In June 2000, as part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) “Clean Wheat Initiative,” CCC announced that it would progressively tighten the standards for the cleanliness of U.S. wheat exports destined for overseas food aid. In fiscal year 2000, the maximum dockage specification for wheat purchased by the CCC for food aid was lowered from 1.0 to 0.8 percent. This specification was lowered again to 0.7 percent for fiscal year 2001 purchases.

USDA announced on February 5, 2002, that it would lower the maximum acceptable dockage level for wheat purchases by the CCC for U.S. foreign food aid programs from 0.7 percent to 0.6 percent for the remainder of fiscal year 2002. We are now seeking public comment regarding whether we should reduce the dockage level further to 0.5 percent in fiscal year 2003.

The CCC purchasing requirements for wheat will apply to CCC's food donations under the Food for Progress Act of 1985, and, with the concurrence of the United States Agency for International Development, title II of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (P.L. 480), and any surplus removal under section 5(d) of the CCC Charter Act.

Comments are invited on all aspects of reducing dockage for U.S. foreign food aid purchases under the Clean Wheat Initiative for fiscal year 2003 and future years, i.e., whether the dockage level should be tightened further to 0.5 percent in fiscal year 2003; whether it should remain the same, that is 0.6 percent; whether it should be relaxed; or whether CCC should abandon the Clean Wheat Initiative completely and return to the 1.0 percent dockage level that was in place prior to this initiative. Economic and/or marketing reasons should be discussed, including any likelihood that CCC may be reducing the pool of eligible suppliers of commodities resulting in an adverse impact on competition.

The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities ( see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies an information collection that RUS is submitting to OMB for extension.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to F. Lamont Heppe, Jr., Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 1522, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-1522. Fax: (202) 720-4120.

Title: Request for Mail List Data, RUS Form 87.

OMB Control Number: 0572-0051.

Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: The RUS Form 87 is used for both the Electric and Telecommunications programs to obtain the names and addresses of the borrowers' officials with whom RUS must communicate directly in order to administer the agency's lending programs. Changes occurring at the borrowers' annual meetings ( e.g., the selection of board members, managers, attorneys, certified public accountants, or other officials make necessary the collection of this information. The RUS Form 87 is being revised to add a field for borrowers to provide the address of their website.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average .25 hour per response.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 905.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 226 hours.

Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Michele Brooks, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, at (202) 690-1078. Fax: (202) 720-4120.

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

The Technical Advisory Committees were established to advise and assist the U.S. Government on export control matters. In managing the operations of the TACs, the Department of Commerce is responsible for implementing the policies and procedures prescribed in the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Bureau of Export Administration provides technical and administrative support for the Committees.The TACs advise the government on proposed revisions to export control lists, licensing procedures, assessments of the foreign availability of controlled products, and export control regulations.

Written request to BXA.

OMB Number: 0694-0100.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Regular submission for extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Individuals, businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1.

Estimated Time Per Response: 5 hours per response.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 5.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: No capital expenditures are required.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.

The Bureau of Export Administration is required to perform post-shipment verifications on high performance computers exported to the PRC under License Exception CTP in addition to those exported under a license. U.S. exporters of high performance computers to PRC will obtain the End-User Certficate in each transaction.

Submitted in written form.

OMB Number: 0694-0112.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Regular submission for extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Individuals, businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 300.

Estimated Time Per Response: 15 minutes per response.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 75 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: No capital expenditures are required.

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

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

On February 9, 1994, the Department published the antidumping duty order on stainless steel flanges from India (59 FR 5994). On February 14, 2001, the Department published the notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” for this order covering the period February 1, 2000 through January 31, 2001 ( 66 FR 10269). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), on February 28, 2001, Isibars, Panchmahal and Viraj requested a review, and the petitioners, under 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), requested a review of Echjay, Isibars, Panchmahal, Patheja and Viraj. The petitioners are Gerlin Inc., Ideal Forging Corporation, and Maas Flange Corporation. On March 22, 2001, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review (66 FR 16037).

On July 5, 2001, we extended the time limit for the preliminary results of this administrative review to February 28, 2002 (66 FR 35411).

On April 4, 2001, Echjay informed the Department that it had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review. The Department conducted a query of U.S. Customs Service data on entries of stainless steel flanges from India made during the POR, and confirmed that Echjay made no entries during the review period. Therefore, we preliminarily determine to rescind the review with respect to Echjay.

The products under review are certain forged stainless steel flanges, both finished and not finished, generally manufactured to specification ASTM A-182, and made in alloys such as 304, 304L, 316, and 316L. The scope includes five general types of flanges. They are weld-neck, used for butt-weld line connection; threaded, used for threaded line connections; slip-on and lap joint, used with stub-ends/butt-weld line connections; socket weld, used to fit pipe into a machined recession; and blind, used to seal off a line. The sizes of the flanges within the scope range generally from one to six inches; however, all sizes of the above-described merchandise are included in the scope. Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are cast stainless steel flanges. Cast stainless steel flanges generally are manufactured to specification ASTM A-351. The flanges subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7307.21.1000 and 7307.21.5000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive of whether or not the merchandise is covered by the review.

The POR is February 1, 2000, through January 31, 2001.

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, “if an interested party or any other person--(A) withholds information that has been requested by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i), the administering authority...shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this title.”

In addition, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds that an interested party “has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,” the Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of the party as the facts otherwise available. Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” See Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong. 2nd Sess. (1994), at 870. Furthermore, “an affirmative finding of bad faith on the part of the respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.” See Antidumping Duties, Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27340 (May 17, 1997). The statute notes, in addition, that in selecting from among the facts available the Department may, subject to the corroboration requirements of section 776(c), rely upon information drawn from the petition, a final determination in the investigation, any previous administrative review conducted under section 751 (or section 753 for countervailing duty cases), or any other information on the record.

Section 776(c) provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of a investigation or review, the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. The SAA states that the independent sources may include published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation or review. See SAA at 870. The SAA clarifies that “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. Id. As noted in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996), to corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information used.

Patheja failed to respond to our May 28, 2001 antidumping questionnaire, and has provided no probative information for this review. Panchmahal failed to respond to our July 11, 2001 request for supplemental information concerning its section A, B, and C responses to our antidumping questionnaire, and failed to respond to our July 30, 2001 request for cost of production/constructed value (COP/CV) information. Patheja's failure to respond to our antidumping questionnaire is a failure to provide requested information as defined by section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act. Panchmahal's failure to provide COP/CV information as well as Panchmahal's failure to provide a complete response to sections A, B, and C of our antidumping questionnaire is also a failure to provide requested information as defined by section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act. Additionally, both of these failures to provide requested information have significantly impeded this proceeding, as defined by section 776(a)(2)(C) of the Act. Moreover, as Patheja and Panchmahal have supplied no information or explanation of why they did not respond to our questionnaire and supplemental questionnaire respectively, sections 782(c)(1), (d) and (e) of the Act are inapplicable. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that the use of facts available under section 776(a) of the Act is warranted.

Patheja never attempted to respond to our questionnaire or to explain why it could not respond. Panchmahal made an initial response, but thereafter, made no attempt to respond to our supplemental questionnaire. Moreover, Panchmahal provided no explanation as to why it could not respond. The lack of attempt to cooperate or even to offer an explanation for the failure to do so supports our conclusion that the two firms did not cooperate to the best of their ability. As noted above, Section 776(b) of the Act provides that if the Department finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's requests for information, the Department may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts available, which includes information derived from the petition. See SAA at 829-831 and 870 (1994).

Because we were unable to calculate margins for these respondents, we have assigned them the highest margin from any segment of this proceeding, in accordance with our practice. See e.g., Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results and Rescission In Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 1638, 1640 (January 9, 2001). The highest margin assigned for flanges from India is 210 percent. See Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India, 59 FR 5994 (February 9, 1994) (the Order). This margin was based on information in the petition.

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that when the Department relies on secondary information (such as that in the petition) in using the facts otherwise available, it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. The SAA clarifies that “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value (see SAA at 870). The SAA also states that independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics and U.S. Customs Service data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation (see SAA at 870). Thus, to corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information used.

To assess the reliability of the petition margin, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we examined the key elements of the calculations of export price and normal value upon which the petitioners based their margins for the petition. The U.S. prices in the petition were based on quotes to U.S. customers, most of which were obtained through market research. See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties, December 29, 1993. We were able to corroborate the U.S. prices in the petition by comparing these prices to publicly available information based on IM-145 import statistics. See Memorandum from Thomas Killiam, Case Analyst to the File, Corroboration of Petition Rate for Use as Facts Available, January 10, 2002.

The normal values in the petition were based on actual price quotations obtained through market research. The Department did not receive any useful information from Patheja, and we were unable to verify the partial information submitted by Panchmahal prior to its withdrawal from participation in the review. The Department is not aware of other independent sources of information that would enable it to corroborate the margin calculations in the petition further. We note that four Indian manufacturers currently have a 210 percent margin under this order.

The implementing regulation for section 776 of the Act, codified at 19 CFR 351.308(d), states, “(t)he fact that corroboration may not be practicable in a given circumstance will not prevent the Secretary from applying an adverse inference as appropriate and using the secondary information in question.” Additionally, the SAA at 870 states specifically that, where “corroboration may not be practicable in a given circumstance,” the Department may nevertheless apply an adverse inference. The SAA at 869 emphasizes that the Department need not prove that the facts available are the best alternative information. Therefore, based on our efforts, described above, to corroborate information contained in the petition and in accordance with 776(c) of the Act, which discusses facts available and corroboration, we consider the margins in the petition to be corroborated to the extent practicable for purposes of this preliminary determination (see Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 76, 84 (January 4, 1999)).

To determine whether sales of flanges from India were made in the United States at less than fair value, we compared the export price (EP) or constructed export price (CEP) to the normal value (NV), as described in the “Export Price and Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated EPs and CEPs and compared these prices to weighted-average normal values or CVs, as appropriate.

In accordance with section 772 of the Act, we calculated either an EP or a CEP, depending on the nature of each sale. Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold before the date of importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States. Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold in the United States before or after the date of importation, by or for the account of the producer or exporter of the merchandise, or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to an unaffiliated purchaser, as adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d) of the Act.

We calculated EP and CEP, as appropriate, based on prices charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. We used the date of invoice as the date of sale. We based EP on the packed C&F, CIF duty paid, FOB, or ex-dock duty paid prices to the first unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We added to U.S. price amounts for duty drawback, when reported, pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. We also made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, including: foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, bank export document handling charges, ocean freight, and marine insurance.

For CEP sales, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, including direct selling expenses (i.e., credit), and imputed inventory carrying costs. In accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we deducted an amount for profit allocated to the expenses deducted under sections 772(d)(1) and (2) of the Act.

