemption. Since the proposed exemption was derived from, and is consistent with, the approach taken in the earlier, proposed Program Comment, the Council believes that the public participation requirement has been met through the extensive comment period already provided for that Program Comment. The Council only received a limited number of comments on the draft Program Comment. Those comments were shared, and discussed, with the Commission staff. As requested, that comment period was extended until December 9, 2001. Nevertheless, such extension only yielded one additional comment, for an overall total of 9 public comments. Likewise, although the Council made a special effort to notify SHPOs about the proposed Program Comment, comments from only three States, Arizona, Iowa, and Wyoming, were received. One of those comments was that the State had “no comment” on the proposal. Moreover, through this notice the Council is submitting the draft exemption for one last round of public comment.

Neither the Council nor the Commission have engaged in the particularized consultation with Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.14(c)(4), since such consultation does not seem to be warranted. As stated above, the proposed exemption would not apply on tribal lands. The Council also believes that the proposed exemption will have no consequences for historic properties of religious and cultural significance, regardless of location, to any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organizations since it is limited to effects on only historic natural gas pipelines.

The full text of the proposed program comment is reproduced below.

Except as noted on Section II, all Federal agencies are exempt from the Section 106 requirement of taking into account the effects of their undertakings on historic natural gas pipelines.

Abandonment of a historic natural gas pipelines, in part or in whole, will qualify for the exemption under Section I, provided that the Federal agency or its applicant has documented the historic natural gas pipeline by:

(a) Completing a determination of eligibility for the pipeline as a whole, which identifies contributing and non-contributing components of the pipeline, using standard information required on a National Register nomination form. The documentation must be prepared by an individual meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards (48 FR 44738-9). The documentation must include the following components:

(i) A brief history of construction of hte line with a bibliogrpahy recording the primary and secondary sources that were used;

(ii) Documentation through as-built drawings, historical photographs or, 35 mm photographs, as approriate, of representative examples of significant features associated with the line;

(iii) A map of the historic property set at an appropriate scale; and

(iv) An annotated bibliography of other primary and secondary sources identified during research; and

(b) Placing the documentation in an appropriate repository, accessible to the general public, in each State crossed by the pipeline, and filing the documentation with the relevant State Historic Preservation Officer(s).

When the abandonment involved only a section of the historic natural gas pipeline, Federal agencies or application handling subsequent abandonment of other sections of the historic natural gas pipeline will not have to repeat the documentation requirements set forth above.

This exemption is not intended to amend, invalidate or otherwise modify Section 106 Programmatic Agreements (PAs) in existence at the time this exemption goes into effect. Parties to such PAs may amend them according to their terms.

This exemption does not apply to those portions of undertakings that take place on tribal lands.

(a) Section 106 means section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470f, and its implementing regulations, found under 36 CFR part 800.

(b) Undertaking means a project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency, including those carried out by or on behalf of a Federal agency; those carried out with Federal financial assistance; those requiring a Federal permit, license or approval; and those subject to State or local regulation administered pursuant to a delegation or approval by a Federal agency.

(c) Historic natural gas pipelines means means natural gas pipelines, and their appurtenant facilities, that are listed, or eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places.

(d) Tribal lands means all lands within the exterior boundaries of any Indian reservation and all dependent Indian communities.

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.

On July 25, 2001, APHIS received a request for an extension of a determination of nonregulated status (APHIS No. 01-206-02p) from Aventis CropScience (Aventis) of Research Triangle Park, NC, for a canola ( Brassica napus L.) transformation event designated as Topas 19/2 (event Topas 19/2), which has been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate. The Aventis request seeks an extension of a determination of nonregulated status issued for glufosinate-tolerant canola transformation event T45, the antecedent organism, in response to APHIS petition number 97-205-01p (see 63 FR 6703-6704, Docket No. 97-091-2, published February 10, 1998). Based on the similarity of canola event Topas 19/2 to the antecedent organism, Aventis requests a determination that glufosinate-tolerant canola event Topas 19/2 does not present a plant pest risk and, therefore, is not a regulated article under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340.

Like the antecedent organism, canola event Topas 19/2 has been genetically engineered to contain a pat gene derived from Streptomyces viridochromogenes. The pat gene encodes the enzyme phosphinothricin-N-acetyltransferase (PAT), which confers tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate. The subject canola event and the antecedent organism were developed through use of the Agrobacterium tumefaciens method, and expression of the added genes in Topas 19/2 and the antecedent organism is controlled in part by gene sequences derived from the plant pathogen cauliflower mosaic virus. In summary, the Aventis extension request states that canola event Topas 19/2 and the antecedent organism contain the same genetic elements with the exception of the antibiotic resistance marker gene nptII in Topas 19/2, which was used as a transformant selection tool during the developmental process. The parental variety used to develop the antecedent organism was the B. napus var. AC EXCEL, while the B. Napus cultivar Topas was used for transforming canola event Topas 19/2.

