This will be the sixth meeting of the committee, and will focus on the process reviewing and approving Title II project proposals from the public. The meeting is open to the public. Public input opportunity will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the committee at that time.

South Mississippi Electric Power Association proposes to construct an additional single, 85-megawatt, simple-cycle, gas-fired electric generation unit at South Mississippi Electric Power Association's Moselle Generating Station. The Moselle Generation Station is located approximately 1 mile north of Moselle in Jones County, Mississippi. No additional electric transmission lines or natural gas pipelines will need to be constructed for this project.

Copies of the Finding of No Significant Impact are available from RUS at the address provided herein or from Mr. Joey Ward, South Mississippi Electric Power Association, 7037 U.S. Highway 49, North, Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39404-5849, telephone (601) 268-2083. Mr. Ward's e-mail address is jward@smepa.com.

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

We determine that polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET film) from Taiwan are being sold, or are likely to be sold, in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 735 of the Act. The estimated margin of sales at LTFV is shown in the Suspension of Liquidation section of this notice.

On December 21, 2001, the Department published the preliminary determination of the antidumping duty investigation of PET film from Taiwan. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET Film) From Taiwan, 66 FR 65889 (December 21, 2001) ( Preliminary Determination ). The investigation covers two manufacturers/exporters, Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, Ltd. (Nan Ya), and Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corporation (Shinkong). The petitioners in this investigation are Dupont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film of America, and Toray Plastics (America) (collectively, the petitioners).

We conducted verification of the questionnaire responses of the respondents, Nan Ya during the weeks of January 28, 2002 and February 8, 2002, and Shinkong during the weeks of February 25, 2002, and March 4, 2002. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our Preliminary Determination and our findings at verification. On April 8, 2002, one respondent, Shinkong, and the petitioners, submitted case briefs. On April 12, 2002, Shinkong and the petitioners submitted rebuttal briefs. Nan Ya submitted its rebuttal brief on April 16, 2002. The Department received requests for a public hearing from both petitioners and Shinkong. A public hearing was held on April 17, 2002.

The Department has conducted this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act.

For purposes of these investigations, the products covered are all gauges of raw, pretreated, or primed PET film, whether extruded or coextruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 inches thick. Imports of PET film are classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item number 3920.62.00. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2000, through March 31, 2001. This period corresponds to the four most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition ( i.e. , May 2001).

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

Based on our findings at verification, and analysis of comments received, we have made adjustments to the preliminary determination calculation methodologies in calculating the final dumping margins in this proceeding. These adjustments are discussed in detail in the Decision Memorandum and are listed below:

(1) We determined that Nan Ya is affiliated with two of its U.S. customers and that Nan Ya's sales through these customers should be treated as constructed export price sales. See Decision Memorandum at comment 4.

(2) We recalculated home market inventory carrying costs to reflect changes from verification. See Calculation Memorandum of the Final Determination of the Investigation of Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, Ltd. ( May 6, 2002)

(3) We adjusted Nan Ya's reported per-unit cost to attribute a portion of the total cost difference and stop loss expenses attributable to PET film production. See Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments Memorandum for the Final Determination (May 6, 2002).

4) We increased Na Ya's reported per-unit conversion costs. Id.

(1) We revised home market and U.S. indirect selling expenses to reflect changes from verification. See Calculation Memorandum of the Final Determination of the Investigation of Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corporation (May 6, 2002) (Shinkong's Calculation Memorandum).

(2) We recalculated home market credit expenses to reflect changes from verification. Id.

(3) We recalculated home market inventory carrying costs to reflect changes from verification. Id.

(4) We recalculated the general and administrative (G&A) expense ratio to reflect changes from verification. See Shinkong's Calculation Memo.

(5) We recalculated the interest expense ratio to reflect changes from verification. Id.

(6) We revised the total cost of manufacture (TOTCOM) to reflect changes from verification. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at comment 9. See also Shinkong's Calculation Memorandum.

(7) We recalculated U.S. credit expenses to reflect changes from verification. See Shinkong's Calculation Memorandum.

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the information submitted by the respondents for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures including examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by the respondent.

Because Nan Ya received a de minimis weighted-average margin in the preliminary determination, but an above de minimis margin in the final determination, pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are instructing the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from Nan Ya that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this final determination in the Federal Register . For Shinkong and all other companies, we are directing Customs to continue to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after December 21, 2001, the date of publication of the preliminary determination. 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 normal value exceeds the U.S. price, as indicated in the chart below. The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

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

On July 27, 1999, the Department published the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Mexico. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Mexico , 64 FR 40560 (July 27, 1999). In a March 19, 2002 letter to the Department, ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V. requested that the Department initiate and conduct an expedited changed circumstances administrative review pursuant to section 751(b) of the Tariff Act to determine whether it is the successor-in-interest to Mexinox S.A. de C.V. for purposes of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Mexico, and to issue preliminary results concurrently with the notice of initiation, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii). In its request, ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V., formerly Mexinox S.A. de C.V., notified the Department that effective February 25, 2002, its corporate name had changed to ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V., and despite this change in corporate name, the management, production facilities, supplier relationships, and customer base are identical to those of the former Mexinox S.A. de C.V. Citing the Department's determination in Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 66 FR 67513 (December 31, 2001) ( S4 from Korea Changed Circumstances Review ), ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V. claimed the Department should determine that it is the successor-in-interest to Mexinox S.A. de C.V.

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

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

On January 8, 2002, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of review of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel wire rod from India. See Stainless Steel Wire Rod From India; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 865 (January 8, 2002) (“Preliminary Results”). The final results of this administrative review are currently due no later than May 8, 2002.

Due to the complexity of issues present in this administrative review, such as complicated cost accounting issues, the Department has determined that it is not practicable to complete this review within the original time period provided in section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and section 351.213(h)(2) of the Department's regulations. Therefore, we are extending the due date for the final results by 30 days, until no later than June 7, 2002.

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

The preliminary determination in this investigation was issued on December 28, 2001. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Structural Steel Beams from The People's Republic of China, 66 FR 67197 (December 28, 2001) ( Preliminary Determination ).

On January 4, 2002, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to which respondent, Maanshan Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. (Maanshan), responded on January 8, 2002.

On January 7, 2002, the Department received from Maanshan a timely allegation of ministerial errors in the Preliminary Determination. Because we agreed with the respondent's ministerial-error allegations, we revised the margin calculations for the final determination to reflect the correction of these ministerial errors. See the Ministerial Error Comments Decision Memorandum dated January 24, 2002.

In January 2002, we conducted verification of the questionnaire responses of the sole respondent in this case, Maanshan.

On March 15, and 21, 2002, we received a case brief from the respondent and the petitioners (the Committee for Fair Beam Imports and its individual members), respectively. On March 20, 2002, the Department received a letter from the petitioners requesting that all or portions of the case brief submitted by the respondent be stricken from the record of the investigation because it contained new factual information. On March 22, 2002, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(b)(1) and (c)(1)(i), we sent a letter notifying the respondent that we were rejecting certain parts of the case brief because it contained untimely filed new factual information. See the letter from Laurie Parkhill dated March 22, 2002, rejecting certain parts of Maanshan's case brief. On March 25, 2002, the petitioners filed a rebuttal brief. On March 26, 2002, Maanshan submitted a rebuttal brief. On the same day it also submitted a revised case brief which redacted the new factual information.

The scope of this investigation covers doubly-symmetric shapes, whether hot-or cold-rolled, drawn, extruded, formed or finished, having at least one dimension of at least 80 mm (3.2 inches or more), whether of carbon or alloy (other than stainless) steel, and whether or not drilled, punched, notched, painted, coated, or clad. These structural steel beams include, but are not limited to, wide-flange beams (“W” shapes), bearing piles (“HP” shapes), standard beams (“S” or “I” shapes), and M-shapes. All the products that meet the physical and metallurgical descriptions provided above are within the scope of this investigation unless otherwise excluded. The following products are outside and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation: (1) Structural steel beams greater than 400 pounds per linear foot, (2) structural steel beams that have a web or section height (also known as depth) over 40 inches, and (3) structural steel beams that have additional weldments, connectors, or attachments to I-sections, H-sections, or pilings; however, if the only additional weldment, connector or attachment on the beam is a shipping brace attached to maintain stability during transportation, the beam is not removed from the scope definition by reason of such additional weldment, connector, or attachment.