For these preliminary results, for Viraj's U.S. prices we have used Viraj's prices to its first unaffiliated U.S. customers. In the case of one of Viraj's U.S. customers, we have solicited information bearing on a possible affiliation with Viraj. Prior to issuing our final results, we will further examine whether sales from Viraj to the customer in question, rather than sales from that customer in question to its own customers, constitute the appropriate basis for U.S. price. We invite comments on this issue.

In order to determine whether there is sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product during the POR is equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise during the POR), for each respondent we compared the volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Since we found no reason to determine that quantity was not the appropriate basis for these comparisons, we did not use value as the measure. See 351.404(b)(2).

We based our comparisons of the volume of U.S. sales to the volume of home market sales on reported stainless steel flange weight, rather than on number of pieces. The record demonstrates that there can be large differences between the weight (and corresponding cost and price) of stainless steel flanges based on relative sizes, so comparisons of aggregate data would be distorted for these products if volume comparisons were based on the number of pieces.

We determined that for Viraj, the home market was viable because Viraj's home market sales were greater than 5 percent of its U.S. sales based on aggregate volume by weight. Because Isibars reported no home market or third country sales, we based NV on CV, pursuant to section 351.404(f) of the Department's regulations.

Since no information on the record indicates any comparison market sales to affiliates, we did not use an arm's-length test for comparison market sales.

The petitioners in this proceeding filed timely sales-below-cost allegations with regard to Viraj. See petitioners' letters of June 6, 2001. The petitioners' allegations were based on the respondents' questionnaire responses. We found that petitioners' methodology provided the Department with a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that sales in the home market had been made at prices below the COP. Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated an investigation to determine whether Viraj's sales of flanges were made at prices below COP during the POR. See memorandum from Thomas Killiam, Case Analyst, to Richard Weible, Office Director, Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production, dated July 1, 2001.

Each respondent defined its unique products, and thus its costs, based on different product characteristics. We determined that only grade, type, size, pressure rating, and finish were required to define models for purposes of matching. To make the model definitions for the cost test identical to those in the model match, we used the above criteria to define models and calculate costs. Where necessary, we converted costs from a per-piece basis to a per-kilogram basis. See the company-specific analysis memoranda for Isibars and Viraj, dated concurrently with this notice and available in the Central Records Unit.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP for Viraj based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like product, plus selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A) and packing. We relied on the home market sales and COP information provided by Viraj. After calculating COP, we tested whether home market sales of stainless steel flanges were made at prices below COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities and whether such prices permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We compared model-specific COPs to the reported home market prices less movement charges, discounts, and rebates.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent's home market sales for a model are at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that model because we determine that the below-cost sales were not made within an extended period of time in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's home market sales of a given model are at prices less than COP, we disregard the below-cost sales because they are 1) made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and 2) based on comparisons of prices to weighted-average COPs for the POR, were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.

The results of our cost test for Viraj indicated that for certain comparison market models, less than 20 percent of the sales of the model were at prices below COP. We therefore retained all sales of these comparison market models in our analysis and used them as the basis for determining NV. Our cost test also indicated that within an extended period of time (one year, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act), for certain comparison market models, more than 20 percent of the comparison market sales were sold at prices below COP. In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we therefore excluded these below-cost sales from our analysis and used the remaining above-cost sales as the basis for determining NV.

We compared Viraj's U.S. sales with contemporaneous sales of the foreign like product in the home market. We considered stainless steel flanges identical based on grade, type, size, pressure rating and finish. We used a 20 percent difference-in-merchandise (DIFMER) cost deviation cap as the maximum difference in cost allowable for similar merchandise, which we calculated as the absolute value of the difference between the U.S. and comparison market variable costs of manufacturing divided by the total cost of manufacturing of the U.S. product. For Isibars we compared U.S. price to CV.

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

To determine whether comparison market sales are at a different level of trade than U.S. sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. In analyzing the selling activities of the respondents, we did not note any significant differences in functions provided in any of the markets. Based upon the record evidence, we have determined that for each respondent there is one LOT for all EP sales, the same LOT as for all comparison market sales. Accordingly, because we find the U.S. sales and comparison market sales to be at the same LOT, no LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) is warranted.

We based comparison market prices on the packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to the unaffiliated purchasers in the comparison market. We made adjustments for differences in packing and for movement expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, and for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparison to EP we made COS adjustments by deducting comparison market direct selling expenses and adding U.S. direct selling expenses.

In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based NV on CV if we were unable to find a contemporaneous comparison market match for the U.S. sale. We calculated CV based on the cost of materials and fabrication employed in producing the subject merchandise, SG&A, and profit. In accordance with 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the foreign country. For selling expenses, we used the weighted-average comparison market selling expenses. Where appropriate, we made COS adjustments to CV in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We also made adjustments, where applicable, for comparison market indirect selling expenses to offset commissions in EP comparisons.

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the weighted-average dumping margins for the period February 1, 1999, through January 31, 2000, to be as follows:

The Department will disclose calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results of review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication. See CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date per 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in the case briefs and comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are requested to submit with the argument 1) a statement of the issue, 2) a brief summary of the argument and (3) a table of authorities. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised in any such written comments or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate assessment rates for the merchandise based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales made during the POR to the total quantity (in kilograms) of the sales used to calculate those duties. This rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries of merchandise of that manufacturer/exporter made during the POR. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service upon completion of the review.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of flanges from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates established in the final results of administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit will continue to be the most recent rate published in the final determination or final results for which the manufacturer or exporter received a company-specific rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the manufacturer of the merchandise in the final results of this review, or the LTFV investigation; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review or any previous reviews, the cash deposit rate will be 162.14 percent, the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation (59 FR 5994) (February 9, 1994).

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

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

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

On December 31, 1998, the Department published in the Federal Register (63 FR 72268), the final affirmative antidumping duty determination of sales at less than fair value (LTFV) on certain preserved mushrooms from Indonesia. We published an antidumping duty order on February 19, 1999 (64 FR 8310).

On February 14, 2001, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice advising of the opportunity to request an administrative review of this order for the period February 1, 2000, through January 31, 2001 (66 FR 10269). On February 28, 2001, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), we received a timely request from the petitioner that the Department conduct an administrative review of exports to the United States by PT Dieng Djaya and PT Surya Jaya Abadi Perkasa (Dieng/Surya), PT Indo Evergreen Agro Business Corp. (Indo Evergreen), and PT Zeta Agro Corporation (Zeta). We published a notice of initiation of the review on March 22, 2001 (66 FR 16037).

On March 30, 2001, the Department issued an antidumping questionnaire to Dieng/Surya, Indo Evergreen, and Zeta. We issued supplemental questionnaires in November 2001. In June 2001 and January 2002, we received timely responses to the Department's original and supplemental questionnaires, respectively.

On July 19, 2001, due to the reasons set forth in the Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India, Indonesia, and the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results in Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 66 FR 37640 (July 19, 2001), we extended the due date for the preliminary results. In accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we extended the due date for the preliminary results by the maximum 120 days allowable or until February 28, 2002.

The products covered by this order are certain preserved mushrooms, whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The preserved mushrooms covered under this order are the species Agaricus bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis . “Preserved mushrooms” refer to mushrooms that have been prepared or preserved by cleaning, blanching, and sometimes slicing or cutting. These mushrooms are then packed and heated in containers including but not limited to cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid medium, including but not limited to water, brine, butter or butter sauce. Preserved mushrooms may be imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. Included within the scope of this order are “brined” mushrooms, which are presalted and packed in a heavy salt solution to provisionally preserve them for further processing.

Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: (1) All other species of mushroom, including straw mushrooms; (2) all fresh and chilled mushrooms, including “refrigerated” or “quick blanched mushrooms”; (3) dried mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and (5) “marinated,” “acidified” or “pickled mushrooms, which are prepared or preserved by means of vinegar or acetic acid, but may contain oil or other additives.

The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under subheadings 2003.10.0027, 2003.10.0031, 2003.10.0037, 2003.10.0043, 2003.10.0047, 2003.10.0053, and 0711.90.4000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 3 (HTS). Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this order dispositive.

To determine whether sales to the United States of certain preserved mushrooms by Dieng/Surya, Indo Evergreen and Zeta were made at less than normal value, we compared export price to the normal value, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice.

Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the export prices of individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average normal value of the foreign like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade at prices above the cost of production (COP), as discussed in the “Cost of Production Analysis” section below.

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

On February 19, 1999, the Department published in the Federal Register an amended final determination and antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from India (64 FR 8311).

On February 14, 2001, the Department published a notice advising of the opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from India (66 FR 10269). In response to timely requests by four manufacturer/exporters, Agro Dutch Foods Ltd. (Agro Dutch), Himalya International Ltd. (Himalya), Hindustan Lever Ltd. (formerly Ponds India Ltd.) (HLL), and Weikfield Agro Products, Ltd. (Weikfield), and the petitioner, the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review with respect to twelve companies: Agro Dutch, Alpine Biotech Ltd. (Alpine Biotech), Dinesh Agro Products Ltd. (Dinesh Agro), Flex Foods Ltd. (Flex Foods), Himalya, HLL, Mandeep Mushrooms Ltd. (Mandeep), Premier Mushroom Farms (Premier), Saptarishi Agro Industries Ltd. (Saptarishi), Techtran Agro Industries Limited (Techtran), Transchem Ltd.(Transchem), and Weikfield (66 FR 16037, March 22, 2001). The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2000, through January 31, 2001.

On March 30, 2001, the Department issued antidumping duty questionnaires to the above-mentioned twelve companies. We received responses to the original questionnaire during the period May through July 2001. We issued supplemental questionnaires in August 2001 and January 2002, and received responses during the period August through September 2000 and February 2002.

On April 23, 2001, we received a timely submission from HLL to withdraw its request for an administrative review. On April 24, 2001, we received a timely submission from the petitioner to withdraw its request for administrative reviews of HLL and Transchem.

In June 2001, counsel for Saptarishi informed the Department that the company would no longer participate in the 2000-2001 administrative review. On June 14, 2001, we received a timely submission from the petitioner to withdraw its request for administrative review of Alpine Biotech, Dinesh Agro, Flex Foods, Mandeep, Premier, and Techtran. On July 13, 2001, the Department published a notice of partial recission of the antidumping duty administrative review with respect to Alpine Biotech, Dinesh Agro, Flex Foods, HLL, Mandeep, Premier, and Techtran, and Transchem (66 FR 36753). Therefore, the Department is reviewing only Agro Dutch, Himalya, Saptarishi and Weikfield in this administrative review.

On July 11, 2001, the Department received an allegation from the petitioner that Himalya sold certain preserved mushrooms in India at prices below the cost of production (COP). On August 9, 2001, the Department initiated a cost investigation of Himalya's home-market sales of this merchandise. See August 9, 2001, Memorandum to Louis Apple from The Team Regarding “Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Himalya International Limited (Himalya).” On July 19, 2001, the Department extended the time limit for the preliminary results in this review until February 28, 2002. See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India, Indonesia, and the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results in Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 66 FR 37640.