Canola event Topas 19/2 and the antecedent organism were genetically engineered using the same transformation method and contain the same enzyme that makes the plants tolerant to the herbicide glufosinate. Accordingly, we have determined that canola event Topas 19/2 is similar to the antecedent organism in APHIS petition number 97-205-01p, and we are proposing that canola event Topas 19/2 should no longer be regulated under the regulations in 7 CFR part 340.

The subject canola event has been considered a regulated article under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340 because it contains gene sequences derived from plant pathogens. However, canola event Topas 19/2 has been extensively field tested in Canada, and after having received the appropriate Canadian approvals, has been marketed commercially in Canada since 1995 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 event Topas 19/2 would no longer be considered a regulated article 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 event or its 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 event. 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 mission of Veterinary Services (VS) of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is to protect and improve the health, quality, and marketability of domestic animals by preventing, controlling, and/or eliminating animal diseases and monitoring and promoting animal health and productivity.

Brucellosis is a contagious disease that affects animals and humans, caused by bacteria of the genus Brucella. Brucella abortus principally affects bison and cattle. In bison and cattle, brucellosis localizes in the reproductive organs and/or the udder, causing abortion or birth of weak offspring. Female cattle infected with brucellosis may suffer infertility and lowered milk production.

Brucellosis is spread when bacteria are shed in milk, aborted fetuses, afterbirth, or other reproductive tract discharges and are ingested by a susceptible animal. Cattle and bison have a tendency to sniff and lick an aborted fetus, which provides an avenue for the disease to spread if Brucella is present.

Brucellosis has caused devastating losses to farmers in the United States over the last century. It is estimated that the disease has cost the Federal Government, the States, and the livestock industry billions of dollars in direct losses and efforts to eliminate the disease. APHIS has estimated that if efforts to eradicate the disease were stopped, the costs of producing beef and milk would increase by an estimated $80 million annually in less than 10 years.

Brucellosis infection occurs in bison in Yellowstone National Park. Bison roam wild in Yellowstone National Park, and during winter and spring, some migrate outside of the park onto U.S. Forest Service and private lands. The prevention of the spread of brucellosis from bison to cattle in and around the park is an issue of concern.

VS, in cooperation with other Federal and State agencies, will conduct an 11-week study in the West Yellowstone and Gardiner areas in Montana starting in March 2002 to determine how long a bison fetus remains in the environment as a potential source of Brucella organisms before it deteriorates or is consumed by scavengers.

On November 29, 2001, we published in the Federal Register (66 FR 59555-59556, Docket No. 01-103-1) a notice announcing that an environmental assessment for a proposed study to determine the disappearance rate of bison fetuses in the environment was available for public review and comment.

We solicited comments on the environmental assessment for 30 days ending on December 31, 2001. We received 166 comments by that date, and 7 additional comments had arrived as of January 28, 2002. They were from private citizens, including Native Americans, the State of Wyoming, and animal humane associations, among others. The commenters raised issues such as the nature of brucellosis in bison, transmission of brucellosis from bison to cattle, the need for the study, the design of the study, introduction of other diseases, impacts on predators, impacts on endangered and threatened species, and cultural concerns for Native Americans.

After carefully reviewing the issues, we have determined that the environmental assessment, which we have modified in response to some of the issues raised in the comments, adequately describes the potential environmental impacts associated with the study and supports our conclusion that the proposed study will not present a significant risk to the environment. Therefore, based on the environmental assessment, we have prepared a finding of no significant impact and have determined that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared.

The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact may be viewed on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/es/vsdocs.html. The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact are also available for review in our reading room (the location and hours of the reading room are listed under the heading ADDRESSES at the beginning of this notice).

The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact have been 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 1), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).

Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Presentation on barred owls (competing for habitat with northern spotted owls); (2) Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) update; (3) Presentation and discussion concerning Mendocino and Six Rivers National Forest Roads Analysis Processes; (4) Presentation on the proposal to expand designated Wilderness areas in California; (5) Presentation on Headwaters Forest Reserve Draft Environmental Impact Statement; (6) Planning for a Province fire ecology/fuels treatment workshop; (8) Aquatic Conservation Subcommittee report on next steps for the Watershed Atlas; (9) PAC attendance and use of alternates; and (1) Public comment. The meeting is open to the public. Public input opportunity will be provided at 11:45 a.m. March 27 and individuals will have the opportunity to address the Committee at that time.

This action has been reviewed and determined not to be a rule or regulation as defined in Executive Order 12866 and Departmental Regulation 1512-1; therefore, the Executive Order and Departmental Regulation do not apply to this action.

In the September 1, 2001, Federal Register (66 FR 46254), GIPSA asked persons interested in providing official services in the geographic areas assigned to the official agencies named above to submit an application for designation. Applications were due by October 1, 2001.

Barton, Central Illinois, North Dakota, and Plainview were the sole applicants for designation to provide official services in the entire area currently assigned to them, so GIPSA did not ask for additional comments on them.

GIPSA evaluated all available information regarding the designation criteria in section 7(f)(l)(A) of the Act and, according to Section 7(f)(l)(B), determined that Barton, Central Illinois, North Dakota, and Plainview are able to provide official services in the geographic areas specified in the September 4, 2001, Federal Register , for which they applied. Interested persons may obtain official services by calling the telephone numbers listed below.

