Section 320 of the 2001 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 106-291) created the Forest Counties Payments Committee to make recommendations to Congress on a long-term solution for making Federal payments to eligible States and counties in which Federal lands are situated. To formulate its recommendations to Congress, the Committee will consider the impact on eligible States and counties of revenues from the historic multiple use of Federal lands; evaluate the economic, environmental, and social benefits which accrue to counties containing Federal lands; evaluate the expenditures by counties on activities occurring on Federal lands which are Federal responsibilities; and monitor payments and implementation of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393).

At the May 17 meeting in Rapid City, South Dakota, the Committee asks that elected officials and others who wish to comment provide information in response to the following questions:

1. Do counties receive their fair share of federal revenue-sharing payments made to eligible States?

2. What difficulties exist in complying with, and managing all of the federal revenue-sharing payments programs? Are some more difficult than others?

3. What economic, social, and environmental costs do counties incur as a result of the presence of public lands within their boundaries?

4. What economic, social, and environmental benefits do counties realize as a result of public lands within their boundaries?

5. What are the economic and social effects from changes in revenues generated from public lands over the past 15 years, as a result of changes in management on public lands in your State or county?

6. What actions has your State or county taken to mitigate any impacts associated with declining economic conditions, or revenue-sharing payments?

7. What effects, both positive and negative, have taken place with education and highway programs that are attributable to the management of public lands within your State or county?

8. What relationship, if any, should exist between federal revenue-sharing programs, and management activities on public lands?

9. What alternatives exist to provide equitable revenue-sharing to States and counties and to promote “sustainable forestry?'

10. What has been your experience regarding implementation of Public Law 106-393, The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act?

11. What changes in law, policies and procedures, and the management of public land have contributed to changes in revenue derived from the multiple-use management of these lands?

12. What changes in law, policies and procedures, and the management of public land are needed in order to restore the revenues derived from the multiple-use management of these lands?

Persons interested in the payments to Nevada counties also are requested to address these same questions and also have until June 30 to submit their views in writing to the Committee.

Agenda topics include reviewing project proposals and receiving public comment.

Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “to develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade, and packaging and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices. * * *” GIPSA is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities. The United States Standards for Lentils do not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations but are maintained by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

GIPSA is proposing to change the United States Standards for Lentils using the procedures it published in the Federal Register on February 13, 1997 (62 FR 6705). Specifically, GIPSA is proposing to better define current color requirements; establish a new color requirement; expand the definition of damaged lentils; and include a new factor, “contrasting lentils.”

GIPSA representatives work closely with the U.S.A. Dry Pea and Lentil Council (USADPLC) and others in the lentil industry to examine the effectiveness of the U.S. Standards for Lentils in today's marketing environment. Through discussions, it appears that most of the current standards continue to meet consumer/processor needs. However, changing market trends demand that certain changes be made pertaining to the acceptable appearance of the lentils.

At the request of the lentil industry, GIPSA is proposing these changes be implemented by July 1, 2002, in order to be in place before harvest of the lentil crop year.

The U.S. Standards for Lentils characterize lentil color as being “good lentil color” which is the minimum color requirement for U.S. No. 1 and “fair lentil color” which is the minimum color requirement for U.S. Nos. 2 and 3. However, the current written descriptions for these characterizations and the absence of any visual reference aids may cause confusion concerning the applications of color. Due to the economic significance general appearance (color) has for processors and end-users, GIPSA and the USADPLC worked together to more clearly define the terms used to describe lentil color and to create visual references that aid in the consistent applications of color.

The current definition of good lentil color is “Lentil that in mass are practically free from discoloration and have the natural color appearance characteristics of the predominating class.” The proposed definition is “Lentils that are practically free from discoloration and have the uniform natural color and appearance characteristics of the predominating lentil type.” The current definition of fair color lentils is “Lentils that are not of good color.” The proposed definition is “Lentils that are lightly to moderately discolored from storage or other causes to the extent they cannot be considered of good color.”

Also, the existing lentil color characterizations, “good” and “fair,” do not sufficiently address the color degradation process and all possible degrees of color. Samples that are marginally discolored and those which are significantly discolored are both considered to be of “fair lentil color.” Accordingly, GIPSA and the USADPLC established visual reference standards to distinguish between three-color categories: good, fair, and poor. The proposed definition for poor lentil color is: “Lentil that are severely discolored from storage or other causes to the extent they cannot be considered of fair color.”

The addition of “poor lentil color” to the Standards, the clarification of the definitions for “good color lentils” and “fair color lentils,” and the establishment of visual aids for these colors will result in a more uniform and consistent application of the Standards. While “good” and “fair” will continue to serve as the minimum color standard for U.S. Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, samples considered to be of “poor lentil color” will receive no better than a U.S. No. 3 grade designation. This will assist in moving the U.S. lentil market towards fewer quality complaints.

Also, the establishment of visual aid standards will provide the platform for the development of computer imaging technology for determining color classifications. Imaging technology eliminates certain variables in the inspection process and can provide the most uniform color classifications on a national level. This type of technology is crucial for the U.S. lentil market in becoming more competitive in the world market.

Lentils, like many other field crops, are occasionally harvested before all lentils have reached full maturity. These under-filled, often disfigured, lentils have less market value than fully matured lentils. To address this marketing concern, GIPSA decided to revise the lentil standards to expand the definition of “Damaged Lentils” to include “Immature Lentils.”

The current definition of damaged lentils is: “Whole and pieces of lentils which are distinctly damaged by frost, weather, disease, heat (other that to a material extent), or other causes, except weevil or material heat damage, or are distinctly soiled or stained by nightshade, dirt, or toxic material.” The proposed definition is: “Whole and pieces of lentils which are distinctly damaged by frost, weather, disease, heat (other that to a material extent), immaturity, or other causes, except weevil or material heat damage, or are distinctly soiled or stained by nightshade, dirt, or toxic material.”

The proposed definition for immature lentils is: “Immature Lentils. Lentils that do not have a traditional lens-shaped profile due to immaturity. Immature lentils are characterized as having a thin or flat (wafer-like), wrinkled, and misshapen appearance. Lentils may also be discolored.”

GIPSA conducted a crop survey in 2001 which revealed that over 70 percent of the samples reviewed showed no measurable amount of immature lentils and all samples had less than 1 percent (the limit for U.S. No. 1 is 2.0 percent) defective lentils. Based on these results, the proposed definition would have no impact on grade. Further, the following statement will appear in the Pea and Lentil Handbook as an interpretive aid for determining when a lentil is considered immature. “All three conditions (thin, wrinkled, and misshapen) must be present for an inspector to consider a lentil an immature lentil.”

The terms good, fair, and poor lentil color are not intended to address the different sizes and colors associated with the lentil types and varieties produced in the U.S. The possible introduction of distinctively different lentils is a concern to those marketing lentils. Accordingly, a new factor, “contrasting lentils,” is being introduced into the standards.

Introducing contrasting lentils as a new factor discourages the blending of different lentil types by focusing on inherently and noticeably different sizes and color. Additionally, it provides the processor a standard for the lentils that are consistent in size and color.

The proposed definition for contrasting lentils is: “Lentils that differ substantially in size or color from the predominating lentil type.” In addition, the following statement will appear in the Pea and Lentil Handbook as an interpretive aid: “Color, as used in this definition, is limited to the lentil's natural seed coat color and excludes the mottling that may be present on some seed coats.”

The proposed maximum limit for contrasting lentils for U.S. No. 1 is 2.0 percent, and the proposed maximum limit for U.S. No. 2 is 4.0 percent. Lentils containing more than 4.0 percent contrasting lentils will be graded U.S. No. 3.

These proposed standard changes were recommended to us and reviewed by the affected trade. Therefore, GIPSA is publishing these proposed standard changes with a 30 day comment period which will provide a sufficient amount of time for interested persons to comment on changes to the standards.

The form is required in support of an export license application where the country of ultimate destination is in Country Group Q, S, V, W, Y or Z. It is used by licensing officers in determining the validity of the end-use.

Submitted to BIS on form BXA-711P or company letterhead.

OMB Number: 0694-0021.

Form Number: Form BXA-711. Although the name of the agency has changed to the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), we will continue to use previous forms until the stock is depleted.

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: 4,535.

Estimated Time Per Response: 16 minutes per response.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,210.

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.

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 (“Department”) regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (April 2001).

Since the initiation of this investigation ( Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Investigations: Sulfanilic Acid from Hungary and Portugal, 66 FR 54214, 54218 (October 26, 2001) (“ Initiation Notice ”)), the following events have occurred:

On October 25, 2001, we solicited comments from interested parties regarding the criteria to be used for model-matching purposes. We received comments from the petitioner on October 30, 2001.

On November 20, 2001, the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable indication that imports of sulfanilic acid from Hungary are materially injuring the United States industry ( see ITC Investigation No. 731-TA-984-985 (Publication No. 3472)).

We issued an antidumping questionnaire to Nitrokemia 2000 Rt. (“Nitrokemia”), a pro se respondent, on November 19, 2001. We received responses to the questionnaire from Nitrokemia on December 8, 2001, and January 14, 2002. We issued supplemental questionnaires to Nitrokemia on January 25, February 12, March 11, and April 8, 2002, to which we received responses on February 6, February 28, March 27, and April 17, 2002, respectively. On January 29 and February 1, 2002, we received comments from the petitioner on the respondent's questionnaire responses. Subsequently, on February 10, 2002, we received comments from Nitrokemia on the petitioner's comments concerning the respondent's questionnaire responses.

On February 14, 2002, the petitioner made a timely request to postpone the preliminary determination pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(e). On February 15, 2002, we postponed the preliminary determination until no later than April 8, 2002. See Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Investigations: Sulfanilic Acid from Hungary and Portugal, 67 FR 8525 (February 25, 2002).

On April 4, 2002, the Department again postponed the preliminary determination until no later than April 26, 2002. For the reasons for the postponement, see Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Antidumping Duty Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Sulfanilic Acid from Hungary and Portugal, 67 FR 17968 (April 12, 2002).

On April 19, 2002, the petitioner submitted comments with respect to the upcoming preliminary determination.