The products covered by this order are certain preserved mushrooms whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The preserved mushrooms covered under this order are the species Agaricus bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis . “Preserved mushrooms” refer to mushrooms that have been prepared or preserved by cleaning, blanching, and sometimes slicing or cutting. These mushrooms are then packed and heated in containers including but not limited to cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid medium, including but not limited to water, brine, butter, or butter sauce. Preserved mushrooms may be imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. Included within the scope of this order are “brined” mushrooms, which are presalted and packed in a heavy salt solution to provisionally preserve them for further processing.

Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: (1) All other species of mushroom, including straw mushrooms; (2) all fresh and chilled mushrooms, including “refrigerated” or “quick blanched mushrooms”; (3) dried mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and (5) “marinated,” “acidified,” or “pickled” mushrooms, which are prepared or preserved by means of vinegar or acetic acid, but may contain oil or other additives.

The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under subheadings 2003.10.0027, 2003.10.0031, 2003.10.0037, 2003.10.0043, 2003.10.0047, 2003.10.0053, and 0711.90.4000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) 2 . Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

As noted above in the “Background” section, Saptarishi informed the Department in June 2001 that it would no longer participate in this review. Because of Saptarishi's refusal to cooperate in this review, we determine that the application of facts available is appropriate, pursuant to section 776(a)(2) of the Act.

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that “if an interested party or any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i), the administering authority shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this title.”

Because Saptarishi refused to participate in this administrative review, we find that, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, the use of total facts available is appropriate (see, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review for Two Manufacturers/Exporters: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 50183, 50184 (August 17, 2000) (for a more detailed discussion, see Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review for Two Manufacturers/Exporters: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 40609, 40610-40611 (June 30, 2000)); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Persulfates from the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 27222, 27224 (May 19, 1997); and Certain Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel from Italy: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 2655 (January 17, 1997) (for a more detailed discussion, see Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel from Italy, 61 FR 36551, 36552 (July 4, 1996)).

Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds that an interested party “has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,” the Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of the party as facts otherwise available. Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” See Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, at 870 (1994). Furthermore, “an affirmative finding of bad faith on the part of the respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.” See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties: Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997).

Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available information derived from the petition, the final determination from the LTFV investigation, a previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the record. Under section 782(c) of the Act, a respondent has a responsibility not only to notify the Department if it is unable to provide requested information, but also to provide a “full explanation and suggested alternative forms.” Saptarishi informed the Department of its unwillingness to participate in this review, thereby failing to comply with this provision of the statute. Therefore, we determine that Saptarishi failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, making the use of an adverse inference appropriate.

In this proceeding, in accordance with Department practice (see, e.g., Rescission of Second New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 61581, 61584 (November 12, 1999); and Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 33295 (May 23, 2000) (for a more detailed discussion, see Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 39115 (July 21, 1999)), as adverse facts available, we have preliminarily assigned to exports of the subject merchandise produced by Saptarishi the rate of 66.24 percent, the highest rate calculated for any cooperative respondent in the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation or the 1998-2000 administrative review. The rates assigned to respondents in the previous two segments of the proceeding range from single digits for cooperative respondents to a petition rate of 243.87 for non-cooperative respondents. The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” See Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). We find the application of a rate of 66.24 percent to Saptarishi to be sufficiently adverse in this case.

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that where the Department selects from among the facts otherwise available and relies on “secondary information,” the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at the Department's disposal. Secondary information is described in the SAA as “{i}nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” See SAA at 870. The SAA states that “corroborate” means to determine that the information used has probative value (id.). To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used.

Unlike other types of information, such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources from which the Department can derive calculated dumping margins; the only source for margins is administrative determinations. In an administrative review, if the Department chooses as facts available a calculated dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time period, because it was calculated in accordance with the statute.

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

On February 21, 1995, the Department published in the Federal Register (60 FR 9661) the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India. The Department notified interested parties of the opportunity to request an administrative review of this order on February 14, 2001 (66 FR 10269). In February 2001, the Department received requests for review from five Indian producers of the subject merchandise: Shaw Alloys Corp., Ltd (“Shaw”); Ferro Alloys Corp. Ltd. (“FACOR”); Isibars Limited (“Isibars”); Viraj Group, Ltd. (“Viraj”); and Panchmahal Steel Limited (“Panchmahal”). Concurrent with their request for review, Isibars and Viraj also requested revocation from the antidumping duty order. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1), we published a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review on March 22, 2001 (66 FR 16037) with respect to Shaw, FACOR, Isibars, Viraj, and Panchmahal. The period of review (“POR”) is February 1, 2000, through January 31, 2001.

On March 30, 2001, Shaw Alloys withdrew its request for review. Panchmahal and FACOR withdrew their requests for review on June 1 and June 13, 2001, respectively. The above withdrawal requests were timely and no other interested party had requested a review of these companies. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding the reviews of Shaw, FACOR, and Panchmahal.

On December 20, 2001, Isibars withdrew its request for review. Although this withdrawal was received by the Department after the regulatory deadline of June 20, 2001, section 351.213(d)(1) of the regulations permits the Department to extend the deadline if “it is reasonable to do so.” Therefore, in accordance with section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations, the Department extended the deadline to withdraw requests for review and rescinded the administrative review with respect to Isibars (See the January 3, 2002 memorandum to Richard Moreland entitled, “Rescission of Administrative Review of Isibars, Ltd.” which is on file in the Department's Central Records Unit (“CRU”) in the main Department building). Therefore, for purposes of this administrative review, the only company reviewed is Viraj.

On July 19, 2001, the petitioners alleged that Viraj had made sales below the cost of production. Because the petitioners' allegation provided a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that sales in the home market by Viraj had been made at prices below the cost of production, the Department initiated a sales below cost investigation of Viraj on September 7, 2001. (See Cost of Production Analysis below).

According to section 351.222(b)(2)(i) of the Department's regulations, the Secretary may revoke an antidumping duty order in part if one or more of the exporters or producers covered by the order have sold the merchandise at not less than normal value for a period of at least three consecutive years. Section 351.222(b)(4)(d)(1) allows that the company requesting revocation need not have been reviewed during the intervening year (i.e., “any year between the first and final year of the consecutive period on which revocation or termination is conditioned” (351.222(b)(4)(d)(2)).

Viraj was reviewed in the 1998-1999 administrative review and received a 2.50 percent margin (See, Stainless Steel Bar From India; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 65 FR 48965 (August 10, 2000). Viraj was not reviewed in the 1999-2000 administrative review (the “intervening year”). Viraj's request for revocation is based on an assumption that it will be found to be not dumping in the pending litigation of the 1998-1999 administrative review, not on the basis of an actual finding of no dumping. Because Viraj was found to be dumping in the 1998-1999 administrative review at 2.50 percent, Viraj has not had three consecutive years of no dumping. Accordingly, we find that Viraj does not meet the standard for revocation. In addition, the Department notes that Viraj failed to certify commercial quantities pursuant to 19 CRF 351.222(e)(1)(ii) of the Department's regulations.

Imports covered by this review are shipments of stainless steel bar (“SSB”). SSB means articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other convex polygons. SSB includes cold-finished SSBs that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the rolling process.

Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless steel semi-finished products, cut length flat-rolled products (i.e., cut length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness), wire (i.e., cold-formed products in coils, of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and angles, shapes and sections.

The SSB subject to these reviews is currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this review is dispositive.

The regulations state that we will treat two or more affiliated producers as a single entity where those producers have production facilities for similar or identical products that would not require substantial retooling of either facility in order to restructure manufacturing priorities, and we conclude that there is a significant potential for the manipulation of price or production. In identifying a significant potential for the manipulation of price or production, the factors we may consider include the following: (i) The level of common ownership; (ii) the extent to which managerial employees or board members of one firm sit on the board of directors of an affiliated firm; (iii) whether operations are intertwined, such as through the sharing of sales information, involvement in production and pricing decisions, the sharing of facilities or employees, or significant transactions between the affiliated producers. See 19 CFR 351.401(f).

The Viraj Group Ltd. has responded to the Department's questionnaire on behalf of the affiliated companies, Viraj Forgings, Ltd. (“VFL”); Viraj Alloys, Ltd. (“VAL”); Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd. (“VIL”); and Viraj USA, Inc. (“Viraj USA”). Based on the information currently on the record, we agree with Viraj that these companies are affiliated and should be collapsed for purposes of these preliminary results.

The information on the record indicates that there is common ownership among the companies in the Viraj Group Ltd. and that certain individuals serve on the board of directors of each of the four companies. The operations of the companies are intertwined through close supplier relationships, as VAL supplies VIL with the input hot-rolled bar VIL processes into bright bar and sells to the United States. VAL, VIL, and VFL each use production facilities for similar or identical merchandise. VAL produces hot-rolled round bars and billets for sale in the home market. VIL also produces stainless steel billets, flanges, forgings and wires. VFL produces stainless steel forged flanges from billets procured from VAL. There is no evidence on the record to indicate that substantial retooling would be required for VAL, VIL, or VFL to restructure their manufacturing priorities.

Because the Viraj companies are under common control and ownership, the three producing companies use similar production facilities to produce similar products, and the operations of the companies are intertwined, we preliminarily find the Viraj companies are affiliated for the purposes of this administrative review and that VAL, VIL, and VFL, should be collapsed and considered one entity pursuant to section 771(33) of the Act and section 351.401(f) of the Department's regulations. We will consider this issue further for the final results.

To determine whether sales of stainless steel bar from India to the United States were made at less than normal value, we compared export price (“EP”) or constructed export price (“CEP”) to the normal value (“NV”), as described in the “Export Price/Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated EPs and CEPs for comparison to weighted-average NVs.

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced and sold by the respondents in the home market during the POR that fit the description in the “Scope of Investigation” section of this notice to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We compared U.S. sales to sales made in the home market, where appropriate. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by the respondent.

We calculated EP in accordance with Section 772(a) of the Act for those sales where the merchandise was sold to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States. We based EP on packed, CIF prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses including, inland freight, international freight, marine insurance, and brokerage, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

In accordance with Section 772(b) of the Act, we calculated CEP for those sales to the first unaffiliated purchaser that took place after importation into the United States. We based CEP on packed, CIF duty-paid prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States.

We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses, including inland freight, international freight, marine insurance, brokerage and handling, and U.S. customs duties, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, where appropriate. We increased the EP and CEP, where appropriate, by the amount of duty drawback in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.

In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., whether the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared Viraj's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with 19 CFR 404(b)(2) of the Department's regulation. Because Viraj's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable.

Based on our analysis of an allegation made by petitioners on July 19, 2001, we found that there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that the respondent's sales of the subject merchandise in their respective comparison markets were made at prices below their cost of production (“COP”). Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, we initiated an investigation to determine whether Viraj made home market sales during the POR at prices below the COP, within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act (See Memorandum from Team to Susan Kubach, Director, AD/CVD Enforcement Office 1, Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Viraj Impoexpo Ltd., dated September 7, 2001). We conducted the COP analysis described below.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP based on the sum of the Viraj's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and administrative expenses (G&A), and interest expenses, where appropriate. We relied on the COP information provided by Viraj in its questionnaire responses.