This Action has been reviewed and determined not to be a rule or regulation as defined in Executive Order 12866 and Departmental Regulation 1512-1; therefore, the Executive Order and Departmental Regulation do not apply to this Action.

Section 7(f)(1) of the United States Grain Standards Act, as amended (Act), authorizes GIPSA's Administrator to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services.

Section 7(g)(1) of the Act provides that designations of official agencies shall end not later than triennially and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 7(f) of the Act.

a. Pursuant to section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, in the States of North Dakota and South Dakota, is assigned to Aberdeen.

Bounded on the North by U.S. Route 12 east to State Route 22; State Route 22 north to the Burlington-Northern (BN) line; the Burlington-Northern (BN) line east to State Route 21; State Route 21 east to State Route 49; State Route 49 south to the North Dakota-South Dakota State line; the North Dakota-South Dakota State line east to U.S. Route 83; U.S. Route 83 north to State Route 13; State Route 13 east and north to McIntosh County; the northern McIntosh County line east to Dickey County; the northern Dickey County line east to U.S. Route 281; U.S. Route 281 south to the North Dakota-South Dakota State line; the North Dakota-South Dakota State line east;

Bounded on the East by the eastern South Dakota State line (the Big Sioux River) to A54B;

Bounded on the South by A54B west to State Route 11; State Route 11 north to State Route 44 (U.S. 18); State Route 44 west to the Missouri River; the Missouri River south-southeast to the South Dakota State line; the southern South Dakota State line west; and

Bounded on the West by the western South Dakota State line north; the western North Dakota State line north to U.S. Route 12.

b. Pursuant to section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, in the State of Illinois, is assigned to Decatur.

Bounded on the North by the northern and eastern DeWitt County lines; the eastern Macon County line south to Interstate 72; Interstate 72 northeast to the eastern Piatt County line;

Bounded on the East by the eastern Piatt, Moultrie, and Shelby County lines;

Bounded on the South by the southern Shelby County line; a straight line running along the southern Montgomery County line west to State Route 16 to a point approximately one mile northeast of Irving; and

Bounded on the West by a straight line from this point northeast to Stonington on State Route 48; a straight line from Stonington northwest to Elkhart on Interstate 55; a straight line from Elkhart northeast to the west side of Beason on State Route 10; State Route 10 east to DeWitt County; the western DeWitt County line.

Decatur's assigned geographic area does not include the following grain elevators inside Decatur's area which have been and will continue to be serviced by the following official, Champaign-Danville Grain Inspection Departments, Inc.: Moultrie Grain Association, Cadwell, Moultrie County; Tabor Grain Company (three elevators), Farmer City, DeWitt County; and Topflight Grain Company, Monticello, Piatt County.

c. Pursuant to section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, in the State of North Dakota, is assigned to Grand Forks.

Bounded on the North by the North Dakota State line;

Bounded on the East by the North Dakota State line south to State Route 200;

Bounded on the South by State Route 200 west-northwest to the western Traill County line; the western Traill County line; the southern Grand Forks and Nelson County lines; the southern Eddy County line west to U.S. Route 281; U.S. Route 281 north to State Route l5; State Route l5 west to U.S. Route 52; U.S. Route 52 northeast to State Route 3; and

Bounded on the West by State Route 3 north to State Route 60; State Route 60 west-northwest to State Route 5; State Route 5 west to State Route 14; State Route 14 north to the North Dakota State line.

Grand Fork's assigned geographic area does not include the following grain elevators inside Grand Fork's area which have been and will continue to be serviced by the following official agencies: Grain Inspection, Inc.: Fessenden Coop Association, Fessenden; and Fessenden Coop Association, Manfred; both in Wells County; and Minot Grain Inspection, Inc.: Harvey Farmers Elevator, Harvey, Wells County.

d. Pursuant to section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, in the State of Nebraska, is assigned to Hastings.

Bounded on the North by the northern Nebraska State line from the western Sioux County line east to the eastern Knox County line;

Bounded on the East by the eastern and southern Knox County lines; the eastern Antelope County line; the northern Madison County line east to U.S. Route 81; U.S. Route 81 south to the southern Madison County line; the southern Madison County line; the eastern Boone, Nance, and Merrick County lines; the Platte River southwest; the eastern Hamilton County line; the northern and eastern Fillmore County lines; the southern Fillmore County line west to U.S. Route 81; U.S. Route 81 south to State Highway 8; State Highway 8 west to the County Road 1 mile west of U.S. Route 81; the County Road south to southern Nebraska State line;

Bounded on the South by the southern Nebraska State line, from the County Road 1 mile west of U.S. Route 81, west to the western Dundy County line; and

Bounded on the West by the western Dundy, Chase, Perkins, and Keith County lines; the southern and western Garden County lines; the southern Morrill County line west to U.S. Route 385; U.S. Route 385 north to the southern Box Butte County line; the southern and western Sioux County lines north to the northern Nebraska State line.