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

Prior to the preliminary determination in a concurrent structural steel beams investigation requested that the following products be excluded from the scope of the investigations: (1) Beams of grade A913/65 and (2) forklift mast profiles. We preliminarily found that both products fell within the scope of this investigation. Because we have received no further scope comments in this proceeding, we are making a final determination that these products fall within the scope of this investigation. Our analysis has not changed since our preliminary determination.

The period of investigation is October 1, 2000, through March 31, 2001.

All issues raised in the case briefs by the parties to this proceeding and to which we have responded are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Decision Memorandum which is adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of the issues raised in this investigation and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Commerce Building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Based on findings at verification and analysis of comments we received, we have made the adjustments described below to the margin calculations. See the Decision Memorandum for a discussion of these changes.

(1) We used the revised database files submitted by Manshaan on January 14, 2002, with the exception of revisions we made for the consumption usages of argon, nitrogen, and oxygen (see Comment 2 of the Decision Memorandum ).

(2) We have used Bhoruka, an Indian manufacturer of industrial gases, to value oxygen, nitrogen, and argon for Maanshan instead of the United Nations Trade Commodity Statistics (UN Statistics). For the PRC-wide rate, we continue to use the UN Statistics.

(3) We recalculated labor expenses based on eight-hour workdays instead of six-and-a-half-hour workdays.

(4) We included the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) as a surrogate company for valuing selling, general, and administrative costs, overhead costs, and profit; therefore, we calculated a simple average of the financial ratios based on data from SAIL and The Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. (TATA).

(5) We have included commissions and other selling expenses in our calculated financial ratios for TATA since they are standard selling costs and properly categorized under SG&A in TATA's financial statements.

(6) With respect to surrogate values for material inputs, we have made the following changes: (a) We applied more recent data from the United States Geological Survey 2000 Minerals Yearbook to value slag, (b) we used the correct harmonized tariff number to value steel strap, and (c) we used a brokerage and handling cost based on bulk products instead of stainless steel products.

(7) We have excluded factor input prices from Korea, Thailand, and Indonesia when using the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India. The Department has found that these countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies. In prior decisions the Department found that the existence of these subsidies provide sufficient reason to believe or suspect that export prices from these countries are distorted. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the information submitted by the respondent for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures including examination of relevant accounting and production records, as well as original source documents provided by the respondent.

In our preliminary determination, we found that the respondent had met the criteria for the application of a separate antidumping duty rate. For a more detailed discussion, see the Department's Preliminary Determination.

For the reasons set forth in the Preliminary Determination, we continue to find that the use of adverse facts available for the calculation of the PRC-wide rate is appropriate. See the Preliminary Determination for further discussion of this topic. As adverse facts available we used price quotations for U.S. price which the petitioners obtained from a producer of the subject merchandise. We corroborated the petitioners' price quotations with data submitted by Maanshan in its questionnaire response. The price quotations fell within the range of export prices reported by Maanshan and are therefore reliable and relevant. For normal value we used the factors of production reported by Maanshan and applied the valuations which we used to calculate normal value for Maanshan, with the exception of the factor valuations which we used for argon, nitrogen, and oxygen. With respect to Maanshan, as explained in response to Comment 2 in the Decision Memorandum, we used values based on the prices charged by an Indian producer of the gases in question. These prices were substantially lower than the average values we derived for argon, nitrogen, and oxygen based on the UN Statistics data and which we used in the Preliminary Determination. As adverse facts available, to calculate the PRC-wide rate, we have continued to value argon, nitrogen, and oxygen using the UN Statistics data because these represent the highest values on record for these particular gases. We have used the highest values for the gases in question as an adverse inference for situations where respondents do not cooperate to the best of their ability. Because this information is based on official data compiled by the United Nations we consider it to be corroborated. Using this data, we have calculated a PRC-wide rate of 89.17 percent.

We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins exist for the period October 1, 2000, through March 31, 2001:

In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing the Customs Service to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of structural steel beams from the PRC, except for subject merchandise produced and exported by Maanshan (which has no margin and is excluded from this determination), that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this final determination in the Federal Register . The Customs Service shall continue to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond based on the estimated weighted-average dumping margins shown above. The suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our determination. As our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine, within 45 days, whether these imports are causing material injury, or threat of material injury, to an industry in the United States. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing Customs officials to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.

This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 735(d) 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 regulations of the Department of Commerce (the Department) are to 19 CFR Part 351 (April 2001).

We determine that structural steel beams from Italy are not being, nor are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 735 of the Act.

The preliminary determination in this investigation was issued on December 19, 2001. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Structural Steel Beams From Italy , 66 FR 67185 (Dec. 28, 2001) ( Preliminary Determination ).

From January through March 2002, we conducted verification of the questionnaire responses of the sole respondent in this case, Duferdofin SpA (Duferdofin).

In April 2002, we received a case brief from the petitioners (the Committee for Fair Beam Imports and its individual members). We also received a rebuttal brief from Duferdofin.

The Department held a public hearing on April 24, 2002, at the request of the petitioners.

The scope of this investigation covers doubly-symmetric shapes, whether hot-or cold-rolled, drawn, extruded, formed or finished, having at least one dimension of at least 80 mm (3.2 inches or more), whether of carbon or alloy (other than stainless) steel, and whether or not drilled, punched, notched, painted, coated, or clad. These structural steel beams include, but are not limited to, wide-flange beams (“W” shapes), bearing piles (“HP” shapes), standard beams (“S” or “I” shapes), and M-shapes. All the products that meet the physical and metallurgical descriptions provided above are within the scope of this investigation unless otherwise excluded. The following products are outside and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation: (1) Structural steel beams greater than 400 pounds per linear foot, (2) structural steel beams that have a web or section height (also known as depth) over 40 inches, and (3) structural steel beams that have additional weldments, connectors, or attachments to I-sections, H-sections, or pilings; however, if the only additional weldment, connector or attachment on the beam is a shipping brace attached to maintain stability during transportation, the beam is not removed from the scope definition by reason of such additional weldment, connector, or attachment.

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

Prior to the preliminary determination in this case, interested parties in this and the concurrent structural steel beams investigations requested that the following products be excluded from the scope of the investigations: (1) beams of grade A913/65 and (2) forklift mast profiles. We preliminarily found that both products fell within the scope of this investigation. Because we have received no further scope comments in this proceeding, we are making a final determination that these products fall within the scope of this investigation.

The period of investigation is April 1, 2000, through March 31, 2001, which corresponds to Duferdofin's four most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition ( i.e. , May 2001).

All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this proceeding and to which we have responded are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Decision Memorandum, which is adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of the issues raised in this investigation and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Commerce Building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made certain changes to the margin calculations. For a discussion of these changes, see the “Margin Calculations” section of the Decision Memorandum.

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the information submitted by the respondent for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures including examination of relevant accounting records, production records, and original source documents provided by the respondent.

We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margin exists:

Because the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for the investigated company is 0.33 percent ( de minimis ), we are not directing the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of entries of structural steel beams from Italy.

In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our determination.

This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections section 735(d) 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 regulations of the Department of Commerce (the Department) are to 19 CFR Part 351 (April 2001).

We determine that structural steel beams from Spain are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 735 of the Act.

The preliminary determination in this investigation was issued on December 19, 2001. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Structural Steel Beams From Spain , 66 FR 66207 (Dec. 28, 2001) (Preliminary Determination).

From January through March 2002, we conducted verification of the questionnaire responses of the sole respondent in this case, Aceralia Corporacion Siderurgica, S.A. (Aceralia).

In April 2002, we received case and rebuttal briefs from the petitioners (the Committee for Fair Beam Imports and its individual members) and Aceralia. The Department held a public hearing on April 16, 2002, at the request of the petitioners and Aceralia.

The scope of this investigation covers doubly-symmetric shapes, whether hot-or cold-rolled, drawn, extruded, formed or finished, having at least one dimension of at least 80 mm (3.2 inches or more), whether of carbon or alloy (other than stainless) steel, and whether or not drilled, punched, notched, painted, coated, or clad. These structural steel beams include, but are not limited to, wide-flange beams (“W” shapes), bearing piles (“HP” shapes), standard beams (“S” or “I” shapes), and M-shapes. All the products that meet the physical and metallurgical descriptions provided above are within the scope of this investigation unless otherwise excluded. The following products are outside and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation: (1) Structural steel beams greater than 400 pounds per linear foot, (2) structural steel beams that have a web or section height (also known as depth) over 40 inches, and (3) structural steel beams that have additional weldments, connectors, or attachments to I-sections, H-sections, or pilings; however, if the only additional weldment, connector or attachment on the beam is a shipping brace attached to maintain stability during transportation, the beam is not removed from the scope definition by reason of such additional weldment, connector, or attachment.