On a product-specific basis, we compared the weighted-average COPs to home market sales of the foreign like product during the POR, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether sales had been made at prices below the COP. The prices were exclusive of commissions and indirect selling expenses. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were made (1) within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and (2) at prices which did not permit the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given product are made at prices below the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we disregard those sales of that product, because we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales represent “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, we also determine whether such sales are made at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act. We found that Viraj did not make more than 20 percent of its sales of any product at prices less than the COP. Therefore, all of Viraj's home market sales have been included in the calculation of NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1).

Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade (“LOT”) as the EP or CEP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. Id.; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997). In order to determine whether the comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market (i.e., the “chain of distribution”), 1 including selling functions, 2 class of customer (“customer category”), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales, (i.e., NV based on either home market or third country prices 3 ) we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling expenses reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it practicable, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales only, if a NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP LOT and we are unable to make a level of trade adjustment, the Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a))(7)(B) of the Act. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).

Viraj reported that it sells to manufacturers and distributors in the home market and to distributors and resellers in the United States. Viraj reported two levels of trade (based on customer category) and a single channel of distribution in the home market. We examined the information reported by Viraj and found that home market sales to both customer categories were identical with respect to sales process, freight services, warehouse/inventory maintenance, and warranty service. Accordingly, we preliminarily find that Viraj had only one level of trade for its home market sales.

Viraj reported a single, different, level of trade and a single channel of distribution for its EP and CEP sales. The EP/CEP level of trade differs from the home market only with respect to freight and delivery. Thus, it was unnecessary to make any level-of-trade adjustment. See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

We calculated NV based on ex-factory prices to unaffiliated customers. We made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. In addition, we made adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act for differences in circumstances of sale for imputed credit expenses. We also made adjustments, in accordance with 19 CRF 351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses incurred in the home market or United States where commissions were granted on sales in one market but not in the other (the commission offset).

Preliminary Results of Review

We preliminarily find the following weighted-average dumping margin:

Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. A hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the publication of this notice, or the first business day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results.

Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of stainless steel bar from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate established in the final results of this review; (2) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, but was covered in a previous review or the original LTFV investigation, 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 previous review, or the original 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 and/or exporters of this merchandise, shall be 12.45 percent, the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. (See 59 FR 66915, December 28, 1994).

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

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. In addition, this notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, that continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

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

On June 19, 2000, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the Federal Register (65 FR 37961) an antidumping duty order on synthetic indigo from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), which was amended on June 23, 2000 ( 65 FR 39128). On June 29, 2001, Clariant Corporation (“Clariant”), a U.S. importer, requested, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that we conduct an administrative review of exports to Clariant by China Jiangsu International Economic Technical Cooperation Corp. (“CJIETCC”) and Wonderful Chemical Industrial Ltd./Jiangsu Taifeng Chemical Industry (“Wonderful/Jiangsu Taifeng”). On July 2, 2001, Clariant's request was revised to include the review of all sales of subject merchandise exported by CJIETCC and Wonderful/Jiangsu Taifeng to the United States. On July 23, 2001, the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on synthetic indigo from the PRC with respect to CJIETCC and Wonderful/Jiangsu Taifeng (66 FR 38252). On August 16, 2001, we issued the antidumping questionnaire to these companies. On October 9, 2001, these companies submitted a letter notifying the Department that they were no longer willing to cooperate in this review.

The products subject to this order are the deep blue synthetic vat dye known as synthetic indigo and those of its derivatives designated commercially as “Vat Blue 1.” Included are Vat Blue 1 (synthetic indigo), Color Index No. 73000, and its derivatives, pre-reduced indigo or indigo white ( Color Index No. 73001) and solubilized indigo (Color Index No. 73002). The subject merchandise may be sold in any form (e.g., powder, granular, paste, liquid, or solution) and in any strength. Synthetic indigo and its derivatives subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 3204.15.10.00, 3204.15.40.00 or 3204.15.80.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under the order is dispositive.

The period of review covers the period September 15, 1999 through May 31, 2001.

In previous antidumping duty proceedings, the Department has treated the PRC as a non-market economy (“NME”) country. We have no evidence suggesting that this determination should be changed. Accordingly, the Department has determined that NME treatment is appropriate in this review. See section 771(18)(c)(i) of the Act. To establish whether a company operating in a NME is sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each exporting entity under the test established in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“Sparklers”), as amplified by the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (“Silicon Carbide”). Under this test, companies operating in a NME are entitled to separate, company-specific margins when they can demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to export activities (Sparklers, 56 FR 20589). Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure absence of government control over export activities includes: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies (id.). De facto absence of government control over exports is based on four factors: (1) whether each exporter sets its own export prices independent of the government and without the approval of a government authority; (2) whether each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) whether each exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and (4) whether each exporter has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management (see Silicon Carbide, 59 FR 22587). In the instant review, neither CJIETCC nor Wonderful/Jiangsu Taifeng submitted responses to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire, including the separate rates section. We therefore preliminarily determine that these companies did not establish their entitlement to a separate rate in this review and, therefore, are presumed to be part of the PRC NME entity and, as such, are subject to the PRC country-wide rate. Accordingly, exports by these companies are preliminarily assigned the PRC-wide rate, which is the highest margin in the less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) petition.

As noted above, CJIETCC and Wonderful/Jiangsu Taifeng submitted a letter on the record stating that they would not participate in this review. Because of their refusal to cooperate in this review and their failure to establish their entitlement to a separate rate, we have assigned them the PRC-wide rate, which is based on facts available, pursuant to section 776(a)(2) of the Act.

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that “if an interested party or any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i), the administering authority shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this title.”

Because CJIETCC and Wonderful/Jiangsu Taifeng have refused to participate in this administrative review, we find that, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, the use of total facts available is appropriate (see, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review for Two Manufacturers/Exporters: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 50183, 50184 (August 17, 2000) (for a more detailed discussion, see Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review for Two Manufacturers/Exporters: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 40609, 40610-40611 (June 30, 2000)); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Persulfates from the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 27222, 27224 (May 19, 1997); and Certain Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel from Italy: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 2655 (January 17, 1997) (for a more detailed discussion, see Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel from Italy, 61 FR 36551, 36552 (July 4, 1996)). Because these respondents have provided no information, sections 782(d) and (e) are not relevant to our analysis.

Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds that an interested party “has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,” the Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of the party as facts otherwise available. Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” See Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, at 870 (1994).

Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available information derived from the petition, the final determination from the LTFV investigation, a previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the record. Under section 782(c) of the Act, a respondent has a responsibility not only to notify the Department if it is unable to provide requested information, but also to provide a “full explanation and suggested alternative forms.” CJIETCC's and Wonderful/Jiangsu Taifeng's October 9, 2001, letter documented for the record their refusal to provide this information and they have otherwise failed to respond to our request for information, thereby failing to comply with this provision of the statute. Therefore, we determine that the respondents failed to cooperate to the best of their ability, making the use of an adverse inference appropriate.

In this proceeding, in accordance with Department practice (see, e.g., Rescission of Second New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 61581, 61584 (November 12, 1999); and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 39115 (July 21, 1999); and Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 33295 (May 23, 2000) (for a more detailed discussion, see Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 39115 (July 21, 1999)), as adverse facts available, we have preliminarily assigned to exports of subject merchandise by CJIETCC and Wonderful/Jiangsu Taifeng the PRC-wide rate of 129.60 percent, which is the PRC-wide rate established in the LTFV investigation and the highest dumping margin determined in any segment of this proceeding. The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” See Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998).

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that where the Department selects from among the facts otherwise available and relies on “secondary information,” the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at the Department's disposal. Secondary information is described in the SAA as “{i}nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” See SAA at 870. The SAA states that “corroborate” means to determine that the information used has probative value (id.). To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. To examine the reliability of margins in the petition, we examine whether, based on available evidence, those margins reasonably reflect a level of dumping that may have occurred during the period of investigation by any firm, including those that did not provide us with usable information. This procedure generally consists of examining, to the extent practicable, whether the significant elements used to derive the petition margins, or the resulting margins, are supported by independent sources. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin may not be relevant, the Department will attempt to find a more appropriate basis for facts available. See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (where the Department disregarded the highest margin as best information available because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin).

In the underlying LTFV investigation, we established the reliability and relevance of the petition margin (see Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Synthetic Indigo from the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 69723, 60726-69727 (December 14, 1999); and Synthetic Indigo from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 65 FR 25706, 25707 (May 3, 2000). As there is no information on the record of this review that demonstrates that the petition rate is not an appropriate adverse facts available rate for the PRC-wide rate, we determine that this rate has probative value and, therefore, is an appropriate basis for the PRC- wide rate to be applied in this review to exports of subject merchandise by CJIETCC and Wonderful/Jiangsu Taifeng as facts otherwise available.

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the following margin applies for the period September 15, 1999, through May 31, 2001, for those imports where the exporter is CJIETCC or Wonderful/Jiangsu Taifeng:

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. Case briefs must be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, must be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument: (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties are also encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations and cases cited. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f).

In addition, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Any hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, containing: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issued raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in case and rebuttal briefs.

The Department will publish the final results of this administrative review with respect to subject merchandise exports by CJIETCC and Wonderful/Jiangsu Taifeng, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal briefs or at a hearing, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service. Upon publication of the final results of this administrative review, the cash deposit rate for all shipments by CJIETCC or Wonderful/Jiangsu Taifeng of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, will be the PRC-wide rate stated in the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act. The cash deposit rate for PRC exporters who received a separate rate in a prior segment of the proceeding for which there was no request for administrative review will continue to be the rate assigned in that segment of the proceeding. The cash deposit rate for the PRC NME entity will continue to be 129.60 percent, and the cash deposit rate for non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(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 double antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213.

This notice of a partially closed meeting is provided per the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). The executive session of the meeting will consist of discussions of information which pertain to the conduct of various midshipmen at the Naval Academy and internal Board of Visitors matters. Discussion of such information cannot be adequately segregated from other topics, which precludes opening the executive session of this meeting to the public. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(d), the Secretary of the Navy has determined in writing that the special committee meeting shall be partially closed to the public because they will be concerned with matters as outlined in section 552(b)(2), (5), (6), and (7) of title 5, U.S.C.

The Department of the Navy's record system notices for records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The Department of the Navy proposes to amend systems of records notices in its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The changes to the systems of records are not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of new or altered systems reports. The records systems being amended is set forth below, as amended, published in their entirety.

The National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board is authorized by section 921 of the Educational Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act of 1994. The Board works collaboratively with the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement to forge a national consensus with respect to a long-term agenda for educational research, development, and dissemination, and to provide advice and assistance to the Assistant Secretary in administering the duties of the Office.