The following grain elevators, located outside of the above contiguous geographic area, are part of this geographic area assignment: Farmers Coop, and Big Springs Elevator, both in Big Springs, Deuel County (located inside Kansas Grain Inspection Service, Inc.'s area); and Huskers Cooperative Grain Company, Columbus, Platte County (located inside Fremont Grain Inspection Department, Inc.'s, area).

e. Pursuant to section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, in the States of Illinois and Iowa, is assigned to McCrea.

Carroll and Whiteside Counties, Illinois.

Clinton and Jackson Counties, Iowa.

f. Pursuant to section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, the entire State of Missouri, is assigned to Missouri.

g. Pursuant to section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, the entire State of South Carolina, except those export port locations within the State, is assigned to South Carolina.

Interested persons, including Aberdeen, Decatur, Grand Forks, Hastings, McCrea, Missouri, and South Carolina, are hereby given the opportunity to apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas specified above under the provisions of section 7(f) of the Act and section 800.196(d) of the regulations issued thereunder. Designation in the specified geographic areas is for the period beginning October 1, 2002, and ending September 30, 2005. Persons wishing to apply for designation should contact the Compliance Division at the address listed above for forms and information.

GIPSA also is publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to present comments on the Aberdeen, Decatur, Grand Forks, Hastings, McCrea, Missouri, and South Carolina official agencies. Commenters are encouraged to submit pertinent data concerning these official agencies including information on the timeliness, cost, quality, and scope of services provided. All comments must be submitted to the Compliance Division at the above address.

Applications, comments, and other available information will be considered in determining which applicant will be designated.

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the possible impact of the proposed actions.

If the Committee approves the proposed additions, all entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the services to the Government.

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-ODay Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited.

Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information. The following services are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products to the Government.

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-ODay Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products proposed for deletion from the Procurement List.

The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

On November 17, 2000; June 29, 2001; December 21, 2001; January 4, January 11 and January 18, 2002, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices (65 FR 69499; 66 FR 34612, 65876 and 67 FR 556m 1436 and 2631) of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

The following comments pertain to Janitorial/Grounds Maintenance/Parking Management, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC.

Comments were received from the prime contractor for this project and from one subcontractor, in response to letters sent to these companies. Both contractors indicated that they would be severely impacted if they were not permitted to retain their contracts through the final option year.

Procurement List additions do not affect contracts in being for the supplies or services added to the Procurement List. If the Government contracting officer chooses to exercise the option, the anticipated impacts on the contractors will not occur. Even if the option is not exercised, the portion of the prime contractor's total revenues which this project represents is well below the level which the Committee considers constituting severe adverse impact on a contractor affected by a Procurement List addition. As for the subcontractor, which raised the possibility of going out of business if it loses its contract in this project, the Committee considers the creation of a number of jobs for people with severe disabilities, whose unemployment rate is near 70 percent, to outweigh the effect on the subcontractor.

The following material pertains to all of the items being added to the Procurement List.

After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the services listed below are suitable for procurement by the federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4. I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the services the Government.

2. The action will not have a severe economic impact on current contractors for the services.

3. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government.

4. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-ODay Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following services are added to the Procurement List:

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action may result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

2. The action will not have a severe economic impact on future contractors for the service.

3. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the service to Government.

4. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-ODay Act (41 U.S.C.46-48c) in connection with the service deleted from the Procurement List.

After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the committee has determined that the service listed below is no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46048 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

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 regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (2001). Pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of the Act, an antidumping (“AD”) or countervailing duty (“CVD”) order will be revoked, or the suspended investigation will be terminated, unless revocation or termination would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of (1) dumping or a countervailable subsidy, and (2) material injury to the domestic industry.

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

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218 we are initiating sunset reviews of the following antidumping duty orders:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“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's regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (2001).

On December 6, 2001, the Department published the preliminary results of the new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on structural steel beams from Japan. See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review: Structural Steel Beams from Japan, 66 FR 63365 (December 6, 2001). This review covers one producer/exporter, Yamato Kogyo Co., Ltd. The POR is February 11, 2000 through November 30, 2000. We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. The Department received no comments from any party on the preliminary results of review. The Department has conducted this new shipper review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

For purposes of this review, the products covered are doubly-symmetric shapes, whether hot or cold-rolled, drawn, extruded, formed or finished, having at least one dimension of at least 80 mm (3.2 inches or more), whether of carbon or alloy (other than stainless) steel, and whether or not drilled, punched, notched, painted, coated, or clad. These products (“Structural Steel Beams”) include, but are not limited to, wide-flange beams (“W” shapes), bearing piles (“HP” shapes), standard beams (“S” or “I” shapes), and M-shapes.

All products that meet the physical and metallurgical descriptions provided above are within the scope of this review unless otherwise excluded. The following products, are outside and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this review:

• Structural steel beams greater than 400 pounds per linear foot or with a web or section height (also known as depth) over 40 inches.

The merchandise subject to this review is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) at subheadings: 7216.32.0000, 7216.33.0030, 7216.33.0060, 7216.33.0090, 7216.50.0000, 7216.61.0000, 7216.69.0000, 7216.91.0000, 7216.99.0000, 7228.70.3040, 7228.70.6000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs Service (“Customs”) purposes, the written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive.