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

Prior to the preliminary determination in this case, interested parties in this and the concurrent structural steel beams investigations requested that the following products be excluded from the scope of the investigations: (1) beams of grade A913/65 and (2) forklift mast profiles. We preliminarily found that both products fell within the scope of this investigation. Because we have received no further scope comments in this proceeding, we are making a final determination that these products fall within the scope of this investigation.

The period of investigation is April 1, 2000, through March 31, 2001, which corresponds to Aceralia's four most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition ( i.e. , May 2001).

All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this proceeding and to which we have responded are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Decision Memorandum, which is adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of the issues raised in this investigation and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Commerce Building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made certain changes to the margin calculations. For a discussion of these changes, see the “Margin Calculations” section of the Decision Memorandum.

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the information submitted by the respondent for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures including examination of relevant accounting records, production records, and original source documents provided by the respondent.

We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins exist:

In accordance with section 735(c)(5)(A), we have based the “all others” rate on the dumping margin found for the sole producer/exporter investigated in this proceeding, Aceralia.

In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of structural steel beams from Spain that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this final determination. The Customs Service shall require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond based on the estimated weighted-average dumping margins shown above. The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our determination. As our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine, within 75 days, whether these imports are causing material injury, or threat of material injury, to an industry in the United States. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing Customs officials to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.

This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections section 735(d) 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 regulations of the Department of Commerce (the Department) are to 19 CFR Part 351 (April 2001).

We determine that structural steel beams from Taiwan are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair-value (LTFV), as provided in section 735 of the Act.

The preliminary determination in this investigation was issued on December 19, 2001. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Structural Steel Beams From Taiwan , 66 FR 67202 (December 28, 2001) ( Preliminary Determination ).

During the period January 19 - 30, 2002, we conducted verification of the questionnaire responses of Tung Ho Enterprise Corp. (Tung Ho), and Kuei Yi Industrial Co., Ltd. (Kuei Yi), the respondents in this case.

We received case and rebuttal briefs on April 18 and 24, 2002, respectively, from the petitioners ( i.e. , the Committee for Fair Beam Imports and its individual members) and the respondents. On January 4, 11, and 28, 2002, Tung Ho, Kuei Yi, and the petitioners, respectively, requested a hearing. On April 15, 2002, Kuei Yi withdrew its request for a hearing. Both Tung Ho and the petitioners withdrew their requests on April 16, 2002.

The scope of this investigation covers doubly-symmetric shapes, whether hot-or cold-rolled, drawn, extruded, formed or finished, having at least one dimension of at least 80 mm (3.2 inches or more), whether of carbon or alloy (other than stainless) steel, and whether or not drilled, punched, notched, painted, coated, or clad. These structural steel beams include, but are not limited to, wide-flange beams (“W” shapes), bearing piles (“HP” shapes), standard beams (“S” or “I” shapes), and M-shapes. All the products that meet the physical and metallurgical descriptions provided above are within the scope of this investigation unless otherwise excluded. The following products are outside and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation: (1) structural steel beams greater than 400 pounds per linear foot, (2) structural steel beams that have a web or section height (also known as depth) over 40 inches, and (3) structural steel beams that have additional weldments, connectors, or attachments to I- sections, H-sections, or pilings; however, if the only additional weldment, connector or attachment on the beam is a shipping brace attached to maintain stability during transportation, the beam is not removed from the scope definition by reason of such additional weldment, connector, or attachment.

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

Prior to the preliminary determination in this case, interested parties in several of the concurrent structural steel beams investigations requested that the following products be excluded from the scope of the investigations: (1) beams of grade A913/65 and (2) forklift mast profiles. We preliminarily found that both products fell within the scope of this investigation. Because we have received no further scope comments in this proceeding, we are making a final determination that these products fall within the scope of this investigation.

The period of investigation is April 1, 2000, through March 31, 2001, which corresponds to the respondents' four most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition ( i.e. , May 2001).

All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this proceeding and to which we have responded are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (Decision Memorandum) from Richard W. Moreland, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to Faryar Shirzad, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated May 13, 2002, which is adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of the issues raised in this investigation and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Commerce Building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made certain changes to the margin calculations. For a discussion of these changes, see the “Margin Calculations” section of the Decision Memorandum.

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the information submitted by the respondent for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures including examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by the respondent.

The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

In accordance with section 735(c)(5)(A), we have based the “all others” rate on the dumping margins found for the producers/exporters investigated in this proceeding, Kuei Yi and Tung Ho.

In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing the Customs Service to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of structural steel beams from Taiwan that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after December 28, 2001, the publication date of the preliminary determination in the Federal Register . The Customs Service shall continue to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond based on the estimated weighted-average dumping margins shown above. The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our determination. As our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine within 45 days whether these imports are causing material injury, or threat of material injury, to an industry in the United States. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing Customs officials to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.

This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections section 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act.

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

We determine that structural steel beams (beams) from South Africa are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) as provided in section 735 of the Act. The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section of this notice.

The scope of this investigation covers doubly-symmetric shapes, whether hot- or cold-rolled, drawn, extruded, formed or finished, having at least one dimension of at least 80 mm (3.2 inches or more), whether of carbon or alloy (other than stainless) steel, and whether or not drilled, punched, notched, painted, coated, or clad. These structural steel beams include, but are not limited to, wide-flange beams (“W”shapes), bearing piles (“HP” shapes), standard beams (“S” or “I” shapes), and M-shapes. All the products that meet the physical and metallurgical descriptions provided above are within the scope of this investigation unless otherwise excluded. The following products are outside and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation: (1) structural steel beams greater than 400 pounds per linear foot, (2) structural steel beams that have a web or section height (also known as depth) over 40 inches, and (3) structural steel beams that have additional weldments, connectors or attachments to I-sections, H-sections, or pilings; however, if the only additional weldment, connector, or attachment on the beam is a shipping brace attached to maintain stability during transportation, the beam is not removed from the scope definition by reason of such additional weldment, connector, or attachment.

Prior to the preliminary determination in this case, interested parties in this and the concurrent structural steel beams investigations requested that the following products be excluded from the scope of the investigations: (1) beams of grade A913/65 and (2) forklift mast profiles. We preliminarily found that both products fell within the scope of this investigation. Because we have received no further scope comments in this proceeding, we are making a final determination that these products fall within the scope of this investigation.

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

On June 20, 2001, the Department published a notice of initiation of the investigation of sales at LTFV of structural steel beams from South Africa (66 FR 33048). We published in the Federal Register the preliminary determination in this investigation on December 28, 2001. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Structural Steel Beams from South Africa , 66 FR 67213 (December 28, 2001) ( Preliminary Determination ). Since the publication of the Preliminary Determination , the following events have occurred.

On January 7, through 11, 2002, the Department conducted verification of the home- market sales of Highveld Steel and Vanadium Corporation, Ltd. (Highveld), the sole respondent in this investigation. See Memorandum from J. David Dirstine and Dunyako Ahmadu to the File, dated January 29, 2002, Re: Home-Market Verification of Highveld Steel and Vanadium Corporation. On February 11, through 15, 2002, the Department conducted a cost-of-production (COP) and constructed-value (CV) data verification of Highveld. See Memorandum from Laurens van Houten and Heidi Norris to Neal Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, dated March 18, 2002, Re: Verification Report on the Cost of Production and Constructed Value Data Submitted by Highveld Steel and Vanadium Corporation, Ltd. ( Cost Verification Memorandum ). On February 25, through 28, 2002, the Department conducted a U.S. sales data verification of Newco Steel Trading Co. (Newco), an affiliated U.S. reseller of merchandise produced by Highveld. See Memorandum from J. David Dirstine and Dunyako Ahmadu to the File, dated March 25, 2002, Re: United States Sales Verification of Highveld Steel and Vanadium Corporation.

On April 2, 2002, the petitioners, the Committee for the Fair Beam Imports and its individual members, and Highveld submitted their case briefs with respect to the verifications and the Preliminary Determination . On April 8, 2002, the petitioners and Highveld submitted rebuttal briefs with respect to the sales verifications and the Preliminary Determination . On April 9, 2002, we conducted a public hearing with a closed session with respect to the issues raised in the case briefs.