Imports covered by this investigation are all grades of sulfanilic acid, which include technical (or crude) sulfanilic acid, refined (or purified) sulfanilic acid and sodium salt of sulfanilic acid.

Sulfanilic acid is a synthetic organic chemical produced from the direct sulfonation of aniline and sulfuric acid. Sulfanilic acid is used as a raw material in the production of optical brighteners, food colors, specialty dyes and concrete additives. The principal differences between the grades are the undesirable quantities of residual aniline and alkali insoluble materials present in the sulfanilic acid. All grades are available as dry, free-flowing powders.

Technical sulfanilic acid, currently classifiable under subheading 2921.42.22 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTS”), contains 96 percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 1.0 percent maximum aniline, and 1.0 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials. Refined sulfanilic acid, also currently classifiable under 2921.42.22 of the HTS, contains 98 percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline and 0.25 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials.

Sodium salt (sodium sulfanilate), currently classifiable under HTS subheading 2921.42.90, is a powder, granular or crystalline material which contains 75 percent minimum equivalent sulfanilic acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline based on the equivalent sulfanilic acid content, and 0.25 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials based on the equivalent sulfanilic acid content.

Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations ( see Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage and encouraged all parties to submit comments within 20 calendar days of publication of the Initiation Notice. We did not receive any such comments.

The period of investigation (“POI”) is July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001.

To determine whether sales of sulfanilic acid from Hungary to the United States were made at less than fair value, we compared the export price (“EP”) to the normal value (“NV”), as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we compared POI weighted-average EPs to POI weighted-average NVs. Any company-specific changes to the EP and NV calculations are discussed in Nitrokemia's calculation memorandum, which is on file in the Import Administration's Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building.

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced and sold by Nitrokemia in the foreign market during the POI 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 of identical products in the third market ( see “Normal Value” section, below), where appropriate. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the foreign 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 in the following order of importance: form; product type; aniline impurity content; alkali insoluble impurity content; and sulfanilic content.

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, or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, based on the facts of record. We based EP on the packed CIF price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These included foreign inland freight, inland insurance, and ocean freight. We increased EP, where appropriate, for duty drawback in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. We relied on the U.S. sales data submitted by Nitrokemia, with the following exceptions.

Based on our review of Nitrokemia's questionnaire responses, we find that Nitrokemia did not answer many of the Department's numerous and repeated questions relating to the completeness and accuracy of its reporting of U.S. sales and related charges and adjustments. 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 of the Act; (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) of the Act, the administering authority shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this title. 1 Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that adverse inferences may be used when a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information.

In this case, we find that Nitrokemia has withheld information requested by the Department concerning the completeness and accuracy of Nitrokemia's U.S. sales response. Specifically, we noted in Nitrokemia's original questionnaire response that it reported credit expenses, inventory carrying costs, direct selling expenses, and packing costs on some, but not all, U.S. sales. In several supplemental questionnaires, we requested that Nitrokemia report these expenses for all U.S. sales, or explain why it was not appropriate to do so. Despite our repeated notifications to Nitrokemia of these deficiencies in its data and the several opportunities we provided the company to remedy its reporting of these fields (pursuant to section 782(d) of the Act), Nitrokemia continued to provide incomplete responses. Since Nitrokemia did not provide the information requested or provided information that was so incomplete that it could not be used (within the meaning of section 782(e) of the Act), we are resorting to facts otherwise available pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Further, the data that Nitrokemia did not provide on some U.S. transactions was provided for other U.S. transactions. Nitrokemia did not sufficiently explain why it was not possible to provide this information for all U.S. transactions. Therefore, we conclude that Nitrokemia could have provided the necessary data but chose not to, thereby failing to cooperate to the best of its ability within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act. Accordingly, we find that the use of an adverse inference is warranted.

As explained in the Memorandum from Team to the File, “Preliminary Determination Calculation Memorandum for Nitrokemia 2000 Rt.,” dated April 26, 2002 (“ Calculation Memorandum ”), as adverse facts available, we adjusted EP or NV, as appropriate, by the highest adjustment amount that Nitrokemia actually reported in its U.S. sales response for direct selling expenses and packing costs. Furthermore, we recalculated Nitrokemia's credit expenses and inventory carrying costs using information contained in Nitrokemia's questionnaire responses and a published dollar-denominated short-term interest rate. No other adjustments were made to Nitrokemia's submitted U.S. sales response. We intend to review Nitrokemia's questionnaire responses extensively at verification in order to ascertain whether this application of facts available is adequately adverse.

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), the Department compares the respondent'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 section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. We determined that Nitrokemia's volume of home market sales was less than five percent of its volume of U.S. sales. Therefore, we have based NV for Nitrokemia on third country sales in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. For the reasons described in the Memorandum to Richard Moreland, “ Selection of Third Country Comparison Market, ” dated April 26, 2002, we used sales to Germany as third-country comparison sales. Germany was Nitrokemia's largest third-country market for sulfanilic acid in terms of both value and quantity.

Based on our analysis of an allegation contained in the petition, we found that there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of sulfanilic acid in the third market were made at prices below their cost of production (“COP”). Reasonable grounds exist when an interested party provides specific factual information on costs and prices, observed or constructed, indicating that sales in the comparison market in question are at below-cost prices. See Antidumping Duty Petition, September 26, 2001. Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, we initiated a country-wide sales-below-cost investigation to determine whether sales were made at prices below their respective COP ( see Initiation Notice, 66 FR at 54215).

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus an amount for selling, general, and administrative expenses (“SG&A”), interest expenses, and foreign market packing costs ( see “Test of Foreign Market Sales Prices” section below for treatment of foreign market selling expenses). We relied on the COP data submitted by Nitrokemia, with the following exceptions. Despite our repeated requests in the original and supplemental questionnaires, Nitrokemia did not report overhead, SG&A, and financial expense in accordance with the Department's instructions. Moreover, the actual cost data supplied by Nitrokemia are not sufficient for purposes of deriving SG&A and financial expense ratios. Because Nitrokemia failed to provide this cost information in the form and manner requested by the Department, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act we find that facts available is warranted. As facts available, we derived SG&A and interest expense ratios based on Nitrokemia's 2000 financial statements, as included in the petition and submitted by Nitrokemia in its questionnaire responses. Furthermore, we derived an overhead ratio based on total overhead costs reported by Nitrokemia and information from Nitrokemia's 2000 financial statements. As we noted above, we intend to review Nitrokemia's questionnaire responses extensively at verification in order to ascertain whether this application of facts available is adequately adverse.

We compared COP to foreign market sale prices of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP. In determining whether to disregard foreign 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 permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to foreign market prices, less any applicable movement charges, discounts and rebates, and selling expenses.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of the respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than 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 over a period of at least six months, we determine that 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 were 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 and, if so, we disregard the below-cost sales.

We found that, for certain products, more than 20 percent of Nitrokemia's foreign market sales were at prices less than the COP and did not provide for the recovery of costs. Therefore, we excluded these sales and used the remaining above-cost sales, if any, as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

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 constructed export price. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent) according to 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”), 2 including selling functions, 3 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), we consider the starting prices before any adjustments.

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 LOT, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between sales at different LOTs in the country in which NV is determined, we make a level of trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) 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).

We obtained information from Nitrokemia regarding the marketing stages involved in making the reported third market and U.S. sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by the respondent for each channel of distribution. In the comparison market, all sales reported by Nitrokemia were direct sales to end users. Sales through this single channel of distribution to the sole customer category were similar with respect to all selling activities and, therefore, Nitrokemia's foreign market sales constituted a single level of trade.

In the U.S. market, Nitrokemia had only EP sales. Nitrokemia reported direct EP sales to end users through only one channel of distribution and one customer category, and therefore had only one level of trade for its EP sales. This EP level of trade was similar to the foreign market level of trade with respect to selling activities, except for marginal differences in sales process and marketing support. Consequently, we matched the EP level of trade to sales at the same level of trade in the foreign market.

We calculated NV based on free carrier, carriage paid, or delivered duties unpaid prices to unaffiliated customers. We made adjustments for inland freight, international freight, and duty drawback, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(iii) of the Act. We made adjustments, where appropriate, 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 and 19 CFR 351.411. In addition, where appropriate, we made adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act for differences in circumstances of sale for commissions, imputed credit expenses, and other direct selling expenses. We also made adjustments, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses incurred in the foreign market on U.S. sales where commissions were granted on sales in one market but not in the other (the commission offset). We deducted foreign market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. We adjusted Nitrokemia's reported inventory carrying costs and packing costs, where appropriate, as explained in the Calculation Memorandum .

We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, either as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank or, in the case of Hungarian forints, as reported by the Dow Jones. 4

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we will verify all information relied upon in making our final determination.

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . We will instruct the Customs Service to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds the EP, as indicated in the chart below. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our determination. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Case briefs for this investigation must be submitted to the Department not later than June 4, 2002. Rebuttal briefs must be filed by June 10, 2002. See 19 CFR 309(c)(1)(i). A list of authorities used, a table of contents, and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will hold a public hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a hearing is requested by an interested party. If a request for a hearing is made in this investigation, the hearing will tentatively be held on June 13, 2002, at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.

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, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days of the publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs.

If this investigation proceeds normally, we will make our final determination by not later than 75 days after the date of the Department's preliminary determination.

This determination is published pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i) of the Act.

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

Since the initiation of this investigation ( Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Sulfanilic Acid from Hungary and Portugal , 66 FR 54214, 54218 (October 26, 2001) (“Initiation Notice”)), the following events have occurred:

On October 25, 2001, we solicited comments from interested parties regarding the criteria to be used for model-matching purposes. We received these comments on October 30, 2001.

On November 20, 2001, the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable indication that imports of sulfanilic acid from Portugal are materially injuring the United States industry ( see ITC Investigation No. 731-TA-984-985 (Publication No. 3472)).

We issued an antidumping questionnaire to Quimigal - Quimica de Portugal S.A. (“Quimigal”) on November 19, 2001. We received responses to the questionnaire from Quimigal on December 10, 2001, and on January 14, 2002. We issued supplemental questionnaires to Quimigal on January 31, 2002, and March 5, 2002, to which we received responses on February 25, 2002, and March 19, 2002, respectively.