No parties submitted comments on the preliminary results of review. Accordingly, there is no concurrent issues and decision memorandum or analysis memorandum issued with these final results of review.

We have made no changes in programming since the preliminary results of review.

We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margin exists for the period February 11, 2000 through November 30, 2000:

The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b), we have calculated exporter/importer-specific assessment rates. We calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates on a unit value per metric ton basis by summing the dumping margins on U.S. sales, and then dividing this sum by the total metric tons of all U.S. sales examined. Based on our determination in this review, we will instruct Customs not to assess antidumping duties on the merchandise subject to review.

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of new shipper review for all shipments of structural steel beams from Japan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) For the reviewed company listed above, no cash deposit rate will be required; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less than fair value (“LTFV”) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the “all others” rate of 31.98 percent established in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Structural Steel Beams from Japan, 65 FR 24182 (April 25, 2000); Structural Steel Beams from Japan: Notice of Antidumping Duty Order, 65 FR 37960 (June 19, 2000).

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

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

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

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

NIST, as the Designating Authority under the Sectoral Annex for Telecommunication Equipment of the US-EU MRA, is sponsoring this workshop in order to provide training and educational outreach for U.S. CABs. The workshop is aimed at providing information to current and potential CABs, assessors, manufacturers, and other interested parties on requirements of the EU R&TTE Directive. The first half-day will be devoted to an introduction to the R&TTE Directive and its requirements. This will be followed by a 1 1/2 day session focusing on issues relating to operating aspects, common problems, solutions, and experiences encountered by CABs/NBs under the R&TTE Directive. There is a $225 fee to attend the Workshop. All attendees must register no later than March 27, 2002. Attendance will be limited to the first 80 registered participants.

Workshop attendees are assumed to have familiarity with the US-EU Mutual Recognition Agreement and the R&TTE Directive. The text of these documents can be accessed at http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/210/216/mra.htm and http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/210/216/mra-relatedlinks.htm respectively. Information on becoming a U.S. CAB for radio and telecommunications terminal equipment under the US-EU MRA is posted on NIST Web site at http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/210/216/mra-eu-telecom.htm.

Form Title and OMB Number: United States Navy Illicit Behavior Screening Certificate; OMB Control No. (None).

Needs and Uses: Used by the Navy Recruiting Command to assess an applicant's history of alcohol abuse, drug abuse, or other illicit behavior in determining a person's qualifications to enter the military service. An applicant with a history of drug or alcohol abuse, or behavior that violates the civil rights of others is undesirable for military service. The collection of this information is needed in order to make a fair and reasonable enlistment eligibility determination of an applicant.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Annual Burden Hours: 13,000.

Number of Respondents: 65,000.

Responses Per Respondent: 1.

Average Burden per Response: 12 minutes.

Frequency: On occasion.

Form Title and OMB Number: NROTC Preliminary Application Form; OMB Control Number 0703-0028.

Needs and Uses: Used by the Navy Recruiting Command to determine basic eligibility for the Four-Year NROTC Scholarship Program, and is necessary for the initial screening of prospective applicants. Use of this questionnaire is the only accurate and specific method to determine scholarship awardees. Each individual who wishes to apply to the scholarship program completes and returns the questionnaire.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Annual Burden Hours: 10,000.

Number of Respondents: 40,000.

Responses Per Respondent: 1.

Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.

Frequency: On occasion.

Form Title and OMB Number: Enlistee Financial Statement; OMB Control Number 0703-0020.

Needs and Uses: All persons interested in entering the U.S. Navy or U.S. Naval Reserve who have someone either fully or partially dependent on them for financial support, must provide information on their current financial situation which will determine if the individual will be able to meet his/her financial obligations on Navy pay. The information is provided by the prospective enlistee during an interview with a Navy recruiter. The information provided on NAVCRUIT Form 1130/13 is used by Navy recruiters and by recruiting management personnel in assessing the Navy applicant's ability to meet financial obligations, thereby preventing the enlistment of, and subsequent management difficulties with people who cannot reasonably expect to meet their financial obligations on Navy pay.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Annual Burden Hours: 47,630.

Number of Respondents: 86,800.

Responses Per Respondent: 1.

Average Burden Per Response: 33 minutes.

Frequency: On occasion.

You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

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

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPP-30522. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as confidential business information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number OPP-30522 in the subject line on the first page of your response.

1. By mail . Submit your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

2. In person or by courier . Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The PIRIB is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

3. Electronically . You may submit your comments electronically by e-mail to: opp-docket@epa.gov, or you can submit a computer disk as described above. Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format. All comments in electronic form must be identified by docket control number OPP-30522. Electronic comments may also be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Offer alternative ways to improve the registration activity.

7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.

8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

EPA received an application as follows to register a pesticide product containing an active ingredient not included in any currently registered product pursuant to the provisions of section 3(c)(4) of FIFRA. Notice of receipt of this application does not imply a decision by the Agency on the application.