In a letter dated January 3, 2002, Highveld requested that the Department and Highveld enter into a suspension agreement pursuant 734(b) of the Act. The petitioners objected to Highveld's proposal in letters dated April 1, 2002, and February 14, 2002. After careful consideration and discussing the proposed agreement with the petitioners and Highveld, on April 15, 2002, the Department advised Highveld that it could not accept the proposed suspension agreement for various reasons.

The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2000, through March 31, 2001.

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 regulations of the Department of Commerce (the Department) are to 19 CFR part 351 (April 2001).

Final Determination: We determine that structural steel beams from Luxembourg are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 735 of the Act.

The preliminary determination in this investigation was issued on December 19, 2001. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Structural Steel Beams From Luxembourg , 66 FR 67223 (December 28, 2001) ( Preliminary Determination ). On January 31, 2002, we published an amended preliminary determination. See Notice of Amended Preliminary Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Structural Steel Beams From Luxembourg , 67 FR 4701 (January 31, 2002).

In January, February and March, we conducted verifications of the questionnaire responses of the sole respondent in this case, ProfilARBED, S.A. (ProfilARBED).

In April 2002, we received case and rebuttal briefs from the petitioners (the Committee for Fair Beam Imports and its individual members) and ProfilARBED. The Department held a public hearing on April 19, 2002, at the request of the petitioners and ProfilARBED.

The scope of this investigation covers doubly-symmetric shapes, whether hot- or cold-rolled, drawn, extruded, formed or finished, having at least one dimension of at least 80 mm (3.2 inches or more), whether of carbon or alloy (other than stainless) steel, and whether or not drilled, punched, notched, painted, coated, or clad. These structural steel beams include, but are not limited to, wide-flange beams (“W” shapes), bearing piles (“HP” shapes), standard beams (“S” or “I” shapes), and M-shapes. All the products that meet the physical and metallurgical descriptions provided above are within the scope of this investigation unless otherwise excluded. The following products are outside and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation: (1) Structural steel beams greater than 400 pounds per linear foot, (2) structural steel beams that have a web or section height (also known as depth) over 40 inches, and (3) structural steel beams that have additional weldments, connectors, or attachments to I-sections, H-sections, or pilings; however, if the only additional weldment, connector or attachment on the beam is a shipping brace attached to maintain stability during transportation, the beam is not removed from the scope definition by reason of such additional weldment, connector, or attachment.

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

Prior to the preliminary determination in this case, interested parties in this and the concurrent structural steel beams investigations requested that the following products be excluded from the scope of the investigations: (1) Beams of grade A913/65 and (2) forklift mast profiles. We preliminarily found that both products fell within the scope of this investigation. Because we have received no further scope comments in this proceeding, we are making a final determination that these products fall within the scope of this investigation.

The period of investigation is April 1, 2000, through March 31, 2001, which corresponds to ProfilARBED's four most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition ( i.e. , May 2001).

All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this proceeding and to which we have responded are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Decision Memorandum, which is adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of the issues raised in this investigation and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Commerce Building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made certain changes to the margin calculations. For a discussion of these changes, see the “Margin Calculations” section of the Decision Memorandum, ProfilARBED Final Determination Calculations , Memorandum to the File dated May 13, 2002, and Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Final Determination , Memorandum to Neal Halper from Heidi S. Norris dated May 13, 2002 ( Cost Calculation Memo ).

1. We used the revised third country and U.S. sales listings, submitted on April 17, 2002, which took into account revisions presented at the commencement of verifications and our verification findings, as discussed in the April 10, 2002, letter requesting the revised data bases.

2. We used the revised cost of production (COP) data base submitted on April 5, 2002, which included the corrections for the formula errors presented at the commencement of the COP verification.

3. We reclassified the shape variable (SHAPET/U) for ProfilARBED's sales of IPN beams, consistent with our determination in the companion structural steel beams from Italy investigation, and the classification of IPN beams by ProfilARBED's Spanish affiliate, Aceralia Corporacion Siderurgica (Aceralia), in the companion structural steel beams from Spain investigation.

4. We made corrections to ProfilARBED's April 17, 2002, third country sales listing to account for errors identified in the petitioners' April 26, 2002, letter and ProfilARBED's April 30, 2002, and May 1, 2002, letters.

5. For ProfilARBED's sales to affiliated resellers that were shipped directly to the customer, and where the price from ProfilARBED to the affiliate was not at arm's length, we applied the highest gross third country price reported for that product, less movement expenses, among the sales to unaffiliated customers and affiliated customers at arm's length.

6. We adjusted the cost of manufacture to reflect the higher of the transfer price, COP, or market price for electricity.

7. We adjusted the cost of manufacture to reflect the transfer price paid by ProfilARBED to their affiliates for the leases.

8. We revised the general and administrative (G&A) expense ratio to account for exchange rate gains and losses and to exclude sales commission offsets and a financial income offset.

9. We revised the financial expense rate, as described in the Cost Calculation Memo.

10. We revised the date of sale for U.S. sales to the date of shipment from the European port, except for U.S. warehouse sales, where we applied the earlier of invoice date or warehouse shipment date.

11. We applied the average ocean freight expense reported for west coast U.S. ports to all U.S. sales, except for those specific transactions where the reported expense was higher than this average, as facts available, because ProfilARBED failed to disclose properly that it used an affiliated supplier of ocean freight services.

12. We revised the U.S. imputed credit calculation to account for a revised U.S. interest rate, based on our verification findings, and the date of sale revision. In addition, we revised the inventory carrying expenses reported on U.S. sales shipped directly to the customer to account for the revised date of sale.

13. We revised the U.S. indirect selling expenses incurred in the United States to include a portion incurred by another U.S. affiliate.

14. We revised the offset to the interest expense component of U.S. indirect selling expenses to account for imputed credit expenses on a company-wide basis.

15. Except for sales shipped through the U.S. ports where we were able to verify the port-specific charges, we applied the highest U.S. port-specific per-unit brokerage and handling expense rate on the record of this investigation, to all U.S. sales incurring this expense.

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the information submitted by the respondent for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures including examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by the respondent.

The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

In accordance with section 735(c)(5)(A), we have based the “all others” rate on the dumping margin found for the sole producer/exporter investigated in this proceeding, ProfilARBED.

In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of structural steel beams from Luxembourg that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this final determination. The Customs Service shall require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond based on the estimated weighted-average dumping margin shown above. The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our determination. As our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine, within 75 days, whether these imports are causing material injury, or threat of material injury, to an industry in the United States. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing Customs officials to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.

This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections section 735(d) 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 regulations of the Department of Commerce (the Department) are to 19 CFR Part 351 (April 2001).

We determine that structural steel beams from the Russian Federation are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 735 of the Act.

The preliminary determination in this investigation was issued on December 28, 2001. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Structural Steel Beams From the Russian Federation, 66 FR 66217 (Dec. 28, 2001) ( Preliminary Determination ). On January 7 and 9, 2002, we received timely allegations of ministerial errors from the petitioner and the respondent. Because we agreed with the interested parties' ministerial-error allegations, we published the amended preliminary antidumping duty determination of sales at less than fair value of structural steel beams from the Russian Federation. See Notice of Amended Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Structural Steel Beams From the Russian Federation, 67 FR 4704 (January 31, 2002).

In March, we conducted verification of the questionnaires responses of the sole respondent in this case, Nizhny Tagil Iron and Steel Works (Tagil).

On April 15, 2002, we received a case brief from the petitioner (i.e., the Committee for Fair Beam Imports), and on April 17, 2002, the respondent submitted its rebuttal brief.

The scope of this investigation covers doubly-symmetric shapes, whether hot-or cold-rolled, drawn, extruded, formed or finished, having at least one dimension of at least 80 mm (3.2 inches or more), whether of carbon or alloy (other than stainless) steel, and whether or not drilled, punched, notched, painted, coated, or clad. These structural steel beams include, but are not limited to, wide-flange beams (“W” shapes), bearing piles (“HP” shapes), standard beams (“S” or “I” shapes), and M-shapes. All the products that meet the physical and metallurgical descriptions provided above are within the scope of this investigation unless otherwise excluded. The following products are outside and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation: (1) Structural steel beams greater than 400 pounds per linear foot, (2) structural steel beams that have a web or section height (also known as depth) over 40 inches, and (3) structural steel beams that have additional weldments, connectors, or attachments to I-sections, H-sections, or pilings; however, if the only additional weldment, connector or attachment on the beam is a shipping brace attached to maintain stability during transportation, the beam is not removed from the scope definition by reason of such additional weldment, connector, or attachment.