On February 14, 2002, the petitioner made a request to postpone the preliminary determination pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(e). On February 15, 2002, we postponed the preliminary determination until no later than April 8, 2002. See Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Antidumping Duty Determinations: Sulfanilic Acid from Hungary and Portugal, 67 FR 8525 (February 25, 2002).

On April 4, 2002, the Department again postponed the preliminary determination until not later than April 26, 2002. For the reasons for the postponement, see Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Antidumping Duty Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Sulfanilic Acid from Hungary and Portugal , 67 FR 17968 (April 12, 2002).

Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, on April 3, 2002, Quimigal requested that, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final determination until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination in the Federal Register, and extend the provisional measures to not more than six months. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.210(b), because (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative, (2) Quimigal accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are granting the respondent's request and are postponing the final determination until not later than 135 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Suspension of liquidation will be extended accordingly.

Imports covered by this investigation are all grades of sulfanilic acid, which include technical (or crude) sulfanilic acid, refined (or purified) sulfanilic acid and sodium salt of sulfanilic acid.

Sulfanilic acid is a synthetic organic chemical produced from the direct sulfonation of aniline and sulfuric acid. Sulfanilic acid is used as a raw material in the production of optical brighteners, food colors, specialty dyes and concrete additives. The principal differences between the grades are the undesirable quantities of residual aniline and alkali insoluble materials present in the sulfanilic acid. All grades are available as dry, free-flowing powders.

Technical sulfanilic acid, currently classifiable under subheading 2921.42.22 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTS”), contains 96 percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 1.0 percent maximum aniline, and 1.0 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials. Refined sulfanilic acid, also currently classifiable under 2921.42.22 of the HTS, contains 98 percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline and 0.25 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials.

Sodium salt (sodium sulfanilate), currently classifiable under HTS subheading 2921.42.90, is a powder, granular or crystalline material which contains 75 percent minimum equivalent sulfanilic acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline based on the equivalent sulfanilic acid content, and 0.25 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials based on the equivalent sulfanilic acid content.

Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

Below is a summary of the litigation for the 1994-95 final results for which the CIT has now issued a final and conclusive decision.

On March 13, 1997, we published in the Federal Register our notice of the final results of administrative reviews for the 1994-95 period of review (POR) ( see 1994-95 TRBs from Japan ). Subsequent to the publication of these final results, the petitioner, The Timken Co. (Timken), challenged various aspects of our final results before the CIT (Court No. 97-04-00562). The CIT remanded the case with respect to TRBs manufactured by Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. (Koyo) and ordered the Department to: 1) determine the extent to which Koyo reported any positive values for inside diameters for cups and outside diameters for cones in its sales of U.S. cups and cones and to correct the computer program by setting the value of any positive inside cup diameters or outside cone diameters to zero in Koyo's U.S. summary sales database; and 2) ensure that no models were matched to constructed value (CV) when a comparison to similar home-market products was appropriate in accordance with Cemex, S.A. v. United States , 113 F.3d 897 (Fed. Cir. 1998). See Timken v. U.S. , Slip Op. 98-92 (July 2, 1998). No party appealed the CIT's decision.

As there is now a final and conclusive court decision with respect to this litigation ( see Timken v. U.S. , Slip Op. 99-9 (January 22, 1999)), we are amending our final results of review for Koyo based on our recalculation of Koyo's rates pursuant to the remand. The amended final results margin for Koyo is 21.49 percent for the 1994-95 administrative review of the antidumping finding on TRBs from Japan. We will issue instructions to Customs to liquidate entries of subject merchandise made by Koyo during this period pursuant to these amended final results.

Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1516(f), we are now amending the final results of the 1994-95 administrative review of the antidumping finding on TRBs from Japan manufactured by Koyo. The amended weighted-average margin for Koyo in the antidumping finding on TRBs from Japan (A-588-054) for the period October 1, 1994 through September 30, 1995 is 21.49 percent.

Accordingly, the Department will determine and Customs will assess appropriate antidumping duties on entries of the subject merchandise made by firms covered by the review of the period listed above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to Customs.

DECs sponsor and participate in numerous trade promotion activities, as well as supply specialized expertise to small and medium-sized businesses that are interested in exporting.

Selection Process: About half of the approximately 30 positions on each of the 56 DECs are open for nominations for the term that ends December 31, 2005. Nominees are recommended by the local U.S. Export Assistance Center Director, in consultation with the DEC and other local export promotion partners. After a review process, nominees are selected and appointed to a DEC by the Secretary of Commerce.

Membership Criteria: Each DEC is interested in nominating highly-motivated people. Appointment is based upon an individual's energetic leadership, position in the local business community, knowledge of day-to-day international operations, interest in export development, and willingness and ability to devote time to council activities. Members include exporters, export service providers and others whose profession supports U.S. export promotion efforts.

The AP will convene to discuss the issues related to and continue the development of an individual fishing quota (IFQ) profile for the commercial red snapper fishery. The profile will examine the benefits and consequences of using IFQs to manage the commercial red snapper fishery. When the profile is completed by the AP and Council, it will be submitted to the current participants in the fishery for a referendum to determine if the majority of the participants favor management by IFQs.

The AP members consist of commercial fishermen holding Class 1 or Class 2 commercial red snapper licenses, and licensed commercial reef fish dealers. They are assisted by 4 non-voting members with expertise in fishery economics, fishery biology, environmental science, and law enforcement. The completion of the profile will require several subsequent meetings of this AP.

Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the AP for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions of the AP will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agendas and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency. Copies of the agenda can be obtained by calling 813-228-2815.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Anne Alford at the Council ( see ADDRESSES ) by May 13, 2002.

The committee will review and provide the Council guidance on the Final Report of the Working Group on the Re-evaluation of Biological Reference Points for New England Groundfish. They will also provide guidance to the Monkfish Plan Development Team and the Council on monkfish management reference points. Also on the agenda will be to provide guidance to the Scallop Plan Development Team and the Council on scallop management reference points if it has not been done prior to the May 14-15, 2002 Scallop Committee meeting.

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

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 days prior to the meeting dates.

The listening stations will be located at the following addresses:

1. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Director's Conference Room, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Building 1, Seattle, WA 98115; Contact: Mr. Bill Robinson (206) 526-6142;

2. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resource Building, Room 677, 1111 Washington Street SE, Olympia, WA 98501; Contact: Mr. Phil Anderson (360) 902-2720;

3. Pacific Fishery Management Council, West Conference Room, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 200, Portland, OR 97220-1384; Contact: Mr. John DeVore (503) 326-6352, ext. 210;

4. California Department of Fish and Game, Conference Room, Room 1320, 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; Contact: Mr. LB Boydstun (916) 653-6281.

The purpose of the May 21 telephone conference and June 3 meeting is to develop preliminary options for allocations and other management measures for the 2003 Pacific Coast groundfish fishery. In addition, the committee will evaluate current catch levels of overfished groundfish species and may propose inseason adjustments. The committee will discuss the types of provisions that may be necessary to prevent further overfishing, to reduce bycatch of overfished species in the various groundfish fisheries, and to reduce bycatch in non-groundfish fisheries. The committee will prepare recommendations and contribute to draft rebuilding plans for overfished groundfish species that will be presented to the Council at future meetings. If available, the committee may also review new rebuilding analyses for canary rockfish, bocaccio, and yelloweye rockfish. No management actions will be decided by the Ad Hoc Allocation Committee. The committee’s role will be development of recommendations for consideration by the Pacific Fishery Management Council at its June meeting in Foster City, California.

Although nonemergency issues not contained in the teleconference call or meeting agendas may come before the Ad Hoc Allocation Committee for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal Ad Hoc Allocation Committee action during this meeting. Ad Hoc Allocation Committee action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Ad Hoc Allocation Committee's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This teleconference call and meeting are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at (503) 326-6352 at least 5 days prior to the teleconference date.

This document includes analyses of the potential environmental consequences that the alternative actions may have on land use and visual resources, transportation, utilities, earth resources, air quality, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, socio-economics, noise, and hazardous materials and items of special concern. The findings indicate that potential environmental impacts from the alternatives may result in some impacts to cultural resources.

Copies of the PEIS have been provided to the following libraries for public access to the document: Fort Sam Houston Library, Building 1222, 2601 Harney, Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234 and the San Antonio Public Library, 600 Soledad Plaza, San Antonio, TX 78205.

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

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

Type of Review: New.

Title: Early Reading First Program Federal Register Notice Inviting Applications, and Application Packet.

Abstract: The Early Reading First program will provide grants to eligible local educational agencies (LEAs) and public and private organizations located in those LEAs to transform early childhood education programs into centers of excellence to help young at-risk children achieve the language, cognitive, and early reading skills they need to succeed when they enter kindergarten.

Additional Information: The Department expects to receive a large number of applications, and wishes to ensure that the funded applications are of the highest quality, and plans to use a two-phase application process (with a Pre-Application and Full Application). This two-phase application process will put less burden on the majority of applicants by requiring only a short concept paper from them, and will also have the benefit of providing helpful comments from peer reviewers to strengthen proposals from applicants invited to submit Full Applications. It would be difficult, without emergency paperwork clearance, for the Department to award these grants by December, 2002. Based upon the unexpected delay and the public harm that might otherwise occur with delaying grant awards, the Department is requesting approval by May 7, 2002.

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs; not-for-profit institutions.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 900.

 Burden Hours: 12,000.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2020. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments ” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail address vivan.reese@ed.gov. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

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

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

Type of Review: Revision.

Title: State Library Agencies Survey, 2000-2002.

Frequency: Annually.

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

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Abstract: State library agencies (StLAs) are the official agencies of each state charged by state law with the extension and development of public library services throughout the state. The purpose of this survey is to provide state and federal policymakers with information about StLAs, including their governance, allied operations, developmental services to libraries and library systems, support of electronic information networks and resources, number and types of outlets, direct services to the public, public service hours, type and size of collections, service and development transactions, staffing patterns, and income and expenditures.

Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 1945. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments “ to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail address vivan.reese@ed.gov. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Kathy Axt at her Internet address Kathy.Axt@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct), Public Law 102-486, required the Secretary of Energy, with the Energy Information Administration (EIA), to establish a voluntary reporting program and database on emissions of greenhouse gases, reductions of these gases, and carbon sequestration (42 U.S.C. 13385(b)). More specifically, section 1605(b) required that DOE's guidelines provide for the “accurate” and “voluntary” reporting of information on: (1) Greenhouse gas emission levels for a baseline period (1987-1990) and, thereafter, annually; (2) annual reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration regardless of the specific method used to achieve them; (3) greenhouse gas emission reductions achieved because of voluntary efforts, plant closings, or mandatory state or federal requirements; and (4) the aggregate calculation of greenhouse gas emissions by each reporting entity (42 U.S.C. 13385(b)(1)(A)-(D)). Section 1605(b) contemplates a program whereby voluntary efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions could be recorded, with the specific purpose that this record could be used “by the reporting entity to demonstrate achieved reductions of greenhouse gases” (42 U.S.C. 13385(b)(4)).

To carry out this statutory mandate, DOE established the GHG Registry, a program for the voluntary reporting of greenhouse gas emissions, emission reductions and carbon sequestration that has been in operation since 1995. The GHG Registry currently is governed by the General Guidelines for the Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases under Section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (“General Guidelines”), which were issued in 1994 after notice and public comment (59 FR 52769). The current General Guidelines are supported by two additional documents: Sector-Specific Issues and Reporting Methodologies, volumes one and two, which include supporting Appendices A-E. Volume one of the Sector-Specific Issues and Reporting Methodologies addresses the Electricity Supply Sector, Residential and Commercial Buildings Sector, and Industrial Sector. Volume two covers the Transportation Sector, Forestry Sector, and Agricultural Sector. Together, the General Guidelines and supporting documents establish a broad-based program for the reporting of greenhouse gas reductions and carbon sequestration that result from voluntary and other activities. The General Guidelines and supporting documents may be accessed at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/guidelns.html.

The current General Guidelines encourage participants to report all types of greenhouse gas emission reduction and carbon sequestration activities, and participants are given flexibility in determining whether and how actual reductions are accomplished and reported. Any person or entity (“reporter”) who wishes to participate in the current GHG Registry must, however, comply with the following minimum information requirements:

As required by section 1605(b)(2), EIA developed forms for reporting to the GHG Registry. As long as participants use EIA forms and meet the minimum reporting requirements, they are allowed to define the activities they report and to determine how to estimate the effects of those activities on greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration. The General Guidelines require reporters to self-certify the accuracy of their reports, but does not specify verification measures. As part of the report review process, EIA evaluates each report received for consistency with the General Guidelines, comprehensiveness, and arithmetic accuracy, and makes suggestions for improving the accuracy and clarity of reports. EIA also provides reporters with suggested and default greenhouse gas emissions factors for optional use.

Additional information, including the program's annual reports and reporting forms, can be accessed at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/frntvrgg.html.

On February 14, 2002, President Bush, in announcing a new approach for meeting the long-term challenge of climate change, directed the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Secretaries of Commerce and Agriculture, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and other Departments and agencies, to propose improvements to the current program to “enhance measurement accuracy, reliability and verifiability, working with and taking into account emerging domestic and international approaches.”  1 The President directed that DOE recommend proposed improvements to the GHG Registry within 120 days. Also on February 14, 2002, the President directed the Secretary of Energy to recommend reforms “to ensure that businesses and individuals that register reductions are not penalized under a future climate policy, and to give transferable credits to companies that can show real emissions reductions.”  2 The President also directed the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with EPA and DOE, to develop accounting rules and guidelines for crediting carbon sequestration projects.

Pursuit of the related Presidential directives poses significant policy, technical, and legal questions. In light of the short time available, DOE began consultations with the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture, and the EPA immediately after the President's announcement. This notice is directed to obtaining information from interested parties that will be useful in developing proposed improvements to the GHG Registry consistent with the President's announcement. If, as a result, modifications to the guidelines for reporting are pursued, the public will be given an opportunity to comment on the proposed revised guidelines, as provided in section 1605(b)(1) (42 U.S.C. 13385(b)(1)).

DOE requests written comments from interested persons on all aspects of possible revisions to the guidelines governing the GHG Registry. DOE is especially interested in receiving written comments from persons with particular knowledge of the institutional, legal, and technical issues related to measuring and reporting GHG emissions, emissions reductions, and carbon sequestration. All information provided by commenters will be available for public inspection at the Department of Energy, Freedom of Information Reading Room, room 1E-190, 1000 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20585, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday though Friday, except Federal holidays.

DOE also intends to enter all written comments on a website specially established for this proceeding. The Internet website is http://www.pi.energy.gov/enhancingGHGregistry. To assist DOE in making public comments available on a website, interested persons are encouraged to submit an electronic version of their written comments in accordance with the instructions in the DATES section of this notice.

Because DOE intends to make all submissions publicly available on a website, it requests that commenters not submit information believed to be confidential and exempt from public disclosure. However, if any person chooses to submit information that he or she considers to be privileged or confidential and exempt from public disclosure, that person must clearly identify the information that is considered to be privileged or confidential and explain why the submitter thinks the information is exempt from disclosure, addressing as appropriate the criteria for nondisclosure in DOE's Freedom of Information Act regulations at 10 CFR 1004.11(f). DOE also requests such submitters to provide one copy of their comments from which the information believed to be exempt from disclosure has been redacted, with the areas where information has been redacted clearly marked. DOE will determine if the information or data sought to be protected from disclosure is exempt from disclosure in accordance with the procedures set forth in its Freedom of Information Act regulations at 10 CFR 1004.11.

Commenters may find it helpful to review the notices that preceded the issuance of the current guidelines in 1994. These notices provide additional detail on issues considered during the development of the current guidelines: Notice of Inquiry (58 FR 40116; July 27, 1993); Notice of Availability requesting comment on the draft guidelines (59 FR 28345; June 1, 1994); and the Notice of Availability of the Guidelines (59 FR 52769; October 19, 1994). DOE has included these notices on the website established for this proceeding for the convenience of interested persons.

This section of the notice identifies specific areas for comment; however, these areas are not intended to limit the content of submissions.

• Identify and discuss whether and how any improvement you suggest is necessary and appropriate in light of the President's directives and the purposes of the reporting program, including reporting of emission reductions and carbon sequestration activities for transferable credits or protection against penalty under future climate policy.

• Identify and discuss whether and how your suggested improvements are consistent with existing and emerging domestic and international approaches to reporting GHG emissions, emission reductions and carbon sequestration. DOE is aware that efforts in the public and private sectors, domestic and international, have been undertaken to develop GHG reporting approaches. Included in these are efforts by U.S. state governments, foreign governments, and multinational stakeholder groups. Reporting protocols have also been developed under voluntary emissions reduction programs initiated by the federal government and others.

• Time frame of data reported. Identify and discuss how any suggested improvements to the GHG Registry could accommodate the time period of reported emissions and emissions reductions, and carbon sequestration. The current GHG Registry accepts information on emissions and reductions back to 1991 and on emissions back to 1987, and provides for revision and supplementation of submitted reports. If your suggested improvements to the GHG Registry entail submission of additional accompanying information or new protocols for some types of reports, discuss how the guidelines could address the time frame of past and future reported data, and whether and how previously submitted data may be resubmitted under the revised purposes of the Registry.

• Reporting entity definition. Discuss whether the GHG Registry's broad definition of “reporting entity” continues to be appropriate in any improved reporting program. The current guidelines define a reporting entity as “a legal U.S. entity,” meaning “any U.S. citizen or resident alien; any company, organization, or group incorporated under or recognized by U.S. law; or any U.S. Federal, state, or local government entity.”

• Level of reporting. Discuss whether it is appropriate for reports to cover: (1) All emitting activities of the entire reporting entity; (2) emissions by facility/site, affiliate, or subsidiary; or (3) an emissions reduction, emissions avoidance or carbon sequestration project. Identify how different levels of reporting may be appropriate for various reporting purposes, including for transferable credits and protection against penalty under future climate policy.

• Reportable GHGs. Discuss whether and how it may be appropriate, in light of your suggested improvements to the GHG Registry, to modify the current GHG Registry approach which allows reports on various greenhouse gases and other pollutants, and their reduction. These gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, perfluorocarbons (PFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6 ).

• Indirect emissions. Identify and discuss how a reporter could treat indirect emissions, such as those resulting from electricity use, and indirect emissions reductions, such as those from decreased electricity use, in the context of an improved reporting program. Discuss whether and how life cycle and fuel cycle emissions, and wholesale electric or natural gas transactions should be treated. Indirect emissions are emissions from sources outside the reporting entity that are affected by the reporter's activities, for example, emissions of an electric utility resulting from the reporter's consumption of electricity.

• Avoided emissions. Identify and discuss how a reporter could treat actions that avoid, at least in part, the production of GHG emissions. The GHG Registry currently includes these as reported reductions. Examples of activities that avoid emissions include, but are not limited to, electricity generation from renewable energy sources or nuclear power, the use of natural gas-fueled motor vehicles, and energy efficiency improvements in industrial or other applications.

• Baselines (or reference case) definition. Identify and discuss appropriate changes to the GHG Registry's approaches to determining an emissions baseline(s) or reference case. Identify how different baseline determinations may be appropriate for reporting purposes, transferable credits, or protection against penalty under future climate policy. Discuss how the reporting program could be used by reporters who may wish to report their GHG emissions measured as emissions per unit of output or emissions intensity. Discuss how “units of output” or emissions intensity could be calculated for varying industries. The current guidelines permit the reporter several options for identifying the baseline (referred to as the reference case) for emissions reductions or carbon sequestration, including use of historical emissions or sequestration (historical reference case), or an estimate of what emissions or sequestration would have been in the absence of a project or a group of projects (modified reference case).

• Thresholds for reporting emissions and for reporting emissions reductions.

The current guidelines do not set a minimum size for a reporting entity, or for reported emissions, emissions reductions, avoided emissions, or sequestered carbon. Identify and discuss whether and how an improved program might appropriately set minimum thresholds for these categories of data.