The agenda for March 29 will cover a report from the National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences on the dissemination of a report of a study sponsored by the Board on Scientific Research in Education. The Board will also receive a briefing on legislation that will provide for improvement of Federal education research, statistics, evaluation, information, and dissemination. A final agenda will be available from the Board's office on March 22, and will be posted on the Board's web site, http://www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/NERPPB/.

Records are kept of all Board proceedings and are available for public inspection at the office of the National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board, 80 F St. NW., Washington, DC 20208-7564.

The National Petroleum Technology Office of the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy (FE) National Energy Technology Lab (NETL) is soliciting cost-shared applications for solutions for production problems and is restricted to small U.S. independent oil producing operators.

DOE anticipates issuing Financial Assistance (Grant) awards. DOE reserves the right to support or not support, with or without discussions, any or all applications received in whole or in part, and to determine how many awards will be made. Multiple awards are anticipated. Approximately $900,000 of DOE funding is planned over a one-year period for this solicitation. The program seeks to sponsor projects for a single budget/project period of 24 months or less. All applicants are required to cost share at a minimum of 50% of the project total, the estimated funding or cost sharing by the DOE being $75,000 per award, or less. Details of the cost sharing requirement, and the specific funding levels are contained in the solicitation.

Once released, the solicitation will be available for downloading from the IIPS internet page. At this Internet site you will also be able to register with IIPS, enabling you to submit an application. If you need technical assistance in registering or for any other IIPS function, call the IIPS Help Desk at (800) 683-0751, or e-mail the Help Desk personnel at IIPS HelpDesk@e-center.doe.gov. The solicitation will only be made available in IIPS, no hard (paper) copies of the solicitation and related documents will be made available.

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

Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are those State and local air pollution control agencies which collect and report ambient air quality data for the criteria pollutants to EPA.

Title: Ambient Air Quality Surveillance, OMB Number (2060-0084), EPA ICR # 0940.16 expires September 30, 2002.

Abstract: The general authority for the collection of ambient air quality data is contained in sections 110 and 319 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857). Section 110 makes it clear that State generated air quality data are central to the air quality management process through a system of State implementation plans (SIP's). Section 319 was added via the 1977 Amendments to the Act and spells out the key elements of an acceptable monitoring and reporting scheme. To a large extent, the requirements of section 319 had already been anticipated in the detailed strategy document prepared by EPA's Standing Air Monitoring Work Group (SAMWG). The regulatory provisions to implement these recommendations were developed through close consultation with the State and local agency representatives serving on SAMWG and through reviews by ad-hoc panels from the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials. These modifications to the previous regulations were issued as final rules on May 10, 1979 (44 FR 27558) and are contained in 40 CFR part 58.

Major amendments which affect the hourly burdens, were made in 1983 for lead, 1987 for PM 10 , 1993 for the enhanced monitoring for ozone, and 1997 for PM 2.5 . The specific required activities for the burden include establishing and operating ambient air monitors and samplers, conducting sample analyses for all pollutants for which a national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) has been established, preparing, editing, and quality assuring the data, and submitting the ambient air quality data and quality assurance data to EPA.

Some of the major uses of the data are for judging attainment of the NAAQS, evaluating progress in achieving/maintaining the NAAQS or State/local standards, developing or revising SIP's, evaluating control strategies, developing or revising national control policies, providing data for model development and validation, supporting enforcement actions, documenting episodes and initiating episode controls, documenting population exposure, and providing information to the public and other interested parties. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

In the previous ICR approval, OMB requested that EPA update the 1993 “Guidance for Estimating Ambient Air Monitoring Costs for Criteria Pollutants and Selected Air Toxic Pollutants.” The EPA agrees and is proceeding with this update.

The EPA would like to solicit comments to:

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

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

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

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

Burden Statement: It is estimated that there are presently 136 State and local agencies which are currently required to submit the ambient air quality data and quality assurance data to EPA on a quarterly basis. The current annual burden for the collection and reporting of ambient air quality data has been estimated on the existing ICR to be (2,404,606) hours, which would average out to be approximately (17,681) hours per respondent. As a part of this ICR renewal, an evaluation will be made of the labor burden associated with this activity.

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

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), this notice announces that EPA is submitting the following two ICRs to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for renewal:

(1) Best Management Practices, Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards, Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Manufacturing Category, EPA ICR No. 1829.02, OMB Control No. 2040-0207;

(2) Milestones Plan, Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards, Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory, Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Manufacturing Category, EPA ICR No. 1877.02, OMB Control No. 2040-0202.

(1) Title: Best Management Practices, Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards, Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Manufacturing Category, EPA ICR No. 1829.02, OMB Control No. 2040-0207, Expires on 03/31/2002.

Abstract: EPA has established Best Management Practices (BMPs) provisions as part of final amendments to 40 CFR part 430, the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Point Source Category promulgated on April 15, 1998 ( see 63 FR 18504). These provisions, promulgated under the authorities of sections 304, 307, 308, 402, and 501 of the Clean Water Act, require that owners or operators of bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills and papergrade sulfite mills implement site-specific BMPs to prevent or otherwise contain leaks and spills of spent pulping liquors, soap and turpentine and to control intentional diversions of these materials ( see 40 CFR 430.03).

EPA has determined that these BMPs are necessary because the materials controlled by these practices, if spilled or otherwise lost, can interfere with wastewater treatment operations and lead to increased discharges of toxic, nonconventional, and conventional pollutants. For further discussion of the need for BMPs, see section VI.B.7 of the preamble to the amendments to 40 CFR part 430 ( see 63 FR 18561-18566).

The BMP program includes information collection requirements that are intended to help accomplish the overall purposes of the program by, for example, training personnel, see 40 CFR 430.03(c)(4), analyzing spills that occur, see 40 CFR 430.03(c)(5), identifying equipment items that might need to be upgraded or repaired, see 40 CFR 430.03(c)(2), and performing monitoring—including the operation of monitoring systems—to detect leaks, spills and intentional diversion and generally to evaluate the effectiveness of the BMPs, see 40 CFR 430.03(c)(3), (c)(10), (h), and (i). The regulations also require mills to develop and, when appropriate, amend plans specifying how the mills will implement the specified BMPs and to certify to the permitting or pretreatment authority that they have done so in accordance with good engineering practices and the requirements of the regulation ( see 40 CFR 430.03(d), (e) and (f)). The purpose of those provisions is, respectively, to facilitate the implementation of BMPs on a site-specific basis and to help the regulating authorities to ensure compliance without requiring the submission of actual BMP plans. Finally, the recordkeeping provisions are intended to facilitate training, to signal the need for different or more vigorously implemented BMPs, and to facilitate compliance assessment ( see 40 CFR 430.03(g)).

EPA has structured the regulation to provide maximum flexibility to the regulated community and to minimize administrative burdens on National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and pretreatment control authorities that regulate bleached papergrade kraft and soda and papergrade sulfite mills. Although EPA does not anticipate that it will be necessary for mills to submit any confidential business information (CBI) or trade secrets as part of this ICR, all data claimed as CBI will be handled by EPA pursuant to 40 CFR part 2.

Comments to First Notice: EPA received no comments to the first notice of submission of this ICR to OMB.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and record keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 468 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are those operations that chemically pulp wood fiber using kraft or soda methods to produce bleached papergrade pulp, paperboard, coarse paper, tissue paper, fine paper, and/or paperboard; those operations that chemically pulp wood fiber using papergrade sulfite methods to produce pulp and/or paper; and State and local governments which regulate areas where such operations are located.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 130.

Frequency of response: Periodic.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 60,909.

Estimated Total Annualized Capital, O&M Cost Burden: $0.

The recurring burden for a mill to periodically review and amend the BMP plan, prepare spill reports, perform additional monitoring, hold refresher training, and conduct recordkeeping and reporting is estimated to be 617, 641 and 665 hours annually per mill for simple, moderately complex, and complex mills, respectively. The total recurring cost for mills associated with the BMP requirements is estimated at $1,807,670.

The recurring burden to State NPDES and pretreatment control authorities is estimated at ten hours per year per facility for reviewing periodic ( e.g., annual or semi-annual) monitoring reports and conducting compliance reviews. The total recurring costs for State NPDES and pretreatment control authorities is estimated at $32,100.

(2) Title: Milestones Plan, Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards, Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory, Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Manufacturing Category, EPA ICR No. 1877.02, OMB Control No. 2040-0202, Expires on 02/28/2002.

Abstract: EPA established the Milestones Plan requirements as an element of the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program (VATIP) codified at 40 CFR 430.24(b). The Milestone Plan requirements were promulgated as amendments to VATIP on July 7, 1999 ( see 64 FR 36582) and are codified at 40 CFR 430.24(b)(3). The Milestones Plan provisions, promulgated under the authorities of sections 301, 304, 306, 308, 402, and 501 of the Clean Water Act, require owners or operators of bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills enrolled in the VATIP to submit information to describe each envisioned new technology component or process modification the mill intends to implement in order to achieve the VATIP Best Available Technology (BAT) limits, including a master schedule showing the sequence of implementing new technologies and process modifications and identifying critical-path relationships within the sequence.

EPA has determined that the Milestones Plan will provide valuable benchmarks for reasonable inquiries into progress being made by participating mills toward achieving interim and ultimate tier limits of the VATIP and will offer the necessary flexibility to the mill and the permit writer so that the milestones selected to be incorporated into the mill's NPDES permit reflect the unique situation of the mill.

The Milestones Plan must include the following information for each new individual technology or process modification: (1) A schedule of anticipated dates for associated construction, installation, and/or process changes; (2) the anticipated dates of completion for those steps; (3) the anticipated date that the Advanced Technology process or individual component will be fully operational; (4) and the anticipated reductions in effluent quantity and improvements in effluent quality as measured at the bleach plant (for bleach plant, pulping area and evaporator condensates flow and BAT parameters other than Adsorbable Organic Halides (AOX)) and the end of the pipe (for AOX) ( see 40 CFR 430.24(c)(3)). For those technologies or process modifications that are not commercially available or demonstrated on a full-scale basis at the time of Plan development, the Plan must include a schedule for initiating and completing research (if necessary), process development, and mill trials ( see 40 CFR 430.24(c)(3)(i)). The Plan must also include contingency plans in the event that any of the technologies or processes specified in the Milestones Plan need to be adjusted or alternative approaches developed to ensure that the ultimate tier limits are achieved by the deadlines specified in 40 CFR 430.24(b)(4)(ii) ( see 40 CFR 430.24(c)(4)).

EPA has structured the Plan to provide maximum flexibility to the regulated community and to minimize administrative burdens on NPDES permit authorities that regulate bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills. All data claimed as CBI or trade secrets submitted by the mills as part of this ICR will be handled by EPA pursuant to 40 CFR part 2. Although EPA does not anticipate that it will be necessary for mills to submit any CBI or trade secrets as part of this ICR, if a mill claims all or part of the milestones plan as CBI, the mill must prepare and submit to the NPDES permitting authority a summary of the plan for public release ( see 40 CFR 430.24(c)).