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

Prior to the preliminary determination in this case, interested parties in this and the concurrent structural steel beams investigations requested that the following products be excluded from the scope of the investigations: (1) Beams of grade A913/65 and (2) forklift mast profiles. We preliminarily found that both products fell within the scope of this investigation. Because we have received no further scope comments in this proceeding, we are making a final determination that these products fall within the scope of this investigation.

The period of investigation (POI) is October 1, 2000, through March 31, 2001.

All issues raised in the case briefs by the petitioner to this proceeding and to which we have responded are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Decision Memorandum, which is adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of the issues raised in this investigation and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Commerce Building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Based on our findings at verification and analysis of comments we received, we have made certain adjustments to the margin calculations. For a discussion of these changes, see the Decision Memorandum. These revisions are as follows:

1. In the Preliminary Determination , we used the 1997 financial statements of Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari TAS (Erdemir), a Turkish steel producer, to value overhead selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit ratios. For the final determination of this investigation, we have used the 2000 financial statement of Erdemir to value overhead SG&A expenses and profit ratios. For further details see analysis memorandum (analysis memorandum) dated May 10, 2002.

2. During our sales verification we found that Tagil had misreported its inventory carrying costs. Therefore, for the final determination of this investigation, we revised Tagil's inventory carrying costs. See the sales verification report dated March 22, 2002, at page 23. See also analysis memorandum.

3. During our sales verification we found that Tagil's factor for indirect selling expenses changed slightly. Therefore, for the final determination of this investigation, we have revised Tagil's factor for indirect selling expenses. See the sales verification report dated March 22, 2002, at page 22. See also analysis memorandum.

4. During our verification of Tagil's factors-of-production information we found that Tagil misreported its labor costs by basing its labor costs on a 7.5-hour workday instead of the eight hours for which the workers were actually paid. Therefore, for the final determination of this investigation, we revised Tagil's labor figures to capture total labor hours associated with the production of the subject merchandise. See the factors-of-production verification report dated April 5, 2002, at page 2. See also analysis memorandum.

5. During our factors-of-production verification we found that Tagil misreported the several distances from the supplier to Tagil's factory. Therefore, for the final determination of this investigation, we revised, where applicable, Tagil's reported distances from the supplier to the factory. See the factors-of-production verification report dated April 5, 2002, at page 2. See also analysis memorandum.

6. Because of numerous corrections which Tagil presented during the factors-of-production verification, we requested that it revise its factors-of-production database and submit a new factors-of-production database for the final determination.

7. For the final results of this investigation, we are using current information regarding South African imports of slag, dross, scalings and waste as reported in the Tradstat data service to value slag, waste, and vanadium. See the petitioner's February 6, 2002, submission at exhibit 3. See also analysis memorandum.

8. We determined to use the second alternative calculation of Tagil's short-term borrowing rate for the final results. See sales verification report dated March 22, 2002, at page 19, footnote 5. Consequently, we revised Tagil's credit expenses and inventory carrying costs to reflect the revised short-term borrowing rate. See analysis memorandum.

9. Upon review of our calculations for the Preliminary Determination , we found that the import statistics the respondent proposed and which we used to value lime/limestone vary from each other significantly. Therefore, we re-evaluated the use of these statistics and contacted a lime specialist with the U.S. Geological Survey. The lime specialist explained that the lime which is most likely used in the steel industry is categorized under HTS numbers 2522.10.0000, 2522.20.000, and 2522.30.000, not under HTS number 2521000 as proposed by the respondent. Therefore, based on this information, we have used import statistics for calendar year 2000 pertinent to HTS numbers under subcategory 2522 for the final determination. For further detail, see analysis memorandum.

10. For the final results of this investigation, we have accounted for the differences in calorific or energy potential and valued by-product gases according to their proper natural gas equivalents. For further details, see analysis memorandum.

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the information submitted by the respondent for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures, including examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents, provided by the respondent.

In all non-market economy (NME) cases, the Department implements a policy whereby there is a rebuttable presumption that all exporters or producers located in the NME comprise a single exporter under common government control, the “NME entity.” The Department assigns a single NME rate to the NME entity unless an exporter can demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate.

Tagil has qualified for a separate rate. Furthermore, the information on the record of this investigation indicates that Tagil is the only Russian producer and/or exporter of the subject merchandise with sales or shipments to the United States during the POI. Based upon our examination and clarification of U.S. Customs Service data, we have determined that there are no other Russian producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise and consequently none which were required to respond to our questionnaire. Because the only known Russian producer of steel beams, Tagil, responded to our questionnaire and the evidence indicates that there are no other Russian producers or exporters of subject merchandise during the POI, we have calculated a Russia-wide rate for this investigation based on the weighted-average margin we determined for Tagil. This Russia-wide rate applies to all entries of subject merchandise except for entries of subject merchandise exported by Tagil.

In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing the Customs Service to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of structural steel beams from the Russian Federation that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after December 28, 2001, the publication date of the preliminary determination in the Federal Register . The Customs Service shall continue to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond based on the estimated weighted-average dumping margins shown above. The suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

The weighted-average margins are as follows:

In accordance with section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we have based the Russia-wide rate on the dumping margin found for the sole producer/ exporter investigated in this proceeding, Tagil.

In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our determination. As our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine, within 45 days, whether these imports are causing material injury, or threat of material injury, to an industry in the United States. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing customs officials to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.

This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections section 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act.

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

On April 19, 2002, the Department received petitions filed in proper form by the Nitrogen Solutions Fair Trade Committee (the petitioner). Its members consist of CF Industries, Inc., Mississippi Chemical Corporation, and Terra Industries, Inc.. The Department received information supplementing the petitions on May 3, 2002.

In accordance with section 732(b) of the Act, the petitioner alleges that imports of urea ammonium nitrate solutions (UANS) from Belarus, Lithuania, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring an industry in the United States.

The Department finds that the petitioner filed these petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the antidumping investigations that it is requesting the Department to initiate. See Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions section below.

For purposes of these investigations, the product covered is all mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate in aqueous or ammoniacal solution, regardless of nitrogen content by weight, and regardless of the presence of additives, such as corrosion inhibitors. The merchandise subject to these investigations is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 3102.80.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and U.S. Customs Service (U.S. Customs) purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.

During our review of the petitions, we discussed the scope with the petitioner and commodity specialists at U.S. Customs to ensure that it accurately reflects the product for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations (62 FR 27296, 27323), we are setting aside a period for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all parties to submit such comments within 20 days of publication of this notice. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's Central Records Unit (CRU) at Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. The period of scope consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and consult with parties prior to the issuance of our preliminary determinations.

Section 351.204(b) of the Department's regulations states that, in the case of a non market economy (NME) country, in an investigation, the Department normally will examine merchandise sold during the two most recently completed fiscal quarters as of the month preceding the month in which the petitions were filed. The regulations further state that the Department may examine merchandise sold during any additional or alternate period it concludes is appropriate.

Following the above noted guidelines from section 351.204(b) of the Department's regulations, the anticipated period of investigation (POI) for each of these investigations is October 1, 2001, through March 31, 2002.

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (1) at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (2) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition.

Finally, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the administering agency shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition as required by subparagraph (A), or (ii) determine industry support using any statistically valid sampling method to poll the industry.

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether the petition has the requisite industry support, the Act directs the Department to look to producers and workers who account for production of the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes and pursuant to separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the domestic like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to the law. 1

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product that is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation,” i.e. , the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition. Moreover, the petitioner does not offer a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations.

The domestic like product referred to in these petitions is the domestic like product defined in the Scope of Investigations section above. The Department has no basis on the record to find this definition of the domestic like product to be inaccurate. The Department, therefore, has adopted this domestic like product definition.