• Reduction activity reports on domestic and international projects. The current GHG Registry accepts reports of project-level data for both domestic and international projects, without regard to entity-level emissions data. Discuss the need for, and appropriateness of, entity-level emissions data accompanying information on projects either within or outside the U.S.

• Transferable credits and transferring ownership of reductions. Discuss any attributes of GHG emissions reductions or carbon sequestration that may be appropriate or necessary for transferable emissions reduction or carbon sequestration credits. Provide information on reporting parameters you believe are necessary to establish and transfer ownership of real emissions reductions or carbon sequestration credits.

• Reporting joint activities, addressing duplication of reported emissions and reductions, and ownership. The current guidelines permit reporters, or third parties on the behalf of others, to report individual and joint activities, and to modify reporter-identification as needed. Discuss whether and what changes are appropriate or necessary to minimize duplicative reporting, and assure correct identification of the owner of emissions, emission reductions or avoidance, and carbon sequestration.

• Verification and third-party audit standards. As required by 1605(b)(2), the current guidelines and EIA forms require that the reporter self-certify the accuracy of the reported information (42 U.S.C. 13385(b)(2)). No independent certification or verification is required. While the Federal government does not certify reported data, EIA currently reviews each report for consistency with the program guidelines, comprehensiveness, and arithmetic accuracy. Identify and discuss any forms of verification that may be appropriate in a program that contemplates the use of the GHG Registry for transferable credits. If you suggest third party verification or certification, discuss possible standards for certifying bodies.

• Confidentiality of reported data; public availability of information. The current guidelines provide that information determined under DOE regulations to be confidential under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)) does not appear in EIA's public database and is not made available to the public. This is consistent with the provision in section 1605(b) requiring the protection of trade secret and commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential (42 U.S.C. 13385(b)(3)). Discuss whether revised guidelines should include a provision requiring reporters to waive the protection provided by section 1605(b)(3) if they wish to obtain a certificate of emission reductions for potential use in connection with transferable credits, or for protection against penalty under future climate policy.

• Measurement and estimation techniques. Although the current guidelines and reporting forms provide a number of default and other estimation techniques, they do not prescribe measurement and estimation techniques. Identify and discuss the need for prescribed techniques for measurement and estimation under an improved GHG Registry that could provide the basis for transferable credits or protection against penalty under future climate policy. Provide specific examples and citations to techniques you identify.

In section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-554), Congress directed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue by September 30, 2001, government-wide guidelines that provide policy and procedural guidance to Federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by Federal agencies. (OMB subsequently revised its guidelines to reflect comments by federal agencies and this revision as noted above was noticed in the Federal Register on February 22, 2002).

Section 515 directs agencies subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3502(1)) to:

1. Issue their own information quality guidelines ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information, including statistical information, disseminated by the agency no later than one year after the date of issuance of the OMB guidelines;

2. Establish administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain correction of information maintained and disseminated by the agency that does not comply with the OMB guidelines; and

3. Report annually, beginning January 1, 2004, to the Director of OMB the number and nature of requests for correction received by the agency regarding agency compliance with these OMB guidelines concerning the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information and how such requests for correction were resolved.

The FERC's draft guidelines are included as Attachment A. The request for correction and request for reconsideration processes are described in Attachment B. Attachments A and B are available on the FERC website at http://www.ferc.gov/ and in the Public Reference Room, 888 First Street., NE., Washington, DC 20426 (202-208-1371, extension 0, or Public.ReferenceRoom@FERC.fed.us ).

The subject memorandum may be viewed and downloaded from EPA's homepage, http://www.epa.gov/owm/mab/owm319.pdf.

This action is directed to the public in general, nevertheless, a wide range of stakeholders will be interested in obtaining the revised risk assessments and submitting risk management comments on atrazine, including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the use of pesticides on food. As such, the Agency has not attempted to specifically describe all the entities potentially affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Electronically . You may obtain electronic copies of this document and other related documents from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select “Laws and Regulations,” “Regulations and Proposed Rules,” and then look up the entry for this document under the “ Federal Register —Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. To access information about pesticides and obtain electronic copies of the revised risk assessments and related documents mentioned in this notice, you can also go directly to the Home Page for the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/atrazine/.

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPP-34237C. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as CBI. This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number OPP-34237C in the subject line on the first page of your response.

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

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

3. Electronically . Submit electronic comments by e-mail to: opp-docket@epa.gov, or you can submit a computer disk as described in this unit. Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be accepted on standard computer disks in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format. All comments in electronic form must be identified by the docket control number OPP-34237C. Electronic comments may also be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

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

EPA is making available for public viewing the revised risk assessments and related documents for the triazine pesticide, atrazine. These documents have been developed as part of the public participation process that EPA and USDA are using to involve the public in the reassessment of pesticide tolerances under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), and the reregistration of individual pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). A pilot public participation process was developed as part of the EPA and the USDA Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee (TRAC), which was established in April 1998, as a subcommittee under the auspices of EPA's National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology. A goal of the pilot public participation process has been to find a more effective way for the public to participate at critical junctures in the Agency's development pesticide risk assessments and risk management decisions. EPA and USDA began implementing this pilot process in August 1998, to increase transparency and opportunities for stakeholder consultation. The documents being released to the public through this notice provide information on the revisions that were made to the atrazine preliminary risk assessments, which were released to the public on February 14, 2001 (66 FR 10287) (FRL-6765-3) and September 26, 2001 (66 FR 49186) (FRL-7063-7), through notices in the Federal Register .

In addition, this notice starts a 60-day public participation period during which the public is encouraged to submit risk management proposals or other comments on risk management for atrazine. The Agency is providing an opportunity, through this notice, for interested parties to provide written comments on risk management proposals or ideas for atrazine. Such comments and proposals could address ideas about how to manage dietary, occupational, or ecological risks on specific atrazine use sites or crops across the United States or in a particular geographic region of the country. To address dietary risk, for example, commenters may choose to discuss the feasibility of lower application rates, increasing the time interval between application and harvest (“preharvest intervals”), modifications in use, or suggest alternative measures to reduce residues contributing to dietary exposure. For occupational risks, commenters may suggest personal protective equipment or technologies to reduce exposure to workers and pesticide handlers. For ecological risks, commenters may suggest ways to reduce environmental exposure, e.g., exposure to birds, fish, mammals, and other non-target organisms. All comments and proposals must be received by EPA on or before July 5, 2002. Comments and proposals will become part of the Agency record for the pesticide specified in this notice.

Proposal to renew the following currently approved collections of information:

1. Title: Notification of Performance of Bank Services.

OMB Number: 3064-0029.

Form Number: FDIC 6120/06.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Affected Public: Business or other financial institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 412.

Estimated Time per Response: 1/2 hour.

Total Annual Burden: 206 hours.

General Description of Collection: Insured state nonmember banks are required to notify the FDIC, under section 7 of the Bank Service Corporation Act (12 U.S.C. 1867), of the relationship with a bank service corporation. Form FDIC 6120/06 (Notification of Performance of Bank Services) may be used by banks to satisfy the notification requirement.

2. Title: Prompt Corrective Action.

OMB Number: 3064-0115.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Affected Public: All financial institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 10.

Estimated Time per Response: 4 hours.

Total Annual Burden: 40 hours.

General Description of Collection: The prompt corrective action provisions of FDICIA require or permit the FDIC and other federal financial regulators to take certain supervisory actions when FDIC-insured institutions fall within one of five categories. The collection consists of applications required to obtain FDIC exceptions to otherwise restricted activities.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, 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 information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the collection should be modified prior to submission to OMB for review and approval. Comments submitted in response to this notice also will be summarized or included in the FDIC's requests to OMB for renewal of these collections. All comments will become a matter of public record.

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Kentucky is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of April 4, 2002:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Tennessee is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of April 5, 2002:

Pursuant to the REP Program Strategic Review initiative 1.6, FEMA is proposing to implement a policy for granting REP exercise credit to offsite response organizations for participation in an actual incident or in a non-REP exercise. The subject notice contains the activities eligible for consideration for credit, guidelines for submitting a request, and documentation required.

A radiological emergency response plan is developed and exercised in order to have reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can be taken in the event of a radiological emergency. FEMA evaluates the exercises to ensure that the OROs have the capability to respond to a radiological emergency. An ORO's response to man-made or natural events or participation in a non-REP exercise may also test all or part of the plan. For those areas that were tested, it may be appropriate to give credit in place of certain aspects of an evaluated REP exercise.

When an ORO responds to an actual incident involving radioactive materials, FEMA can consider granting exercise credit for such response activities as environmental monitoring; monitoring for contamination of persons and equipment and/or other activities, if these activities were successfully performed according to the applicable plan and procedures. FEMA may also consider granting credit for generic response activities, such as mobilization of personnel and facilities, 1 for those OROs affected by an actual radiological incident.

When an ORO responds to an actual incident that does not involve radioactive materials, the ORO may qualify for credit for generic response functions and activities, such as mobilization, facilities 1 , communications equipment, and congregate care. The Credit columns in Table 1, Federal Evaluation Process Matrix, indicate which functions and activities may be considered for the granting of exercise credit for response to a radiological or a non-radiological emergency.

When requesting exercise credit for a response to an actual emergency, an ORO should ensure that the response included the following four elements:

• A prompt and timely mobilization of key State and local government staff and providers responsible for REP emergency functions;

• An actual reporting of the key REP staff who, in accordance with the plans, would report to the facility;

• Activation of the facility(ies) of the responding jurisdiction(s); and

• Establishment of communication links among responding organizations.

The ORO should then provide the following documentation to FEMA:

1. Type and nature of the emergency;

2. Timeline, to include time of response and time State and local REP staff arrived at the facility;

3. Sign in-out sheet with name, function, date and time;

4. List of involved REP personnel and organizations and their connection to a REP response;

5. Communications log showing the establishment of communication links with other organizations;

6. List of involved jurisdictions;

7. Emergency decisions made and implemented;

8. Resources (facilities, equipment, etc.) used; and

9. List of corrective actions or improvement items identified in the after-action report.

ORO(s) may request REP exercise credit for demonstrating preparedness capabilities in FEMA exercises other than REP. These capabilities could include congregate care, facilities, 1 and/or other activities performed in the exercise. The Credit columns in the attached Table 1 indicate which functions and activities may be considered for the granting of exercise credit for participation in an exercise other than REP when the exercise has a radiological component or when the exercise does not have a radiological component.