Comments to First Notice: EPA received no comments to the first notice of submission of this ICR to OMB.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and record keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are those existing, direct discharging mills with operations that chemically pulp wood fiber using kraft or soda methods to produce bleached papergrade pulp, paperboard, coarse paper, tissue paper, fine paper, and/or paperboard and that choose to participate in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program established under 40 CFR 430.24(b).

Estimated Number of Respondents: 29 mills.

Frequency of response: The burden for a mill (which chooses to participate voluntarily in the incentives program) to prepare and submit a Milestones Plan is estimated to average approximately 120 hours per respondent. This is a one-time burden. State NPDES permitting authorities burden to review the Milestones Plans is estimated at 16 hours per respondent as an initial burden with an average recurring annual review burden of 6 hours per respondent. There is no recurring burden for mill respondents associated with this information collection.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 1,418 hours.

Estimated Total Annualized Capital, O&M Cost Burden: $0.

Operator Certification Guidelines and Operator Certification Expense Reimbursement Grants Program (OMB Control Number 2040-0236; EPA ICR Number 1955.02) expiring 2/28/02. This is an extension of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: This information collection is to determine if states are meeting the requirements of EPA's operator certification guidelines, which were published in the Federal Register on February 5, 1999 (64 FR 5916). Section 1419(a) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996 requires EPA to develop operator certification guidelines for state operator certification programs and to publish final guidelines by February 6, 1999. Pursuant to section 1419(b) of the SDWA, beginning two years after the date on which EPA publishes operator certification guidelines (February 5, 2001), EPA shall withhold 20 percent of the funds a state is otherwise entitled to receive under SDWA section 1452 unless a state has adopted and is implementing a program that meets the requirements of EPA's operator certification guidelines. EPA is required under SDWA section 1419 to make an annual determination on whether to withhold 20 percent of a state's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) allotment. In order to make these decisions, EPA must collect information from the states as required by EPA's guidelines. States, in turn, must collect information from water systems as required by their respective programs.

SDWA section 1419(d) requires EPA to reimburse (through grants to states) the costs of training, including an appropriate per diem for unsalaried operators, and certification for persons operating community and nontransient noncommunity public water systems serving 3,300 persons or fewer that are required to undergo training pursuant to EPA's operator certification guidelines. Prior to awarding grants to states, EPA will need to collect information from states to ensure that the state has a plan for distributing the funds to small system operators. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. The Federal Register document required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on 2/28/01 (66 FR 12776); 1 comment was received.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and record keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 4 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Owners/operator of public water systems, State Environmental Water Quality Agencies, State Departments of Health.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 68,396.

Frequency of Response: Annually.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 302,425 hours.

Estimated Total Annualized Capital, O&M Cost Burden: $898,000.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the addresses listed above. Please refer to EPA ICR No. 1955.02 and OMB Control No. 2040-0236 in any correspondence.

Title: Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (OMB Control No. 2040-0050; EPA

ICR No. 0318.09; expiring 2/28/2002. This is a renewal of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: The Clean Watersheds Needs Survey is required by sections 205(a) and 516(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act. It is a periodic inventory of existing and proposed publicly owned wastewater treatment works (POTWs) and other water pollution control facilities in the United States, as well as an estimate of how many POTWs are needed to be built. The Clean Watersheds Needs Survey is a voluntary joint effort of EPA and the States. The Survey records cost and technical data associated with all POTWs and other water pollution control facilities, existing and proposed, in the United States. The States provide this information to EPA. No confidential information is used, nor is sensitive information protected from release under the Public Information Act, used. EPA achieves national consistency in the final results through the application of uniform guidelines and validation techniques. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. The Federal Register document required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on July 27, 2001; no comments were received.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and record keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: The respondents are the States, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands and Pacific Territories.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 56.

Frequency of Response: every 4 years.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 7,672 hours.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the addresses listed above. Please refer to EPA ICR No.0318.09 and OMB Control No. 2040-0050 in any correspondence.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0835.

Title: Ship Inpsection Certificates.

Form Nos: FCC 806, 824, 827, and 829.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or Other for Profit.

Number of Respondents: 1,210.

Estimated Time Per Response: 5 minutes (.084 hours).

Total Annual Burden: 102 hours.

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $0.

Frequency of Response: Annual reporting requirement.

Needs and Uses: The Communications Act requires that the Commission must inspect the radio installation of large cargo ships and certain passenger ships at least once a year to ensure that the radio installation is in compliance with the requirements of the Communications Act. Additionally, the communications Act requires the inspection of small passenger ships at least once every five years. The Safety Convention (which the United States is signatory) also requires an annual inspection, however, permits an Administration to entrust the inspections to either surveyors nominated for the purpose or to organizations recognized by it. There, the United States can have other entities conduct the radio inspection of vessels for compliance with the Safety Convention. The Commission adopted Rules that FCC-licensed technicians provide a summary of the results of the inspection in the ship's log and provide the vessel with a ship inspection safety certificate.

OMB Approval Number: 3072-0012 (Expires May 31, 2002).

Abstract: Sections 2 and 3 of Public Law 89-777 (46 U.S.C. app. 817(d) and (e)) require owners or charterers of passenger vessels with 50 or more passenger berths or stateroom accommodations and embarking passengers at United States ports and territories to establish their financial responsibility to meet liability incurred for death or injury to passengers and other persons, and to indemnify passengers in the event of nonperformance of transportation. The Commission's Rules at 46 CFR part 540 implement Public Law 89-777 and specify financial responsibility coverage requirements for such owners and charterers.

Needs and Uses: The information will be used by the Commission's staff to ensure that passenger vessel owners and charterers have evidenced financial responsibility to indemnify passengers and others in the event of nonperformance or casualty.

Frequency: This information is collected when applicants apply for a certificate or when existing certificants change any information in their application forms.

Type of Respondents: The types of respondents are owners, charterers and operators of passenger vessels with 50 or more passenger berths that embark passengers from U.S. ports or territories.

Number of Annual Respondents: The Commission estimates an annual respondent universe of 60.

Estimated Time Per Response: The time per response ranges from .5 to 6 hours for complying with the regulations and 8 hours for completing Application Form FMC-131. The total average time for both requirements for each respondent is 34.66 person-hours.

Total Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the total person-hour burden at 2,080 person-hours.

OMB Approval Number: 3072-0018 (Expires August 31, 2002).

Abstract: Section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. app. 1718, provides that no person in the United States may act as an ocean transportation intermediary (OTI) unless that person holds a license issued by the Commission. The Commission shall issue an OTI license to any person that the Commission determines to be qualified by experience and character to act as an OTI. Further, no person may act as an OTI unless that person furnishes a bond, proof of insurance or other surety in a form and amount determined by the Commission to insure financial responsibility. The Commission has implemented the provisions of section 19 in regulations contained in 46 CFR part 515, including financial responsibility forms FMC-48, FMC-67, FMC-68, and FMC-69, and its related license application form, FMC-18.

Needs and Uses: The Commission uses information obtained from Form FMC-18, as well as information contained in the Commission's files and letters of reference, to determine whether an applicant meets the requirements for a license. If the collection of information were not conducted, there would be no basis upon which the Commission could determine if applicants are qualified for licensing.

Frequency: This information is collected when applicants apply for a license or when existing licensees change certain information in their application forms.

Type of Respondents: Persons desiring to obtain a license to act as an OTI.

Number of Annual Respondents: The Commission estimates an annual respondent universe of 3,450.

Estimated Time Per Response: The time per response for completing Application Form FMC-18 averages 1.5 hours.

Total Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the total person-hour burden at 5,175 person-hours.

OMB Approval Number: 3072-0045 (Expires August 31, 2002).

Abstract: The Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. app. 1701 et seq. , requires certain classes of agreements between and among ocean common carriers and marine terminal operators to be filed with the Commission, specifies the mandatory content of those agreements, and defines the Commission's authorities and responsibilities in overseeing those agreements. 46 CFR 535 establishes the form and manner for filing agreements and for the underlying commercial data necessary to evaluate agreements.

Needs and Uses: Under its pre-effectiveness review process, the Commission reviews agreement filings to determine statutory and regulatory compliance, as well as to assess any anti-competitive impact the agreement may have. After agreements become effective, the Commission continues to monitor agreement activities to ensure continued statutory and regulatory compliance. To accomplish this, the Commission continuously gathers, reviews, and interprets commercial data regarding the impact of agreements on competition, prices, and service in the U.S. foreign trades.

Frequency: The Commission has no control over how frequently agreements are entered into; this is solely a matter between the negotiating parties. When parties do reach an agreement that falls within the jurisdiction of the Commission, that agreement must be filed with the Commission. Ongoing surveillance of agreement activities is conducted through the review of minutes and quarterly monitoring reports filed by certain types of agreements the Commission has identified as having greater potential effects on competition.

Type of Respondents: Parties that enter into agreements subject to the Commission's oversight are ocean common carriers and marine terminal operators operating in the U.S. foreign trades.

Number of Annual Respondents: Over the last five years the Commission has averaged 362 agreement filings a year from an estimated potential universe of 682 regulated entities. Starting in 1996, certain agreements were required to file quarterly monitoring reports under these regulations. The number of annual respondents under this program will vary according to the number of agreements subject to the reporting obligation. Last year, agreements subject to the monitoring report requirements filed 221 reports.

Estimated Time Per Response: It is estimated that the time for preparing and filing an agreement ranges anywhere from as little as three person-hours to as much as 150 person-hours. The latest estimate of the average burden per respondent was 70 person-hours. Time required for preparing monitoring reports varies according to the complexity of the filing obligation. Class C agreements have the least burden, and it was estimated to be about 20 person-hours. Class A/B agreements require more detailed data and hence a greater burden. It was estimated that Class B monitoring reports require about 130 person-hours, and Class A reports about 170 person-hours. The latest estimated time per respondent under the record-keeping obligations of the regulation was five person-hours.

Total Annual Burden: The latest reported annual burden on respondents was estimated at 109,750 person-hours: 105,000 person-hours as the filing burden, and 4,750 person-hours as the record-keeping burden.

OMB Approval Number: 3072-0060 (Expires August 31, 2002).

Abstract: Section 9 of the Shipping Act of 1984 requires that the Federal Maritime Commission monitor the practices of controlled carriers to ensure that they do not maintain rates or charges in their tariffs and service contracts that are below a level that is just and reasonable; nor establish, maintain or enforce unjust or unreasonable classifications, rules or regulations in those tariffs or service contracts which result or are likely to result in the carriage or handling of cargo at rates or charges that are below a just and reasonable level. 46 CFR part 565 establishes the method by which the Commission determines whether a particular ocean common carrier is a controlled carrier subject to section 9 of the Shipping Act of 1984. When a government acquires a controlling interest in an ocean common carrier, or when a controlled carrier newly enters a United States trade, the Commission's rules require that such a carrier notify the Commission of these events.