File Symbol : 56872-E. Applicant : Gardens Alive, 5100 Schenley Place, Lawrenceburg, IN 47025. Product Name : WOW Plus. Herbicide. Active ingredient : Corn gluten meal at 78%. Proposed Classification/Use :. For pre-emergent weed control and lawn fertilizer.

This is a summary of the Commission's Memorandum Opinion and Order (MO&O) in CC Docket No. 01-324, FCC 02-63, adopted February 22, 2002, and released February 22, 2002. This full text may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via e-mail qualexint@aol.com. It is also available on the Commission's Web site at http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/in-region_applications/verizon_ri/welcome.html.

1. History of the Application. On November 26, 2001, Verizon filed an application (Rhode Island Application), pursuant to section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, with the Commission to provide in-region, interLATA service in Rhode Island.

2. The Rhode Island Commission's Evaluation. The Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission (Rhode Island Commission) advised the Commission, following a nearly four month review process, that Verizon met the checklist requirements of section 271(c) and has taken the statutorily required steps to open its local markets to competition. Consequently, the Rhode Island Commission recommended that the Commission approve Verizon's in-region, interLATA entry in its December 14, 2001 evaluation of the Rhode Island Application.

3. The Department of Justice's Evaluation. The Department of Justice filed its evaluation of Verizon's Rhode Island Application on January 4, 2002. It recommended approval of the Rhode Island Application subject to the Commission satisfying itself as to pricing issues raised by commenters.

4. Checklist Item 2—Unbundled Network Elements. Based on the record, the Commission finds that Verizon provides “[n]ondiscriminatory access to network elements in accordance with the requirements of sections 251(c)(3) and 251(d)(1)” of the Act in compliance with checklist item 2.

5. The Commission finds that Verizon's charges for unbundled network elements (UNEs) are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory in compliance with checklist item 2. Verizon relied in its Rhode Island Application not only on a Rhode Island Commission proceeding adopting Verizon's switching rates, but also on a benchmark comparison to New York switching rates and Massachusetts rates based on the New York rates. During the pendency of this proceeding, however, on January 28, 2002, the New York Public Service Commission adopted new switching rates, which are more than 50 percent lower than Verizon's previous New York switching rates. In response to this change in circumstances, Verizon filed with this Commission reduced Rhode Island switching rates upon which it then relied as evidence to demonstrate compliance with checklist item two. Under these unique circumstances, the Commission waives its “complete-as-filed” rule to take into consideration this late-filed evidence. The Rhode Island Commission adopted these discounted switching rates on February 21, 2002. The Commission finds Verizon's voluntarily reduced switching rates are within a reasonable TELRIC (total element long-run incremental costs) range. In addition, the Commission finds the Rhode Island loop rates to be within the range that the reasonable application of TELRIC principles would produce.

6. The Commission also concludes that Verizon meets its obligation to provide access to its operations support systems (OSS)—the systems, databases, and personnel necessary to support the network elements or services. Nondiscriminatory access to OSS ensures that new entrants have the ability to order service for their customers and communicate effectively with Verizon regarding basic activities such as placing orders and providing maintenance and repair services for customers. The Commission finds that, for each of the primary OSS functions (pre-ordering, ordering, provisioning, maintenance and repair, and billing, as well as change management and technical assistance), Verizon provides access that enables competing carriers to perform the functions in substantially the same time and manner as Verizon or, if there is not an appropriate retail analogue in Verizon's systems, in a manner that permits an efficient competitor a meaningful opportunity to compete.

7. Pursuant to this checklist item, Verizon must also provide nondiscriminatory access to network elements in a manner that allows other carriers to combine such elements. Based on the evidence in the record, and upon Verizon's legal obligations under interconnection agreements, Verizon demonstrates that it provides to competitors combinations of already-combined network element as well as nondiscriminatory access to unbundled network elements in a manner that allows competing carriers to combine those elements themselves

8. Checklist Item 4—Unbundled Local Loops. Verizon has adequately demonstrated that it provides unbundled local loops as required by section 271. More specifically, Verizon establishes that it provides access to loop make-up information in compliance with the Commission's rules and nondiscriminatory access to stand alone xDSL-capable loops and high-capacity loops. Also, Verizon provides voice grade loops, both as new loops and through hot-cut conversions, in a nondiscriminatory manner. Finally, Verizon has demonstrated that it has a line-sharing and line-splitting provisioning process that affords competitors nondiscriminatory access to these facilities.

9. In the Commission's overview of Verizon's performance data, it relies primarily on Rhode Island performance data (supplemented with Massachusetts data) collected and submitted by Verizon under the state-adopted carrier-to-carrier standards. Verizon provides evidence and performance data establishing that it can efficiently furnish unbundled loops, for the provision of both traditional voice services and various advanced services, to other carriers in a nondiscriminatory manner.

10. Checklist Item 1—Interconnection. Based on the evidence in the record, the Commission concludes that Verizon demonstrates that it provides interconnection in accordance with the requirements of section 251(c)(2) and as specified in section 271 and applied in the Commission's prior orders. Pursuant to this checklist item, Verizon must allow other carriers to interconnect their networks to its network for the mutual exchange of traffic, using any available method of interconnection at any available point in Verizon's network.