The Department has further determined that these petitions contain adequate evidence of industry support. Information contained in the petitions demonstrates that the domestic producers or workers who support the petitions account for over 50 percent of total production of the domestic like product. See Petitions for Imposition of Antidumping Duties: Urea Ammonium Nitrate Solutions from Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, and the Russian Federation , dated April 19, 2002, at Exhibit 9. Therefore, the domestic producers or workers who support the petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, and the requirements of section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) are met. See Initiation Checklists (public version on file in the CRU of the Department, Room B-099). Furthermore, because the Department received no opposition to the petitions, the domestic producers or workers who support the petitions account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for or opposition to the petition. See Initiation Checklists . Thus, the requirements of section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) are met.

Accordingly, the Department determines that these petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. See Initiation Checklists at Industry Support.

The following are descriptions of the allegations of sales at LTFV upon which our decisions to initiate these investigations are based. Based on the information submitted in the petitions, adjusted where appropriate, we are initiating these investigations, as discussed below and in the Initiation Checklists .

The Department has analyzed the information in the petitions and considers the country-wide import statistics for the anticipated POI and market information used to calculate the estimated margins for the subject countries to be sufficient for purposes of initiation. Should the need arise to use any of this information in our preliminary or final determinations for purposes of facts available under section 776 of the Act, we may re-examine the information and revise the margin calculations, if appropriate.

Regarding an investigation involving an NME, the Department presumes, based on the extent of central government control in an NME, that a single dumping margin, should there be one, is appropriate for all NME exporters in the given country. 66 FR 33525 (June 22, 2001) and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Solid Agricultural Ammonium Nitrate from Ukraine , 66 FR 38632 (July 25, 2001).

The petitioner based export price (EP) on import weighted average unit value (AUV) data from official U.S. Census Bureau statistics for the period October 2001 through February 2002, for the subject HTSUS number. The petitioner calculated a net U.S. price by deducting foreign inland freight and brokerage and handling from the AUV data.

The petitioner based foreign inland freight on a price quote for the rail transport effective during calender year 2000, obtained from a South African rail company provider and adjusted for inflation using the South African Wholesale Price Index (WPI) as published in the International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From the Russian Federation, 66 FR 21319, 21324 (April 30, 2001) ( Preliminary LTFV Determination: Pure Magnesium from the Russian Federation ). Foreign brokerage and handling charges were based on the “waterfront charges” for the port of Durban, as published in a report by the South African Department of Transportation.

The Council will convene on Wednesday, June 12, 2002, from 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m., and on Thursday, June 13, 2002, from 9 a.m. to 12 noon, approximately. A scoping meeting period for Sustainable Fishery Act (SFA) Comprehensive Amendment will be open from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m., on June 12, 2002, to allow the general public and interested persons to provide their comments.

The Council will hold its 108th regular public meeting to discuss the items contained in the following agenda:

Closed Session

Call to Order

Adoption of Agenda

Consideration of 106th Council Meeting Verbatim Minutes

SFA Comprehensive Amendment Presentation—Southeast Regional Office/NMFS

Lunch

Scoping meeting on SFA Comprehensive Amendment

Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan

SFA Next Steps

Other Business

The meetings are open to the public, and will be conducted in English. Fishers and other interested persons are invited to attend and participate with oral or written statements regarding agenda issues.

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 identified 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 Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. For more information or request for sign language interpretation and/other auxiliary aids, please contact Mr. Miguel A. Rolon, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 268 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-2577, telephone: (787) 766-5926, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The primary purpose of the work session is to continue revising the draft fishery management plan (FMP) for West Coast highly migratory species (HMS) fisheries per Council guidance from the March 2002 Council meeting. Initial preparation of the HMSPDT report for the June 2002 Council meeting will also occur. The HMS FMP is scheduled for final Council action in November 2002.

Although nonemergency issues not contained in the HMSPDT meeting agenda may come before the HMSPDT for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal HMSPDT action during this meeting. HMSPDT action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document 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 HMSPDT's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

The meeting is 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 meeting date.

The purpose of the meeting is to review the California Environmental Quality Act analysis on the creation of marine reserves in state waters of the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in the Marine Reserves Subcommittee of the SSC meeting agenda may come before the Subcommittee for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal Marine Reserves Subcommittee of the SSC action during this meeting. Subcommittee 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 Subcommittee's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

The meeting is 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 (or (866) 806-7204 after May 15) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

Congress first granted NOAA the authority to issue special use permits for the conduct of specific activities in National Marine Sanctuaries (NMSs or Sanctuaries) in the 1988 Amendments to the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq. ; NMSA) (Public Law 100-627). The NMSA allows NOAA to issue special use permits to establish conditions of access to and use of any Sanctuary resource or to promote public use and understanding of a Sanctuary resource. Since 1988, special use permits have been issued to persons conducting usually commercial (and usually revenue-generating), otherwise prohibited, operations in NMSs. Such activities have included a diving concessionaire conducting trips to the USS Monitor, the filming of television advertisements, and the use of a Sanctuary for public events.

Section 310 of the NMSA allows NOAA to issue special use permits to authorize the conduct of specific activities with four conditions. The NMSA requires that special use permits:

1. Shall authorize the conduct of an activity only if that activity is compatible with the purposes for which the Sanctuary is designated and with protection of Sanctuary resources;

2. Shall not authorize the conduct of any activity for a period of more than 5 years unless renewed by NOAA;

3. Shall require that activities carried out under the permit be conducted in a manner that does not destroy, cause the loss of, or injure Sanctuary resources; and

4. Shall require the permittee to purchase and maintain comprehensive general liability insurance, or post an equivalent bond, against claims arising out of activities conducted under the permit and to agree to hold the United States harmless against such claims.

Condition 3 above tends to be the most limiting in that it prevents NOAA from issuing a special use permit if the activity may destroy, cause the loss of, or injure a Sanctuary resource. Since activities that are prohibited by National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP) regulations (15 CFR Part 922) usually have some adverse impact, it is generally thought that if an activity is prohibited, it should not qualify for a special use permit. While this is generally true, there are some prohibited activities that, when done in a certain way, are not likely to adversely impact a Sanctuary resource. Several of these activities are of a nature that does not qualify for other NMS permits (for example, because they are not related to research or education), but do meet the statutory conditions for special use permits. Therefore, special use permits may be issued for the narrow range of activities that are both prohibited by NMSP regulations and do not destroy, cause the loss of, or injure a Sanctuary resource when conducted in a certain way.

Section 310 of the NMSA allows NOAA to assess and collect a fee for special use permits. A special use permit fee must include each of three components. They are:

1. The costs incurred, or expected to be incurred, by NOAA in issuing the permit;

2. The costs incurred, or expected to be incurred, by NOAA as a direct result of the conduct of the activity for which the permit is issued, including costs of monitoring the conduct of the activity; and

3. An amount which represents the fair market value of the use of the Sanctuary resource.

Number 1 above essentially covers the administrative costs that NOAA incurs when it processes permit applications (including labor, printing costs, and contracts for the preparation of supporting documentation). Number 2 includes amounts to fund monitoring projects designed to assess the success or failure of the permittee to comply with the terms and conditions of the permit. It may also include money to fund a compliance monitoring program and to recoup any costs incurred by the NMSP in enforcing permit terms and conditions. Number 3 is calculated using economic valuation methods appropriate to the situation.

In the National Marine Sanctuaries Amendments Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-513), Congress added a new requirement that prior to requiring a special use permit for any category of activity, NOAA shall give appropriate public notice. Subsection (b) of section 310 of the NMSA, as amended by Public Law 106-513, provides: “[NOAA] shall provide appropriate public notice before identifying any category of activity subject to a special use permit under subsection (a).” In addition, Public Law 106-513 gives the NMSP the authority to waive, reduce, or accept in-kind contributions in lieu of these fees when the activity does not derive a profit from the access to or use of Sanctuary resources.

This notice lists those categories of activities that have been subject to the requirements of Section 310 in the past and will continue to be in the future (unless NOAA issues a Federal Register notice indicating otherwise). All of these activities are currently prohibited by NMS regulations, and may only be permitted using a special use permit when conducted in a way that does not injure, cause the loss of, or destroy a Sanctuary resource. It is important to note that the fact that an activity is consistent with a category listed in this notice does not guarantee approval of an application for a special use permit. Special use permit applications will be reviewed for consistency with the relevant Sanctuary's management plan and regulations, the NMSA, as well as this Federal Register notice. Individual special use permit applications will also be reviewed with respect to all other pertinent regulations and statutes, including the National Environmental Policy Act. Additional categories of activities may be added in subsequent Federal Register notices, if the NMSP deems them appropriate for special use permits.