Needs and Uses: The Commission uses these notifications in order to effectively discharge its statutory duty to determine whether a particular ocean common carrier is a controlled carrier and therefore subject to the requirements of section 9 of the Shipping Act of 1984.

Frequency: The submission of notifications from controlled carriers are not assigned to a specific time frame by the Commission; they are submitted as circumstances warrant. The Commission only requires notification when a majority portion of an ocean common carrier becomes owned or controlled by a government, or when a controlled carrier newly begins operation in any United States trade.

Type of Respondents: Controlled carriers are ocean common carriers which are owned or controlled by a government.

Number of Annual Respondents: Although it is estimated that only 5 of the 14 currently-classified controlled carriers may respond in any given year, because this is a rule of general applicability, the Commission considers the number of annual respondents to be 10.

Estimated Time Per Response: The estimated time for compliance is 7 person-hours per year.

Total Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the person-hour burden required to make such notifications at 70 person-hours per year.

OMB Approval Number: 3072-0061 (Expires August 31, 2002).

Abstract: Section 8(f) of the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. app. 1707(f), provides that a marine terminal operator (MTO) may make available to the public a schedule of its rates, regulations, and practices, including limitations of liability for cargo loss or damage, pertaining to receiving, delivering, handling, or storing property at its marine terminal, subject to section 10(d)(1), 46 U.S.C. app. 1709(d)(1), of the Act. The Commission's rules governing MTO schedules are set forth at 46 CFR part 525.

Needs and Uses: The Commission uses information obtained from Form FMC-1 to determine the organization name, organization number, home office address, name and telephone number of the firm's representatives and the location of MTO schedules of rates, regulations and practices, and publisher, should the MTOs determine to make their schedules available to the public, as set forth in section 8(f) of the Shipping Act.

Frequency: This information is collected prior to an MTO's commencement of its marine terminal operations.

Type of Respondents: Persons operating as MTOs.

Number of Annual Respondents: The Commission estimates the respondent universe at 186.

Estimated Time Per Response: The Commission estimates an average of five hours per schedule.

Total Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the total person-hour burden at 930.

OMB Approval Number: 3072-0064 (Expires August 31, 2002).

Abstract: Except with respect to certain specified commodities, section 8(a) of the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. app. 1707(a), requires that each common carrier and conference shall keep open to public inspection, in an automated tariff system, tariffs showing its rates, charges, classifications, rules, and practices between all ports and points on its own route and on any through transportation route that has been established. In addition, individual carriers or agreements among carriers are required to make available in tariff format certain enumerated essential terms of their service contracts. 46 U.S.C. app. 1707(c). The Commission is responsible for reviewing the accessibility and accuracy of automated tariff systems, in accordance with its regulations set forth at 46 CFR part 520.

Needs and Uses: The Commission uses information obtained from Form FMC-1 to ascertain the location of common carrier and conference tariff publications.

Frequency: This information is collected when common carriers or conferences publish tariffs.

Type of Respondents: Persons desiring to operate as common carriers or conferences.

Number of Annual Respondents: The Commission estimates an annual respondent universe of 3000.

Estimated Time Per Response: The time per response averages five person-hours per respondent for Form FMC 1 and tariff publication matters.

Total Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the total person-hour burden at 313,400 person-hours.

OMB Approval Number: 3072-0065 (Expires August 31, 2002).

Abstract: The Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. app. 1707, requires service contracts, except those dealing with bulk cargo, forest products, recycled metal scrap, new assembled motor vehicles, waste paper or paper waste, and their related amendments and notices to be filed confidentially with the Commission.

Needs and Uses: The Commission monitors service contract filings for acts prohibited by the Shipping Act of 1984.

Frequency: The Commission has no control over how frequently service contracts are entered into; this is solely a matter between the negotiating parties. When parties enter into a service contract it must be filed with the Commission.

Types of Respondents: Parties that enter into service contracts are ocean common carriers and agreements among ocean common carriers on the one hand, and shippers or shipper's associations on the other.

Number of Annual Respondents: The Commission estimates an annual respondent universe of 155.

Estimated Time Per Response: The time per response ranges from one to eight hours.

Total Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the total person-hour burden at 303,953.

OMB Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance : The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number for this program is 93.910.

Availability of Funds : Approximately $7,150,000 (indirect and direct costs) is expected to be available to fund one award to Central State University (CSU) of Wilberforce, Ohio in FY 2002 for a 12-month budget period. Assistance will be provided only to CSU. No other applications are solicited. Support may be requested for a total project period not to exceed 4 years.

CSU is uniquely qualified to administer this cooperative agreement because it has:

• An established infrastructure to manage a multi-faceted demonstration program, coordinated among widely dispersed and diverse institutions of higher education, which addresses family and community violence.

• In place a management staff with the background and experience to guide, develop and evaluate the FCVP Program; and

• Experience in carrying out a program designed to address the risk factors for youth violence in at-risk, minority communities.

As the single source recipient, CSU:

• Shall commence the FCVP program on August 1, 2002.

• Shall, in FY 2002, award $4,950,000 in continuation funds to the 23 undergraduate institutions currently funded under the FCVP program to support established Family Life Centers (FLCs).

• Shall, in FY 2002, award $900,000 in new awards to three additional undergraduate institutions to support the establishment of model FLCs.

• Will be able to apply for noncompeting continuation awards for an additional three years. After Year 1, funding will be based on:

1. The amount of money available, up to $7.4 million per year; and

2. Success or progress in meeting project objectives.

For the noncompeting continuation awards, CSU must submit continuation applications, written reports, and continue to meet the established program guidelines.

Use of Cooperative Agreement Funds: Budgets of up to $7.15 million total costs in Year 1 and up to $7.4 million for each of the three subsequent years (direct and indirect) may be requested to cover costs of:

• Personnel

• Consultants

• Supplies

• Equipment

• Grant Related Travel

Funds may not be used for:

• Medical Treatment

• Construction

• Building alterations or renovations

Despite an overall decline in crime since 1994, injuries and deaths due to violence and abusive behavior continue to be a widespread problem in the United States, costing the Nation over $200 billion annually. According to the Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), minorities are disproportionately represented among both victims and perpetrators of violent crime. While violent crime rates have declined significantly for almost every demographic group examined, those most vulnerable to violent victimization in the past—males, teens and Blacks for example—continued to be the most vulnerable in 2000. The rates of violent crime victimization for Blacks, 35.3 per 1000, and Hispanics, 28.4 per 1000, are higher than the rate for whites, 27.1. The BJS report American Indians and Crime (1999) includes data from the National Victimization Survey which show that in 1996, American Indians accounted for 1.4 percent of all violent victimizations while representing only .9 percent of the U.S. population.

According to the Healthy People 2000 Final Review (National Center for Health Statistics, HHS 2001), the United States has the highest rates of lethal childhood violence when compared to other industrialized countries. In 1998, 5,506 young people aged 15 to 24 years were victims of homicide, an average of 15 homicides per day. Among youth aged 10 to 14 years, homicide is the third leading cause of death and among 15 to 19 year olds, it is the second leading cause ( Healthy People 2010 Objectives for Improving Health , 2nd ed., HHS 2000). About one in every eight people murdered in 2000 was less than 18 years old.

According to Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General (HHS 2001), youth violence begins either before puberty, before age 13, or later in adolescence. Those youth who become involved in violence before age 13 usually commit more crimes, exhibiting a pattern of escalating violence through childhood and sometimes through adulthood. The report further states that surveys have found that 30 to 40 percent of male youths and 15 to 30 percent of female youths have committed a serious violent offense by age 17.

Minority youth are victims and perpetrators of violent crime at a disproportionate rate. Homicide is the leading cause of death for African Americans 15 to 24 years of age. Young Black males and females are 11 and 4 times, respectively, more likely to be killed than white youth. Data published by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) show that 52 percent of juvenile murder victims in 1997 were minorities. Also in 1997, minorities accounted for 24 percent of the total juvenile population; however, minority males and females represented 63 and 50 percent, respectively, of the juveniles in residential placement. Further, minority juveniles represented approximately 69 percent of all juveniles in residential placement for violent offenses. Black juveniles had the highest rate of placement for violent offenses at 259 per 1,000. Additionally, the rates for violent offenses among Hispanics (138 per 1,000), American Indians (143 per 1,000) and Asians (59 per 1,000) all exceeded the rate for white juveniles (45 per 1,000) (Sickmund & Wan, 2001; analysis of OJJDP's Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement 1997 and 1999) .

Risk factors for violence and aggression are additive and follow a developmental sequence. Risk factors are also interdependent and are affected by a range of life experiences and influences involving family, peers, community, and culture, as well as an individual's personal physical and mental health status ( Youth and Violence, Medicine, Nursing and Public Health: Connecting the Dots to Prevent Violence, Commission for the Prevention of Youth Violence, 2000). As stated in the Surgeon General's Report, “risk factors and protective factors exist in every area of life-individual, family, school, peer group, and community.” The Report further states that risk and protective factors have varying influences depending on when they occur during a child's development. For example, substance abuse, involvement in serious (not necessarily violent) crime, being male, physical aggression, low family socioeconomic status or poverty, and antisocial parents are cited as the strongest risk factors for violent behavior during childhood. During adolescence, however, peer influences supplant those of the family and weak ties to conventional peers, ties to antisocial or delinquent peers, gang membership and involvement in other criminal acts become the strongest risk factors. Violence prevention programs that have been demonstrated to be highly effective combine components that address both individual risks and environmental conditions. Eliminating or reducing risk factors holds promise for reducing violence.

Since 1985, HHS has recognized violence as a leading public health problem in the United States and has supported initiatives to prevent violence. The Family and Community Violence Prevention Program (FCVP) is such an initiative supported through the Office of Minority Health (OMH).

Through this announcement OMH will continue its partnership with CSU and the FCVP initiative begun in 1994 as A Series of HBCU Models to Prevent Minority Male Violence. Sixteen Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), collectively known as the Minority Male (Min-Male) Consortium were supported to conduct violence prevention programs targeted to minority males. Three more HBCUs joined the Consortium in 1995. In 1997, the program was renamed the Family Community and Violence Prevention Program (FCVP) and its focus expanded to include females and families. Seven institutions, including Hispanic Serving Institutions and Tribal Colleges/Universities, were added to the Program in 1999 in an effort to address the problem of youth violence among all of the racial/ethnic minority populations served by OMH. Currently, 23 minority institutions in 17 states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands are supported through the FCVP.

In FY 2002 the FCVP will continue to support community-based interventions designed to address the risk factors for violence and enhance the protective factors for participating minority youth and their families. The award will be made to CSU via a cooperative agreement which provides for substantial federal programmatic involvement in the project (see OMH Responsibilities listed in this announcement).