11. Verizon also demonstrates that its collocation offerings in Rhode Island satisfy the requirements of sections 251 and 271 of the Act and are in compliance with the Commission's recent Collocation Remand Order. Verizon demonstrates that it offers interconnection in Rhode Island to other telecommunications carriers at just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory rates, in compliance with checklist item 1.

12. Checklist Item 5—Unbundled Local Transport. Section 271(c)(2)(B)(v) of the competitive checklist requires a BOC to provide “local transport from the trunk side of a wireline local exchange carrier switch unbundled from switching or other services.” The Commission concludes, based upon the evidence in the record, that Verizon demonstrates that it provides both shared and dedicated transport, including dark fiber, in compliance with the requirements of checklist item 5.

13. Checklist Item 14—Resale. Based on the evidence in the record, the Commission concludes that Verizon demonstrates that it makes telecommunications services, including its DSL-based telecommunications service, available in Rhode Island for resale, in accordance with sections 251(c)(4) and 252(d)(3), and thus satisfies the requirements for checklist item 14.

14. Checklist Items 3, 6-13. An applicant under section 271 must demonstrate that it complies with checklist item 3 (poles, ducts, conduits, and rights of way), item 6 (unbundled local switching), item 7 (911/E911 access and directory assistance/operator services), item 8 (white page directory listings), item 9 (numbering administration), item 10 (databases and associated signaling), item 11 (number portability), item 12 (local dialing parity), and item 13 (reciprocal compensation). Based on the evidence in the record, and in accordance with Commission rules and orders concerning compliance with section 271 of the Act, the Commission concludes that Verizon demonstrates that it is in compliance with these checklist items in Rhode Island. The Rhode Island Commission also concluded that Verizon complies with the requirements of each of these checklist items.

15. Compliance with Section 271(c)(1)(A). The Commission concludes that Verizon demonstrates that it satisfies the requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A) based on the interconnection agreements it has implemented with competing carriers in Rhode Island. The record demonstrates that competitive LECs serve some business and residential customers using predominantly their own facilities.

16. Section 272 Compliance. Verizon has demonstrated that it complies with the requirements of section 272. Significantly, Verizon provides evidence that it maintains the same structural separation and nondiscrimination safeguards in Rhode Island as it does in Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts—states in which Verizon has already received section 271 authority.

17. Public Interest Analysis. The Commission concludes that approval of this application is consistent with the public interest. It views the public interest requirement as an opportunity to review the circumstances presented by the applications to ensure that no other relevant factors exist that would frustrate the congressional intent that markets be open, as required by the competitive checklist, and that entry will therefore serve the public interest as Congress expected. While no one factor is dispositive in this analysis, the Commission's overriding goal is to ensure that nothing undermines its conclusion that markets are open to competition.

18. The Commission finds that, consistent with its extensive review of the competitive checklist, barriers to competitive entry in the local market have been removed and the local exchange market today is open to competition. The Commission also finds that the record confirms its view that a BOC's entry into the long distance market will benefit consumers and competition if the relevant local exchange market is open to competition consistent with the competitive checklist.

19. The Commission also finds that the performance monitoring and enforcement mechanisms developed in Rhode Island, in combination with other factors, provide meaningful assurance that Verizon will continue to satisfy the requirements of section 271 after entering the long distance market. Commenters urge the Commission to perform a price squeeze analysis. The Commission has reviewed their evidence, however, and determined that even if it accepts their assertions that a price squeeze analysis is mandated by the section 271's public interest requirement, there is no price squeeze in Rhode Island.

20. Section 271(d)(6) Enforcement Authority. Working with the Rhode Island Commission, the Commission intends to monitor closely post-entry compliance and to enforce the provisions of section 271 using the various enforcement tools Congress provided in the Communications Act.

Anyone planning to attend the meeting who requires special disability-related arrangements such as sign-language interpretation should provide notice of their need by Friday, March 15th. Please make any request to Michael Starkweather—phone: 301-628-3141; fax: 301-628-3101; e-mail: mstarkweather@s-3.com.

On June 8, 2001, HHS Secretary Thompson announced a Department-wide initiative to reduce regulatory burdens in health care, to improve patient care, and to respond to the concerns of health care providers and industry, State and local Governments, and individual Americans who are affected by HHS rules. Common sense approaches and careful balancing of needs can help improve patient care. As part of this initiative, the Department is establishing the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Regulatory Reform to provide findings and recommendations regarding potential regulatory changes. These changes would enable HHS programs to reduce burdens and costs associated with departmental regulations and paperwork, while at the same time maintaining or enhancing the effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and access of HHS programs.

The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 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 HECTOROL (doxercalciferol). HECTOROL is indicated for the reduction of elevated iPTH levels in the management of secondary hyperparathyroidism in patients undergoing chronic renal dialysis. Subsequent to this approval, the Patent and Trademark Office received a patent term restoration application for HECTOROL (U.S. Patent No. 4,555,364) from The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, and the Patent and Trademark Office requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated April 13, 2000, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark Office that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of HECTOROL 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 HECTOROL is 4,072 days. Of this time, 3,614 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 458 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

1. The date an exemption under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 355) became effective: April 17, 1988. The applicant claims April 16, 1988, as the date the investigational new drug application (IND) became effective. However, FDA records indicate that the IND effective date was April 17, 1988, 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 of the act: March 9, 1998. The applicant claims March 7, 1998, as the date the new drug application (NDA) for HECTOROL (NDA 20-862) was initially submitted. However, FDA records indicate that NDA 20-862 was submitted on March 9, 1998.