ORO credit requests for participating in non-REP exercises must specify the exercise and document the ORO's participation, including the activities it performed and a list of corrective actions or improvement items identified in the exercise after-action report. If credit is granted, the ORO must also include its exercise participation in the Annual Letter of Certification.

An ORO submits its application for credit to the appropriate FEMA Region. The application must specify the basis for the credit (response to a radiological emergency, response to a non-radiological emergency, participation in a radiological exercise other than REP or participation in a non-radiological exercise other than REP) and the REP evaluation area criterion (a) for which credit is requested. The application must also contain the appropriate documentation, as specified above. The FEMA Region will submit the request for credit, along with the Region's review and recommendations, to FEMA Headquarters. FEMA Headquarters will determine whether the credit requested will be granted, and if so, will issue an exemption to an ORO from FEMA evaluation of this criterion (a) in the next REP exercise. However, even if FEMA exempts a criterion from exercise evaluation, certain fundamental radiological emergency response functions and activities that are integral to the REP exercise must still be demonstrated in order to conduct the exercise. FEMA will specify any exempted activities that the ORO must still demonstrate. FEMA will not evaluate these activities unless their demonstration had a potential or actual adverse effect on the REP exercise.

The ORO requesting credit for responding to an actual radiological or non-radiological emergency should submit the request to the appropriate FEMA Regional Office within 90 days following the event. The ORO requesting credit for participation in a non-REP exercise should submit the initial information 60 days in advance of the non-REP exercise and follow-up documentation within 90 days after the non-REP exercise. Any credit that is granted must be completed in time to allow inclusion in the extent-of-play discussions 90 days prior to the REP exercise for which credit is granted. FEMA will grant exemption from evaluation of a specific exercise criterion only once during the six-year cycle for the applicable REP exercise. In addition, FEMA will not consider exemption from evaluation if the emergency response activity for which credit would be sought occurred more than two years before the date of the next scheduled REP exercise.

Table 1, Federal Evaluation Process Matrix, reads as follows:

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

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

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

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Land Survey Report for Insured Multifamily Projects.

OMB Approval Number: 2502-0010.

Form Numbers: HUD-2457.

Description of the Need for the Information and Its Proposed Use: To secure a marketable title and title insurance for their property, multifamily programs submit a land survey and related information.

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

Frequency of Submission: On occasion, twice, during application period and closing period.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 750.

Status: Reinstatement, without change.

BLM administers approximately 3,000 acres of public land in the Garden Park Fossil Area, located 5 miles north of Canon City, CO. Target shooting is one of many public uses in the area. The area includes nationally significant paleontological and historic sites and the Gold Belt Tour National Scenic Byway. Private lands with residential and agricultural developments adjoin the area. In 1995, approximately 1,840 acres of public land in this area were closed to recreational target shooting to enhance public safety. This closure was accomplished through an extensive public process. Public meetings were held to address public safety and resource protection concerns. Stakeholders involved in developing the closure proposal included Fremont County Commissioners, target shooting enthusiasts, residents of the adjoining private lands, public land grazing permit holders, and the Garden Park Paleontology Society.

This notice adjusts the boundary of the closure area established in 1995, to address additional public safety concerns. The primary public safety concern is the on-going vandalism of an existing high voltage power line by recreational target shooters. The power line, owned by WestPlains Energy Corporation, provides power to Cripple Creek and Victor, Colorado. Specific concerns include the cost of repairing damage to the power line caused by recreational target shooting, the possibility that this vandalism will result in a major power outage in Cripple Creek and Victor, and the dangers (electrocution, fire) posed by vandalism of live high voltage power lines in an area that is heavily used by the public.

The public lands affected by this boundary adjustment and containing the closed areas and roads are identified as follows:

Notice of this closure and a detailed map will be posted at the Royal Gorge Field Office.

This closure does not apply to emergency, law enforcement, and Federal or other government vehicles while being used for official or emergency purposes, or to any other vehicle whose use is expressly authorized or otherwise officially approved by BLM.

Violation of this order is punishable by imprisonment for up to 12 months and/or a fine as defined in 18 U.S.C. 3571.

The Southwest RAC will meet on Friday, June 7, 2002, at the Gunnison County Multi Purpose Bldg., 275 South Spruce, in Gunnison, Colorado. The meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. and adjourn at 4 p.m. Purpose of the meeting is to consider several resource management topics including wildlife issues, Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area update, Canyon of the Ancients National Monument update, and the County Partnership Restoration project. The Southwest RAC will also meet on Friday, August 16, 2002, at the Anasazi Heritage Center, 27501 Highway 184, in Dolores, Colorado. The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and adjourn at 4 p.m. Purpose of the meeting is to consider several resource management topics including Canyon of the Ancients National Monument update, Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area update, and the County Partnership Restoration project.

The Northwest RAC will meet on Thursday, June 13, 2002, at the Holiday Inn, 755 Horizon Drive, in Grand Junction, Colorado. The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and adjourn at 4 p.m. Purpose of the meeting is to consider several resource management topics including wildlife issues, oil and natural gas program review, Grand Mesa Slopes update, Weeds Committee report, National Forest Study Committee report, Cultural Resources report, status of travel management planning, and the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area planning update. The Northwest RAC will also meet on August 8, 2002, at the Forest Service Office located at 925 Weiss Dr. in Steamboat Springs, Colorado. The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and adjourn at 4 p.m. Purpose of the meeting is to consider several resource management topics including Grand Mesa Slopes update, Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area planning update, and RAC Committee reports.

These meetings are open to the public. Interested members of the public may present written or oral comments to either of the RACs in the morning from 9:30 to 9:50 a.m. and in the afternoon sessions, at a time to begin no later than 3 p.m., on the respective meeting dates. Personal time limits for oral statements may be set to allow all interested individuals an opportunity to speak. Subject to time available, individuals may also be allowed to provide input to the councils during the discussion of agenda topics.

Summary minutes of RAC meetings are maintained in the BLM Western Slope Center Office located at 2815 H Road, Grand Junction, CO 81506, phone (970) 244-3000. Minutes are available for public inspection and reproduction during regular business hours within thirty (30) days following the meeting.

The Bureau of Land Management, Ridgecrest Field Office, has analyzed the effects of the firearm shooting restriction in an environmental assessment entitled “Environmental Assessment for Interim Closure of Selected Vehicle Routes and a Firearm Shooting restriction in the Red Mountain Polygon, California Desert Conservation Area, dated October 18, 2001, and a supplement to this assessment dated January 14, 2002.

On March 16, 2000, the Center for Biological Diversity, et al (Center) filed for injunctive relief in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (Court) against the Bureau of Land Management. The Center alleged the Bureau of Land Management was in violation of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act by failing to enter into formal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service on the effects of adoption of the California Desert Conservation Area Plan, as amended, upon threatened and endangered species. Instead of litigating the case, and facing a possible injunction of all authorized desert activities, the Bureau of Land Management entered into five stipulated agreements, including the stipulation which includes the firearm shooting restriction.

The authority for proposing a firearm shooting restriction is derived from 43 CFR 8364 (Closures and Restrictions). This regulation allows the authorized officer to issue an order to close or restrict use of designated public lands in order to protect persons, property, and public lands and resources. In this case, the shooting restriction will aid in protecting the desert tortoise from indiscriminate firearm use, and stop the practice of shooting at objects that result in the accumulation of trash, broken glass, cans, electronic parts, propane gas cylinders, metal, etc. in critical habitat for the desert tortoise. Furthermore, the restriction will aid in reducing the incidence of wildfire that could result from bullets striking rocks and generating sparks in combustible materials.

Although the desert tortoise has been fully protected in California since 1961 through regulation of the California Fish and Game Commission, remains of tortoises containing gunshot holes have been observed in numerous areas of the California Desert. From 1972 to 1982, a study of tortoise gunshot mortality was conducted on 11 sites in the California Desert. The highest incidence of gunshot holes in carcasses of desert tortoises occurred in the western Mojave Desert at the Fremont Valley site, the Desert Tortoise Natural Area, and the Fremont Peak site (located at the southern boundary of the Red Mountain Polygon). The percent of tortoises dying on the study sites due to gunshots were 28.9 % at Fremont Valley, 19.6% at the Desert Tortoise Natural Area, and 16.7% at the Fremont Peak. In contrast, the incidence of such deaths in the eastern Mojave Desert sites ranged from 1.8 to 3.1 %. California Department of Fish and Game wardens reported that they occasionally found tortoises dead from gunshots near roads in eastern Kern and northwestern San Bernardino Counties during the 1960s and 1970s. Between 1981 and 1984, Bureau of Land Management and other observers found the remains of 10 tortoises shot and killed in the western Mojave Desert in the vicinity of the Desert Tortoise Natural Area, El Paso Mountains, Fremont Peak and Stoddard Valley. Higher incidence of gunshot deaths of tortoises in the western Mojave was attributed to the higher numbers of human visitors, greater vehicular access and closer proximity to urban centers. Target practice in the California Desert, especially in portions of the western Mojave Desert, is associated with human-caused wildfire from bullets striking rocks, and people shooting at tortoises for target practice. In the Recovery Plan for the Mojave Population of the Desert Tortoise, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported that shooting and vandalism play a major role in losses of desert tortoises in many areas, particularly where human visitation is high. They also reported that approximately 15 to 29 percent of carcasses of desert tortoises studied on Bureau of Land Management study plots in the western Mojave Desert had evidence of gunshot.

This firearm shooting restriction will enable the Bureau of Land Management to comply with Section 7(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act using its full authorities to conserve endangered species and threatened species.

This interim firearm shooting restriction will allow BLM to properly evaluate and arrive at a final decision on environmentally acceptable firearm use throughout the West Mojave Planning Area, which will result in amendments to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan, expected to be completed in 2003. This planning process now underway is a formal plan amendment process that involves the public and will conform to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. Maps showing the affected area are available by contacting the Ridgecrest Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management at the address shown above.