As such, the following categories of activities have been and will continue until further notice to be subject to the requirements of special use permits:

1. The disposal of cremated human remains by a commercial operator in any National Marine Sanctuary;

2. The operation of aircraft below the minimum altitude in restricted zones of National Marine Sanctuaries for commercial purposes;

3. The placement and subsequent recovery of objects associated with public events on non-living substrate of the seabed;

4. The discharge and immediate recovery of objects related to special effects of motion pictures; and

5. The maintenance of submarine cables beneath or on the seabed.

Each category listed above is further described below.

The NMSP has received permit applications to spread cremated human remains (i.e., ashes) over and within the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS). Since most NMS regulations prohibit the discharge of material or other matter into the Sanctuary, this activity requires a permit. After an extensive review of the common practices involved with the disposal of cremated human remains, the MBNMS determined that no detectable negative impacts to NMS resources and qualities were expected to result from the practice when certain conditions are adhered to by those engaged in the activity.

Conditions placed on this activity that eliminate negative impacts to Sanctuary resources include: restricting the minimum altitude of any aircraft used to facilitate the spreading of the ashes; prohibiting the use of any plastics or any other toxic material associated with the remains; and requiring that the remains be sufficiently incinerated.

In 1998, the superintendent of MBNMS issued an authorization (authorization number MBNMS-03-98) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) general permit for burial at sea (40 CFR 229.1). This authorization allows anyone (commercial entities as well as private individuals) to discharge cremated human remains in the MBNMS without first requesting a permit (subject to special conditions such as those described above). This authorization does not authorize anyone to conduct any activity otherwise prohibited by the MBNMS regulations except the discharge of cremated human remains (e.g., this authorization does not allow a person to operate an aircraft below 1,000 feet in one of the restricted overflight zones during the course of discharging cremated human remains). If an individual engaged in the disposal of cremated human remains wished to conduct an additional otherwise prohibited activity (e.g., low overflight) he would need to first obtain permission from the Sanctuary superintendent. This authorization expires on April 7, 2004 and does not apply to any other NMS in the system.

Commercial entities proposing the dispersion of cremated human remains must apply for and receive a special use permit prior to initiating this activity within the boundaries of any National Marine Sanctuary except MBNMS, as described above. (When private individuals wish to scatter cremated human remains in a NMS other than the MBNMS, they may request an individual authorization, if available, of the EPA's general permit from the appropriate Sanctuary manager or superintendent on a case-by-case basis.)

Within certain zones of MBNMS, Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS), Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, and the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary operating an aircraft below a minimum altitude is prohibited by Sanctuary regulations (15 CFR Part 922). The minimum altitude for the zones within all aforementioned Sanctuaries, with the exception of OCNMS, is 1,000 feet. The minimum altitude for the zones within OCNMS is 2,000 feet.

The NMSP has received applications for permits to fly below the minimum altitude for commercial purposes within the restricted zones of MBNMS. Examples of commercial activities that have been subject to special use permits in the past include the filming of television advertisements and documentaries. When conditioned so that impacts to Sanctuary resources are eliminated, these activities have been determined to qualify for special use permits. Conditions on the permits generally include, but are not limited to, limitations on the number of passes an aircraft can take in a particular location, requirements for monitors to be present during operations, and seasonal restrictions so as to avoid certain areas during particularly sensitive times of the year.

All Sanctuaries with overflight restrictions have received requests to fly below the minimum altitude for non-commercial purposes (scientific research or education). These activities are eligible for research or education permit categories permittable under each site's regulatory authority and do not require the issuance of a special use permit.

Anyone wishing to operate an aircraft for commercial purposes below the designated altitude in any of the restricted overflight zones must apply for and receive a special use permit prior to conducting that activity.

MBNMS has, in the past, issued special use permits to non-profit institutions and public entities to place temporary objects (e.g., marker buoys) on non-living portions of the seabed when that activity is associated with public events. Public triathlons and the California Chocolate Abalone dive are two such events that have been subject to special use permit requirements. Since the placement of objects on the seabed within most NMSs is prohibited by individual Sanctuary regulations, this activity usually requires a permit.

Conditions of special use permits for public events require that each object be placed on the seafloor in such a way as to not destroy, cause the loss of, or injure Sanctuary resources or qualities. The objects are required to be removed in a similar non-intrusive fashion after each event. In addition, the markers and other objects themselves are to be composed of substances that do not leach deleterious materials or other matter into the Sanctuary.

Special use permits are required for public events that involve the placement of objects on the seafloor in any National Marine Sanctuary. Anyone wishing to hold a public event that involves the placement of an object (or objects) on the seafloor of a National Marine Sanctuary must apply for and receive a special use permit prior to holding the event.

The NMSP has received inquiries from motion picture companies seeking to deposit objects into a Sanctuary and immediately recover them for special effects. No special use permit has been applied for or issued for this type of activity to date. Sanctuary regulations generally prohibit the placement of objects on the seabed as well as the discharge of material or other matter into the Sanctuary. If the NMSP determines to allow this type of activity, persons proposing this activity would be required to prove to the NMSP that the objects being deposited would not injure, cause the loss of, or destroy any Sanctuary resource (e.g., are of a nature that would not cause harmful substances to leach into the Sanctuary, that the objects would be recovered from the Sanctuary immediately, and that the area of the seafloor where the object would be deposited is not sensitive to the proposed disturbance). In addition, Sanctuary staff would require that, if permitted, this type of activity is done at locations and during times of the year that are least likely to have sensitive Sanctuary resources in the vicinity of the disturbance.

Any individual or entity proposing to deposit any object into a National Marine Sanctuary related to special effects by the motion picture or other industry must apply for and receive a permit prior to conducting this activity within a National Marine Sanctuary.

The NMSP has issued two special use permits to allow telecommunications companies to maintain fiber optic cables beneath the seafloor within the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (two cables permitted in November of 1999) and Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (one cable permitted in June of 2000). While the actual installation, removal, and any necessary repair activities were authorized under the NMSP's regulatory authority, the continued presence of the cable buried beneath the surface of the seabed was allowed through a special use permit issued pursuant to section 310 of the NMSA. This activity will continue to be subject to the requirements of section 310 of the NMSA.

In a separate process, NOAA will continue to develop its policy on submarine cables within National Marine Sanctuaries, following up on the August 23, 2000, Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on Installing and Maintaining Commercial Submarine Cables in National Marine Sanctuaries (65 FR 51264). The ANPR included a draft set of proposed principles for laying submarine cables in the marine and coastal environment. Through this separate process, NOAA will consider whether to issue regulations or a policy statement on submarine cables within Sanctuaries including whether the issuance of special use permits allowing the presence of submarine cables beneath or on the seafloor continues to be appropriate. Depending on the outcome of this process the NMSP may issue another Federal Register notice amending this one, as appropriate.

NMSP is accepting comments on its use of the special use permit authority. NMSP is especially interested in comments that pertain specifically to the impacts of the aforementioned activities on Sanctuary resources. NMSP is also interested in any other comments on the subject matter addressed in this notice.

Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. , unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. Applications for the special use permits discussed in this notice involves a collection-of-information requirement subject to the requirements of the PRA. OMB has approved this collection-of-information requirement under OMB control number 0648-0141.

The collection-of-information requirement applies to persons seeking special use permits to conduct otherwise prohibited activities and is necessary to determine whether the proposed activities are consistent with the terms and conditions of special use permits prescribed by the NMSA. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average twenty four (24) hours per response (application, annual report, and financial report), including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. This estimate also includes the significant time that may be required should the applicant choose to prepare a draft of any documentation that may be required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), e.g., environmental impact statement or environmental assessment. If the applicant chooses not to prepare a draft of any NEPA documentation for the proposed activity, or if only minimal NEPA documentation is needed, the public reporting burden would be much less (approximately one hour for each response). If additional NEPA documentation is required and not prepared in draft by the permit applicant, NOAA would be required to prepare this documentation using its own staff and resources prior to NOAA taking final action on the application. As staff time and funding resources are limited, the preparation of complicated NEPA documents can significantly add to the time NOAA takes to review the application and take final action.

This may also significantly add to the costs incurred by the federal government in processing the special use permit applications and thus the cost to the applicant.

Send comments on the burden estimate or on any other aspect of the collection of information, and ways of reducing the burden, to NOAA and OMB (see ADDRESSES ).