CSU will develop a project plan which must include:

• A management team comprised of personnel with appropriate background and experience to develop, guide and execute the FCVP; and

• An operational plan for coordinating the FCVP and its component parts (Advisory Board, Family Life Centers and Management Team) to achieve the purpose of the Program.

At minimum, CSU must:

• Develop and implement a plan for maintaining regular communication with OMH and the Family Life Centers (FLCs).

• Develop and implement guidelines for FLC operations, notice of availability of funds for FLC establishment, and guidelines for competitive application preparation.

• Development and implement a plan for conducting a yearly evaluation of the activities of each of the funded institutions, as well as the overall project.

• Develop by-laws for the operation of the Advisory Board and submit to OMH for review and approval.

• In FY 2002, award $4,950,000 in continuation funds to the 23 undergraduate institutions currently funded under the FCVP Program to support established FLCs.

• In FY 2002, award $900,000 in new awards to three additional undergraduate institutions to support the establishment of model FLCs.

• In FY 2003, solicit proposals from four-year undergraduate institutions historically identified as providing education primarily to minority students, or having a majority enrollment of minority students, and from two-year Tribal Colleges which are members of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, to establish FLCs in low income, at-risk minority communities, and to implement programs that employ a variety of approaches that address violent and abusive behavior that meet their unique needs.

• In FY 2003, provide funding to up to 24 selected undergraduate institutions at a level of up to $250,000 each (total awards of $5,300,000) to conduct comprehensive programs of support and education for a defined community. The selected undergraduate institutions must:

• Address primary and/or secondary prevention (see Definitions section of this announcement);

• Involve parents, guardians and/or adult caretakers of participating youth;

• Include faculty and/or staff from the institution in program delivery;

• Include students from the institution serving as mentors and in other areas of program delivery; and

• Include a summer academic enrichment program of at least 3 weeks.

• In FY 2003 and FY 2004 make continuation awards at a level of up to $300,000 each (total awards of $900,000) to the three institutions selected in FY 2002. These continuation awards will be based on satisfactory progress in meeting program requirements.

• In FY 2004 and FY 2005 make continuation awards at a level of up to $250,000 each (total awards of $5,200,000) to the institutions (up to 24) selected in FY 2003.

• Monitor the activities of the funded undergraduate institutions to ensure compliance with the intent of the FCVP Program.

• Each year conduct three technical assistance workshops for participating FLCs in conjunction with three meetings of the Advisory Board.

• Provide technical assistance to individual FLCs, as needed, throughout each year of the project.

• Plan and conduct a national conference of the FCVP program to take place during Year 03 of the project period.

• Submit recommendations or requests for changes in program strategies, scope, evaluation activities and adjustments in funding levels of participating institutions to OMH for review and approval.

• Develop a manual or tool kit which documents procedures and methods for implementing successful violence prevention programs for specific types of communities (i.e. rural, urban, Indian reservation).

At a minimum, substantial federal programmatic involvement will include the following.

• Provide technical assistance and oversight for the overall design and operation of the FCVP program.

• Review and approve all documents prepared by the Management Team for the solicitation of proposals, including FLC operational and application guidelines.

• Develop the evaluation criteria for the selection and funding of FLC applications.

• Manage the objective review and selection of FLC applications.

• Appoint an 11-member Advisory Board based on nominations from the Management Team, FLC staff and federal agencies.

• Identify OMH staff to serve on the Advisory Board in an ex-officio capacity.

• Review and approve Management Team recommendations or requests for changes in program strategies, scope, evaluation activities and adjustments in funding levels of participating institutions.

• Participate in the planning of and attend all of the Advisory Board meetings, Technical Assistance Workshops for FLC staff and the national conference.

• Participate in site visits to the participating institutions as deemed appropriate by OMH staff.

• For this cooperative agreement, CSU must submit a proposal using Form PHS 5161-1 (Revised July 2000 and approved by OMB under Control Number 0348-0043).

• CSU is advised to pay close attention to the specific program guidelines and general instructions provided in the application kit.

• The application kit will be sent to CSU by the Grants Management Officer, OMH.

The application submitted by CSU will be reviewed by OMH to ensure that all program requirements are met and that the proposed plan is in compliance with the intent of the FCVP Program. Once the proposal has been approved by OMH, CSU will be notified and the award will be made.

General Reporting Requirements: The successful applicant under this notice will submit: (1) Progress reports; (2) an annual Financial Status Report; and (3) a final progress report and Financial Status Report in the format established by the OMH, in accordance with provisions of the general regulations which apply under 45 CFR part 74.51-74.52.

Healthy People 2010: The PHS is committed to achieving the health promotion and disease prevention objectives of Healthy People 2010, a PHS-led national activity announced in January 2000 to eliminate health disparities and improve years and quality of life. More information may be found on the Healthy People 2010 web site: http//www.health.gov/ People2010: Volumes I and II can be purchased (cost $70.00 for printed version; $19.00 for CD-ROM). Another reference is the Healthy People 2000 Review 1998-99.

For a free copy of Healthy People 2010, contact: The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Division of Data Services, 6525 Belcrest Road, Hyattsville, MD 20782-2003; or telephone (301) 458-4636; as for DHHS Publications No. (PHS) 99-1256.

This document may also be downloaded from the NCHS web site http://www.cdc.gov/nchs.

For purposes of this grant announcement, the following definitions are provided:

Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI)—Any local education agency or institution of higher education, respectively, whose student population is more than 25 percent Hispanic (Executive Order 12900, February 22, 1994, Education Excellence for Hispanic Americans, Section 5).

Historically Black College or University (HBCU)—An institution established prior to 1964, whose principal mission was, and is, the education of Black Americans. (National Center for Education Statistics. Compendium: Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 1976-1994. September 1996. [NCES 96-902]).

Majority Enrollment of Minority Students—Enrollment of minorities exceeding 50 percent of the total number of students enrolled ( Federal Register , Vol. 53, No. 57, March 24, 1988).

Minority Populations—American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. (Revision to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity, Federal Register , Vol. 62, No. 210, pg. 58782, October 30, 1997.)

Primary Prevention—Strategies and interventions targeting a broad population with universal programs designed to prevent the initial development of violent behaviors (From the Commission for the Prevention of Youth Violence, December 2000).

Risk Factor—The environmental and behavioral influences capable of causing ill health with or without predisposition.

Secondary Prevention—Strategies and interventions designed to serve specific populations at risk for or involved in violence (From the Commission for the Prevention of Youth Violence, December 2000).

Tribal College or University (TCU)—One of the institutions cited in section 532 of the Equity in Education Land-Grants Status Act of 1994 (U.S.C. 301 note) or that qualify for funding under the Tribally Controlled Community College Assistance Act of 1978, (25 U.S.C. 1801 et seq ), and Navajo Community College, authorized in the Navajo Community College Assistance Act of 1978, Public Law 95-471, Title II (25 U.S.C. 640a note).

Medical sterilization packaging systems encompass sterilization wrap, sterilization pouches or packages, sterilization containers, trays, cassettes, including mats, holders, or any other related component that is used for sterilization of medical devices. These devices are class II devices, regulated under 21 CFR 880.6850. The draft guidance provides advice on the kind of information and data needed to demonstrate the substantial equivalence of a medical sterilization packaging system device.

This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance represents the agency's current thinking on “Premarket Notification [510(k)] Submissions for Medical Sterilization Packaging Systems in Health Care Facilities; Draft Guidance for Industry and FDA.” It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statute and regulations.

In order to receive the draft guidance entitled “Premarket Notification [510(k)] Submissions for Medical Sterilization Packaging Systems in Health Care Facilities; Draft Guidance for Industry and FDA” via your fax machine, call the CDRH Facts-On-Demand system at 800-899-0381 or 301-827-0111 from a touch-tone telephone. Press 1 to enter the system. At the second voice prompt press 1 to order a document. Enter the document number (1388) followed by the pound sign (#). Follow the remaining voice prompts to complete your request.

Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may also do so using the Internet. CDRH maintains an entry on the Internet for easy access to information including text, graphics, and files that may be downloaded to a personal computer with Internet access. Updated on a regular basis, the CDRH home page includes the civil money penalty guidance documents package, device safety alerts, Federal Register reprints, information on premarket submissions (including lists of approved applications and manufacturers' addresses), small manufacturers' assistance, information on video conferencing and electronic submissions, Mammography Matters, and other device-oriented information. The CDRH home page may be accessed at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh. A search capability for all CDRH guidance documents is available at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/guidance.html. Guidance documents are also available at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets.

Interested persons may submit to the Dockets Management Branch (address above) written or electronic comments regarding this draft guidance by June 5, 2002. Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. The draft guidance document and received comments may be seen in the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

The CRADA will employ attenuated dengue virus strains (types 1 through 4) developed in LID using recombinant DNA methodologies to (1) identify and characterize the mutations responsible for attenuation, (2) engineer viral strains suitably attenuated for use as human vaccines, and (3) evaluate the attenuated viruses as live vaccines in animals, including rhesus monkeys, and humans. The Public Health Service (PHS) has filed patent applications both in the U.S. and internationally related to these technologies.

The LID has extensive experience in evaluating the safety, immunogenicity and efficacy of various human viral pathogens and vaccines thereof both in experimental animals and human volunteers. The LID has identified two approaches to produce attenuated dengue virus vaccine candidates each incorporating a stable, clinically tested deletion mutation capable of attenuating dengue viruses for humans. In addition, a large set of additional attenuating mutations have been identified that will be available to further attenuate vaccine candidates that prove to be incompletely attenuated in human trials. The Collaborator in this endeavor is expected to commit several scientists off-site to support the activities defined by the CRADA Research Plan. These scientists, in collaboration with investigators in the LID, would coordinate the production and release testing of the candidate vaccines, generate monoclonal antibodies or other antibodies needed for production and characterization of clinical lots, and use molecular virologic techniques to generate attenuating mutations suitable for use in live vaccine candidates. The LID and Collaborator will identify the best candidate dengue virus attenuated derivatives for each of the four dengue virus serotypes to formulate a tetravalent vaccine. In addition, it is expected that the Collaborator will provide funds to supplement LID's research budget for the project and would make a major funding commitment to support the safety, immunogenicity and efficacy studies for candidate vaccines developed under the CRADA.

The capability statement must address, with specificity and providing appropriate examples, each of the following selection criteria: (1) The technical expertise of the Collaborator's Principal Investigator and laboratory group in molecular virology; (2) The number of personnel that the Collaborator plans to assign to this project; (3) Ability of Collaborator to manufacture experimental vaccine lots for parenteral administration under Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) conditions and the number of lots that could be produced annually, (4) Access to a qualified bank of cells for vaccine manufacture, specifically Vero cells or DBS FRhL-2 cells, (5) Capability to manage regulatory affairs attendant to licensure by FDA and international regulatory bodies, and (6) Ability to provide adequate and sustained funding to support pre-clinical development at NIH and at collaborator's site and for the requisite vaccine safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy studies in humans.