The decision that instituted this firearm shooting restriction may be appealed to the Interior Board of Land Appeals, Office of the Secretary, in accordance with the regulations contained in 43 CFR part 4 and the enclosed Form 1842-1. If an appeal is taken, a notice of appeal must be filed in this office (at the above address) within 30 days from receipt of this decision. The appellant has the burden of showing that the decision appealed from is in error.

Those wishing to file a petition pursuant to regulation 43 CFR 4.21 (58 FR 4939, January 19, 1993) or 43 CFR 2804.1 for a stay of the effect of this decision during the time that an appeal is being reviewed by the Board must request a stay in the notice of appeal. A petition for a stay is required to show sufficient justification based on the standards listed below. Copies of the notice of appeal and petition for a stay must also be submitted to each identified party, to the Interior Board of Land Appeals, and to the appropriate Office of the Solicitor ( see 43 CFR 4.413) at the same time the original documents are filed with this office. If you request a stay, you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that a stay should be granted.

Except as otherwise provided by law or other pertinent regulation, a petition for a stay of a decision pending appeal shall show sufficient justification based on the following standards:

Notice is hereby provided that the boundaries of Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore are revised. This revision is effective upon publication of this notice, to include certain parcels of real property situated in Porter County and Lake County, Indiana. These parcels contain 3.99 acres of land, more or less, in Porter County and 58.48 acres, more or less, in Lake County, Indiana. The parcels are identified as follows:

All of the above-cited Segment Maps are on file at the following locations:

We are inviting the public to comment on our preliminary ( i.e., draft) determination of Plan adequacy. Section 3405(e) of the CVPIA (Title 34 Public Law 102-575), requires the “Secretary of the Interior to establish and administer an office on Central Valley Project water conservation best management practices that shall * * * develop criteria for evaluating the adequacy of all water conservation plans developed by project contractors, including those plans required by section 210 of the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982.” Also, according to Section 3405(e)(1), these criteria must be developed “* * * with the purpose of promoting the highest level of water use efficiency reasonably achievable by project contractors using best available cost-effective technology and best management practices.” These criteria state that all parties (Contractors) that contract with Reclamation for water supplies (municipal and industrial contracts over 2,000 acre-feet and agricultural contracts over 2,000 irrigable acres) must prepare Plans that contain the following information:

Reclamation will evaluate Plans based on these criteria. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from public disclosure, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold a respondent's identity from public disclosure, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public disclosure in their entity.

A copy of these Plans will be available for review at Reclamation's Mid-Pacific (MP) Regional Office located in Sacramento, California. Plans may be available locally. If you wish to review a copy of these Plans, please contact Mr. White to find the office nearest you.

The meeting agenda will be posted on the NRC Web site at www.nrc.gov/RES/meetings.html by May 20, 2002. Attendees will need to obtain a visitor badge at the TWFN building lobby and an escort is required.

In 1984, the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA), Public Law 98-369, sec. 2701, established “full and open” as the competition standard in federal contracting. CICA's enactment marked a culmination of concerns that competition had become the exception, rather than the rule, in acquiring goods and services. Despite these concerns, CICA's approach to competition has been criticized as unduly burdensome and complex. These concerns led to a series of legislative, regulatory, and policy reforms—the most significant of which occurred in the mid-1990s—to streamline and simplify competition and contracting processes. Many of these changes authorize competition on a relatively restrictive and informal basis. These changes include, among others:

• Authority to conduct limited competitions under multiple award task and delivery order contracts (MACs) or GSA's Multiple Award Schedules (MAS) program, where the source selection process for becoming a contract holder is open to all interested sources but competitions for orders are limited to pre-qualified contract holders; and

• Authority to seek competition “to the maximum extent practicable” using simplified source selection procedures for all actions under the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), which is currently at $100,000, and, on a test basis, up to $5 million for commercial items.

An increasing number of recent reports addressing streamlined acquisition processes and competition practices, including studies by the General Accounting Office and agency inspectors general, call into question whether agencies are taking advantage of the full range of marketplace capabilities in their use of competition. In addition, concerns have been voiced that other acquisition practices are also limiting opportunities for contractors, especially small businesses. In particular, there is ongoing concern that agencies are unnecessarily bundling contracts and, in doing so, have created an environment that makes it difficult for small businesses to flourish.

The President is committed to ensuring that agencies take full advantage of competition in contracting, especially the services of small business contractors. This commitment, like those in the President's Management Agenda generally, reflect the Administration's focus on strengthening the performance of government through results-oriented initiatives—i.e., in this case, improving the return on taxpayer investments in contracting. To this end, OMB has been instructed both to review competition practices at agencies with significant procurement activities and to develop a strategy to address contract bundling.

OMB has established two inter-agency working groups to carry out these efforts: one working group will address agency competition practices; the other will develop a strategy for unbundling contracts whenever practicable. OMB seeks public comment from all interested parties, and especially from small businesses, to inform these working groups. Comments are especially welcome on the following topics:

1. Use of other than full and open competition. What are the positive and negative effects of authorities that allow competition on other than a full and open basis?

• Authorities to consider might include:

(1) Micro-purchase authority (see Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 13.2);

(2) Authority to transact using the government-wide purchase card (see FAR 13.301);

(3) Authority to seek competition to the “maximum extent practicable” and use of simplified source selection procedures for acquisitions under the SAT (see FAR part 13 generally) and up to $5 million for the acquisition of commercial items (see FAR subpart 13.5);

(4) Authority to conduct limited competitions through MACs (see FAR 16.504 and 16.505) and the MAS program (see FAR subpart 8.4); and

(5) Inter-agency contracting through government-wide acquisition contracts (i.e., task or delivery order contracts for information technology established for government-wide use and operated by executive agents designated by OMB), multi-agency contracts (i.e., task or delivery order contracts established for use by government agencies consistent with the Economy Act), or other contracts for multiple agency use.

• Effects to consider might include:

(a) Opportunities to learn about and participate in planned acquisitions;

(b) Ability of contractors to offer, or agencies to secure: (i) Fair and reasonable pricing, (ii) favorable terms and conditions, and (iii) timely delivery of good and services; and

(c) Ability of contractors to make meaningful offers and agencies to make rationally-based decisions.

2. Use of full and open competition. What are the effects, positive and negative, of changes made in the way full and open competition is pursued, such as under Part 15 of the FAR? (For effects to consider, see question no. 1.)

3. Areas of impact. Have the authorities identified in question nos. 1 and 2 had an especially noticeable effect on any particular: (a) Dollar range, (b) contract type, or (c) product or service category?

4. Barriers to small business participation. What barriers presently make it difficult for small businesses to participate in federal procurement, and what steps can be taken to remove barriers to participation, particularly in full and open competitions?

5. Contract bundling. If you believe that agency contract bundling has direct effects on participation by small businesses in federal contracting, what steps can be taken to mitigate those effects?

6. Application of electronic commerce techniques. How has electronic commerce affected contractor participation in government contracting in general, and small business participation in particular, and in what, if any, ways can its applications be improved to increase participation in government contracting?

7. Studies and articles on competition and bundling. What, if any, recent studies or articles addressing competition or contract bundling in federal contracting should be considered by OMB's competition and bundling working groups?

The public meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Diering (202-395-3254) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

39 U.S.C. 3622 and 3623.

On April 24, 2002, the Postal Service filed a request for a recommended decision on classification and fees for Confirm®, a new service using PLANET Codes (a new form of bar code) to enable commercial mailers to track individual automation compatible letter-size and flat mail pieces. Request of the United States Postal Service for a recommended decision on classification and fees for Confirm®, April 24, 2002 (request). The request was accompanied by a statement of compliance with the Commission's filing requirements and a conditional motion for waiver. In addition, the Postal Service requests that proceedings to consider Confirm® be expedited.

The Postal Service's request was filed pursuant to sections 3622 and 3623 of the Postal Reorganization Act, 39 U.S.C. 101 et seq. The Commission hereby institutes a proceeding, designated as docket no. MC2002-1, to consider the instant request. In the course of this proceeding, participants may propose alternatives to the Service's proposal, and the Service itself may revise, supplement, or amend its initial filing. The Commission's review of the Service's request, including any revisions, alternatives proposed by others, or options legally within the purview of the Service's request, may result in recommendations that differ from those proposed by the Postal Service in its initial filing.

As a preliminary matter, the Commission has posted the request and related material on its website at www.prc.gov. Subsequent filings in this case will also be posted on the website, if provided in electronic format or amenable to conversion, and not subject to a valid protective order. Information on how to use the Commission's website is available online or by contacting the Commission's webmaster at 202-789-6873.

The entire filing and related documents are also available for public inspection in the Commission's docket section. The docket section's hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on federal government holidays. The docket section telephone number is 202-789-6846.

The request includes six attachments as follows. Attachment A contains the proposed amendments to the domestic mail classification schedule (DMCS); Attachment B sets forth the proposed fee schedule. Attachment C is the required certification concerning the accuracy of the cost statements and supporting data submitted as part of the request. Attachment D contains the audited financial statements for FY 2000 and FY 2001. Citing USPS-LR-J-2, the Postal Service notes that the cost and revenue analysis report for FY 2000 was filed in docket no. R2001-1. Appendix E is an index of testimonies, workpapers, and associated attorneys. Appendix F represents the Postal Service's compliance statement in response to Commission rules 54 and 64, 39 CFR 3001.54 and 3001.64.

In support of the request, the Postal Service also submitted the testimony of five witnesses. Witness Bakshi, a Postal Service employee, describes Confirm® service, its operation, and its implementation. See USPS-T-1. Witness Lubenow, a consultant, provides both background and an industry perspective concerning Confirm® service. See USPS-T-2. Witness Nieto, a consultant, provides estimated test year costs in support of the proposed Confirm® fees. See USPS-T-3. Witness Rothschild, a consultant, presents the results of survey research undertaken to assess the market demand for Confirm® products at two different pricing scenarios. See USPS-T-4. Witness Keifer, a Postal Service employee, describes the proposed fee design and classification changes. Witness Keifer also addresses the financial impacts associated with Confirm®. See USPS-T-5.