3. The date the application was approved: June 9, 1999. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 20-862 was approved on June 9, 1999.

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 1,824 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 30, 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 28, 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 Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Commission was established by Public Law 100-692, November 18, 1988 and extended through Public Law 105-355, November 13, 1998.

On April 17, 1997, the Department of Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on imports of brake rotors from China (62 FR 18740). The Commission is conducting a review to determine whether revocation of the order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. It will assess the adequacy of interested party responses to this notice of institution to determine whether to conduct a full review or an expedited review. The Commission's determination in any expedited review will be based on the facts available, which may include information provided in response to this notice.

The following definitions apply to this review:

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

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

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the domestically produced product or products which are like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the Subject Merchandise. In its original determination, the Commission defined the Domestic Like Product as aftermarket brake rotors.

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. producers as a whole of the Domestic Like Product , or those producers whose collective output of the Domestic Like Product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product. In its original determination, the Commission defined the Domestic Industry as producers of aftermarket brake rotors. The Commission also determined that appropriate circumstances existed to exclude AlliedSignal from the domestic aftermarket rotor industry as a related party.

(5) The Order Date is the date that the antidumping duty order under review became effective. In this review, the Order Date is April 17, 1997.

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

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

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

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

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

Pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission's rules, each interested party response to this notice must provide the information specified below. The deadline for filing such responses is April 22, 2002. Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the Commission's rules, eligible parties (as specified in Commission rule 207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments concerning the adequacy of responses to the notice of institution and whether the Commission should conduct an expedited or full review. The deadline for filing such comments is May 15, 2002. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of sections 201.8 and 207.3 of the Commission's rules and any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6 and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means. Also, in accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or APO service list as appropriate), and a certificate of service must accompany the document (if you are not a party to the review you do not need to serve your response).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(7) If you are a U.S. producer of the Domestic Like Product , provide the following information on your firm's operations on that product during calendar year 2001 (report quantity data in units and value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/worker group or trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms in which your workers are employed/which are members of your association.

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

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

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

(8) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the Subject Merchandise from the Subject Country , provide the following information on your firm's(s') operations on that product during calendar year 2001 (report quantity data in units and value data in U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association.

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

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

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

(9) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country , provide the following information on your firm's(s') operations on that product during calendar year 2001 (report quantity data in units and value data in U.S. dollars, landed and duty-paid at the U.S. port but not including antidumping or countervailing duties). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association.

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

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

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

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

On April 17, 1997, the Department of Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on imports of rebar from Turkey (62 FR 18748). The Commission is conducting a review to determine whether revocation of the order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. It will assess the adequacy of interested party responses to this notice of institution to determine whether to conduct a full review or an expedited review. The Commission's determination in any expedited review will be based on the facts available, which may include information provided in response to this notice.

The following definitions apply to this review:

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

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

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the domestically produced product or products which are like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the Subject Merchandise . In its original determination, the Commission defined the Domestic Like Product as all stock deformed rebar, excluding plain round rebar, and fabricated or coated rebar.

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. producers as a whole of the Domestic Like Product , or those producers whose collective output of the Domestic Like Product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product. In its original determination, the Commission found “appropriate circumstances” existed to conduct a regional industry analysis and defined the Domestic Industry as all producers of stock deformed rebar within the Eastern Tier region. 2

(5) The Order Date is the date that the antidumping duty order under review became effective. In this review, the Order Date is April 17, 1997.

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

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

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

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

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

Pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission's rules, each interested party response to this notice must provide the information specified below. The deadline for filing such responses is April 22, 2002. Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the Commission's rules, eligible parties (as specified in Commission rule 207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments concerning the adequacy of responses to the notice of institution and whether the Commission should conduct an expedited or full review. The deadline for filing such comments is May 15, 2002. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of sections 201.8 and 207.3 of the Commission's rules and any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6 and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means. Also, in accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or APO service list as appropriate), and a certificate of service must accompany the document (if you are not a party to the review you do not need to serve your response).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(7) If you are a U.S. producer of the Domestic Like Product , provide the following information on your firm's operations on that product during calendar year 2001 (report quantity data in short tons and value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/worker group or trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms in which your workers are employed/which are members of your association.

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

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

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

(8) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the Subject Merchandise from the Subject Country , provide the following information on your firm's(s’) operations on that product during calendar year 2001 (report quantity data in short tons and value data in U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association.

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

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

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

(9) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country , provide the following information on your firm's(s’) operations on that product during calendar year 2001 (report quantity data in short tons and value data in U.S. dollars, landed and duty-paid at the U.S. port but not including antidumping or countervailing duties). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association.

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

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

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

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