In addition, the Postal Service filed two Category 2 library references supporting the prepared testimony: USPS-LR-1, witness Rothschild's (USPS-T-4) CONFIRM market research, and USPS-LR-2 supporting spreadsheets for witness Nieto (USPS-T-3).

The Postal Service proposes to offer Confirm® in a three-tiered subscription format, with the subscriptions labeled platinum, gold, and silver. As proposed, Confirm® service will be available to users of First-Class Mail, Standard mail, and Periodicals. Confirm® service will enable subscribers to track qualified outgoing and incoming mail, providing information about each mailpiece, e.g., the date and time processed, the processing facility, and barcode data.

The proposed annual fee for a platinum subscription is $10,000, which entitles the subscriber to three ID codes and unlimited scans. The proposed annual fee for a gold subscription is $4500, entitling the subscriber to one ID code and 50 million scans. A silver subscription is available for a term of three months and entitles the subscriber to one ID code and 15 million scans. The proposed fee is $2000. See USPS-T-5 at 2.

As proposed, subscribers may obtain additional ID codes for $500 per three months, or $2000 per year. Silver and gold subscribers may obtain additional scans, silver in blocks of 2 million scans for $500, and gold in blocks of 6 million scans for $750. Ibid.

The Postal Service proposes to amend the DMCS to include new sections 990 and 991, which, among other things, define the service, and describe its availability and customer requirements. A new fee schedule, 991, is also proposed. Request at attachments A and B.

In addition to attachment F, the Postal Service submitted a separate statement concerning its compliance with the filing requirements. This statement was coupled with a conditional motion for waiver. See statement of United States Postal Service concerning compliance with filing requirements and conditional motion for waiver (statement). The Postal Service indicates that it has supplemented materials developed specifically to support its request by incorporating testimony and documentation submitted in the recently concluded omnibus rate case, docket no. R2001-1. Statement at 1. The Postal Service suggests that this approach is justified for several reasons, including, among others, congruent test years (FY 2003) and a substantial overlap between the information required by the general filing requirements and that already provided in docket no. R2001-1. Id. at 2-3. Further, the Postal Service asserts that its compliance should be assessed in light of the nature of Confirm® service and the minor extent that total cost-revenue relationships will be affected by its implementation. Id. at 3. The Postal Service, therefore, contends that it is in compliance with the Commission's filing requirements. Alternatively, however, the Postal Service requests a waiver of the filing requirements pursuant to 39 CFR 3001.22, 3001.54(r), and 3001.64(h)(3).

The Postal Service accompanied its filing with a precatory request for expedition. See United States Postal Service request for expedition. In support, the Postal Service states its belief that an early recommended decision will benefit mailers and facilitate an orderly transition to the proposed service and fees. The Postal Service emphasizes, however, that it is not advocating any schedule that would compromise any participants' opportunity to be heard consistent with due process requirements or that would otherwise limit the Commission's ability to develop a record on which to make its recommendations. Further, the Postal Service suggests that this proceeding warrants expeditious procedures, noting its optimism on the possibility that it may be settled. The Postal Service concludes with a request that “due consideration be given to taking measures that would expedite proceedings and lead to an early Recommended Decision.” United States Postal Service request for expedition at 2.

Each interested person wishing to be heard in this matter is directed to file a notice of intervention with Steven W. Williams, secretary of the Commission, 1333 H Street NW., suite 300, Washington, DC 20268-0001, on or before May 16, 2002. Each notice should specify whether the party seeks to participate on a full or limited basis. See 39 CFR 3001.20 and 3001.20a. Written discovery pursuant to rules 25-28 may be undertaken upon intervention.

The Commission designates Shelley S. Dreifuss, acting director of the Commission's office of the consumer advocate, to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3624(a). Ms. Dreifuss shall direct the activities of Commission personnel assigned to assist her and, at an appropriate time, provide the names of these employees for the record. Neither Ms. Dreifuss nor the assigned personnel shall participate in or advise as to any Commission decision in this proceeding, other than in their designated capacity. Participants shall serve the OCA separately with three copies of all filings in addition to, and at the same time, as they effect service on the Commission.

The Commission will hold a prehearing conference on May 20, 2002, at 1:00 p.m. in the Commission's hearing room, 1333 H Street NW., suite 300, Washington, DC 20268-0001. In light of the Postal Service's statement concerning the prospects of settling this proceeding, the Commission will make its hearing room available at 9:30 a.m. on May 20, 2002 for the participants to engage in informal settlement discussions. If such discussions are scheduled, the Postal Service should provide notice to all participants. At the prehearing conference, the Postal Service shall present a status report concerning settlement discussions, if any.

It is ordered:

1. Docket no. MC2002-1 is established to consider the Postal Service's request for a recommended decision on classification and fees for Confirm® service.

2. The Commission will sit en banc in this proceeding.

3. Notices of intervention are due no later than May 16, 2002.

4. A prehearing conference will be held May 20, 2002 at 1:00 p.m. in the Commission's hearing room.

5. Answers to the Postal Service's conditional motion for waiver are due May 23, 2002.

6. Shelley S. Dreifuss, acting director of the Commission's office of the consumer advocate, is designated to represent the interests of the general public.

7. The Secretary shall cause this notice and order to be published in the Federal Register .

Section 182 of the Trade Act requires USTR to identify within 30 days of the publication of the National Trade Estimates Report all trading partners that deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights or deny fair and equitable market access to United States persons that rely upon intellectual property protection. Those countries that have the most onerous or egregious acts, policies, or practices that have the greatest adverse impact (actual or potential) on the relevant United States products must be identified as “priority foreign countries,” unless they are entering into good faith negotiations or are making significant progress in bilateral or multilateral negotiations to provide adequate and effective protection for intellectual property rights. In identifying countries in this manner, the USTR is directed to take into account the history of intellectual property laws and practices of the foreign country, including any previous identifications as a priority foreign country, and the history of efforts of the United States, and the response of the foreign country, to achieve and effective protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights. In making these determinations, the USTR must consult with the Register of Copyrights, the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, other appropriate officials of the Federal Government and take into account information from other sources such as information submitted by interested persons.

On April 30, 2002, USTR identified 51 trading partners that deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual property or deny fair and equitable market access to United States artists and industries that rely upon intellectual property protection. USTR maintained Ukraine's designation as a Priority Foreign Country, and again designated Paraguay and China for “Section 306 monitoring” to ensure both countries comply with the commitmetns made to the United States under bilateral intellectual property agreements.

USTR also announced placement of 15 trading partners on the “Priority Watch List”: Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Republic, European Union, Egypt, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Israel, Lebanon, Philippines, Russia, Taiwan, and Uruguay. In addition, USTR placed 33 trading partners on the “Watch List.” Moreover, out-of-cycle reviews will be conducted of Indonesia, Israel, the Philippines, the Bahamas, Costa Rica, Poland, and Thailand. While Mexico is not listed, USTR will also conduct an out-of-cycle review of it later in the year.

The USTR draft Information Quality Guidelines are posted on the USTR website, www.ustr.gov.

On April 19, 2002, Customs published a document in the Federal Register (67 FR 19477) inviting the public to comment on an information collection entitled the “Master's Oath on Entry of Vessel in Foreign Trade”. The document contained many errors, including that the particular information collection on which comments were being sought, the Customs Form (CF) 1300, is no longer called the “Master's Oath on Entry of Vessel in Foreign Trade”. The CF 1300 is now called “the Vessel Entrance or Clearance Statement”. This document replaces the April 19, 2002 document.

Customs invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)). The comments should address: (1) Whether the 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 estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operations, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the Customs request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document Customs is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:

Title: Vessel Entrance or Clearance Statement Form.

OMB Number: 1515-0060.

Form Number: Customs Form 1300.

Abstract: This form is used by a master of a vessel to attest to the truthfulness of all other forms associated with the manifest.

Current Actions: There are no changes to the information collection. This submission is being submitted to extend the expiration date.

Type of Review: Extension (without change).

Affected Public: Businesses, individuals, institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 12,000.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 5 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 21,991.

Estimated Total Annualized Cost on the Public: $314,470.

Section 1456 of the Tariff Suspension and Trade Act of 2000 (the “Act”) (Pub. L. 106-476, 114 Stat. 2101) promulgated the duty-free treatment provided under subheading 9817.60.00, HTSUS, for certain articles brought into the United States for certain international athletic events. Subheading 9817.60.00, HTSUS, which implements section 1456(a) of the Act, states:

Section 1456(b) of the Act, as implemented in Note 6 of Subchapter XII, HTSUS, provides that “[a]ny article exempt from duty under heading 9817.60.00 shall be free of taxes and fees that may otherwise be applicable, but shall not be free or otherwise exempt or excluded from routine or other inspections as may be required by the Customs Service.”

The 2002 World Basketball Championship for Men will be held in Indianapolis, Indiana, from August 29, 2002, through September 8, 2002. This event is sponsored by the Fédération Internationale de Basketball (FIBA), which is basketball's international governing body. USA Basketball and the Indianapolis Sports Corporation also will sponsor the event, which features 16 national men's teams from five continents. These teams will be from the United States, Angola, Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Puerto Rico, Venezuela, China, Lebanon, Yugoslavia, Turkey, Spain, Germany, Russia, and New Zealand. A total of 62 games will be played over the 11-day event.

The Managing Director of the 2002 World Basketball Championship for Men has requested that the event be designated as a qualifying international athletic event for purposes of subheading 9817.60.00, HTSUS.

Section 1456 of the Tariff Suspension and Trade Act of 2000 provides that the Secretary of the Treasury may determine that international athletic events not explicitly mentioned in the statute qualify as similar to those mentioned for purposes of the duty-free treatment provided for in subheading 9817.60.00, HTSUS.

Noting that the 2002 World Basketball Championship for Men is organized by FIBA, the international governing body for basketball, and that the event includes finalists from over five continents, it is therefore determined that the event qualifies as a “similar international athletic event” in accordance with section 1456 of the Tariff Suspension and Trade Act of 2000. Therefore, articles meeting the conditions and requirements set forth in subheading 9817.60.00, HTSUS, imported in connection with the 2002 World Basketball Championship for Men, will be entitled to duty-free treatment.