NOAA has concluded that this action will not have a significant effect, individually or cumulatively, on the human environment. This action is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement in accordance with Section 6.05c3(i) of NOAA Administrative Order 216-6. Specifically, this action is a notice of an administrative and legal nature. Furthermore, individual permit actions by the NMSP will be subject to additional case-by-case analysis, as required under NEPA, and will be completed when those actions are proposed to be taken by NMSP in the future.

NOAA also expects that many of these individual actions will also meet the criteria of one or more of the categorical exclusions described in NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 because special use permits cannot be issued for activities that are expected to result in any destruction of, injury to, or loss of any Sanctuary resource. However, the special use permit authority may at times be used to allow activities that may meet the Council on Environmental Quality's definition of the term “significant” despite the lack of apparent environmental impacts (e.g., publicly controversial activities). In addition, NOAA may, in certain circumstances, combine its special use permit authority with other regulatory authorities to allow activities not described above that may result in environmental impacts to NMS resources and thus require the preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. In these situations NOAA will ensure that the appropriate NEPA documentation is prepared prior to taking final action on a permit or making any irretrievable or irreversible commitment of agency resources.

The proposed amendments to the MCM are as follows:

Amend R.C.M. 103(2) by deleting “without” and replacing with “with” and by deleting “noncapital” and replacing with “capital.”

Amend the Analysis accompanying R.C.M. 103(2) by inserting the following prior to the discussion of subsection (3):

Amend R.C.M. 201(f)(1)(A)(iii)(b) by substituting the following therefor:

Amend the Analysis accompanying R.C.M. 201(f) by inserting the following prior to the discussion of subsection (f)(2):

Amend R.C.M. 307(c)(4) by inserting the following at the end thereof:

Amend the Discussion accompanying R.C.M. 307(c)(4) by striking the first sentence.

Amend the Analysis accompanying R.C.M. 307(c)(4) by inserting the following prior to the discussion of subsection (c)(5):

Amend R.C.M. 501(a)(1)(A) to read as follows:

Amend R.C.M. 501(a)(1) by inserting the following subparagraph (C) to read as follows:

Amend R.C.M. 805(b) is amended by replacing the current second sentence with the following:

Amend R.C.M. 1003(b) (2) by deleting “foreign” and substituting “hardship” therefor.

Amend the Analysis accompanying R.C.M. 1003(b) (2) by inserting the following paragraph:

Amend R.C.M. 1004(b) by inserting the following after “(1) Notice.” and before “Before”:

Amend the analysis accompanying R.C.M. 1004(b) by substituting the following paragraph for the current first paragraph:

Insert the following new R.C.M. 1103A to read as follows:

Insert the following Analysis to accompany new R.C.M. 1103A:

Amend Manual for Courts-Material, Part IV, Paragraph 14c(2)(a), by inserting the following new subparagraph (ii) and renumbering existing subparagraphs (a)(ii) through (iv) as (a)(iii) through (v):

Amend Manual for Courts-Martial, Part IV, Paragraph 109, by deleting the current text and replacing with the following:

Amend the Analysis accompanying Punitive Article 134, Paragraph 109, subparagraph c, by inserting the following at the end thereof:

Amend the Analysis accompanying Punitive Article 134, Paragraph 109, subparagraph e, by inserting the following at the end thereof:

Amend the Analysis accompanying Punitive Article 90 by inserting the following new subparagraph c(2)(a)(ii) and renumbering existing subparagraphs (a)(ii) through (iv) as (a)(iii) through (v):

The meeting is open to the public; however, because of space limitations, allocation of seating will be made on a first-come, first served basis. Persons desiring to attend the meeting should call Ms. Diane Reid at 703-805-5133.

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: Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired.

Title: William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program Deferment Request Forms (JS).

Frequency: On Occasion.

Affected Public: Individuals or household (primary).

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Responses: 1.

Burden Hours: 143030.

Abstract: These forms serve as the means by which the U.S. Department of Education collects the information needed to determine whether a Direct Loan borrower qualifies for a loan deferment.

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 1953. 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 Joe Schubart at his Internet address joe.schubart@ed.gov . Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Missouri is hereby amended to include Individual Assistance in 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 May 6, 2002:

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE and its regulators in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

1. Quarterly update on Rocky Flats issues, provided by a representative from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

2. Discussion with DOE representatives and regulators on Rocky Flats end-state issues.

3. Other Board business may be conducted as necessary.

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Ken Korkia at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received at least five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provisions will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Each individual wishing to make public comment will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the Public Reading Room located at the Office of the Rocky Flats Citizens Advisory Board, 9035 North Wadsworth Parkway, Suite 2250, Westminister, CO 80021; telephone (303) 420-7855. Hours of operations for the Public Reading Room are 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also be made available by writing or calling Deb Thompson at the address or telephone number listed above.

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended in 1996, requires EPA to review each national primary drinking water regulation (NPDWR) at least once every six years and revise any NPDWR as appropriate. SDWA specifies that any revision must maintain or increase public health protection. EPA developed a systematic approach, or protocol, for the review of NPDWRs in consultation with stakeholders. EPA has applied this protocol to the Agency's initial Six-Year Review of most of the NPDWRs published prior to the 1996 SDWA Amendments (i.e., pre-1997 NPDWRs). The review focused on 68 chemical NPDWRs and the Total Coliform Rule (TCR). The meeting will provide stakeholders information on EPA's protocol for the review of these 69 NPDWRs and EPA's preliminary revise/not revise decisions for these 69 NPDWRs. Comments on the Six-Year Review of NPDWRs must be submitted in writing to the Agency's Water Docket by June 17, 2002.

There will be a limited number of teleconference lines available for those who are unable to attend in person. Information about how to access these lines will accompany the pre-meeting materials to be mailed out to those who register, and also will be available prior to the day of this meeting through the previously-noted point of contact at RESOLVE, Inc.

Any person needing special accommodations at this meeting, including wheelchair access, should contact the same previously-noted point of contact at RESOLVE, Inc., at least five business days before the meeting so that the Agency can make appropriate arrangements.

Registration for this meeting will occur from 8:45 a.m. to 9 a.m.

As published on December 18, 2001 (66 FR 65209), EPA modified the offshore general permit, which was originally published November 2, 1998 (63 FR 58722) and modified April 19, 1999 (64 FR 19156), to address certain discharges and uses of non-aqueous based (synthetic) drilling fluids. The December 18, 2001 (66 FR 65209), modification will become effective on February 16, 2002, and can be found on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/region6/6wq/npdes/genpermt/offshore/fr_not.pdf.

EPA received several comments on the draft permit, published on June 4, 2001 (66 FR 29948), requesting additional time for compliance with the permit modification. EPA is aware that this permit modification may cause many permittees to add and/or modify existing pollution control equipment in order to obtain compliance with the modified permit. Upon review of the probable process modifications necessary for compliance, EPA has agreed that a reasonable schedule for compliance may be issued for facilities that become aware of a violation, report it to EPA, and request an administrative compliance order within thirty (30) days of becoming aware of the violation. Compliance Order Notices for all violations except violations of the four-day sediment toxicity limitation, must be postmarked before August 16, 2002. Compliance Order Notices for violations of the four-day sediment toxicity limitation must be postmarked before February 1, 2003. The compliance order will provide until August 16, 2002, for permittees to make any necessary pollution control changes for all discharges to come into compliance with the new permit modifications for all new limitations except the four-day sediment toxicity limit. Permittees will be given until February 1, 2003, to make any necessary pollution control changes for all discharges to come into compliance with the new limitation for four-day sediment toxicity.

It is the policy of EPA to achieve full compliance with the NPDES permit program as rapidly as possible. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, please contact the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. An “Information Sheet” relating to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) may pertain to you and you may find this “Information Sheet” on the Internet at <http://es.epa.gov/oeca/ccsmd/sbrefa.pdf> . You may be subject to providing a “Notice of Registrants Duty to Disclose” relating to the disclosure of environmental legal proceedings to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This SEC notice may be found on the Internet at <http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6en/w/sec.pdf>. You can find out more information regarding your NPDES Offshore program on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/region6/offshore.

The following Findings are made, and Order issued, under the authority vested in the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), by sections 308(a) and 309(a) of the Clean Water Act (“the Act”), 33 U.S.C. 1318(a) and 1319(a). The Administrator of EPA has delegated the authority to issue this Order to the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 6, who has further delegated this authority to the Director of the Compliance Assurance and Enforcement Division. Issuance of this order is not “final agency action” and is subject to judicial review only in connection with an action to enforce its terms.

1. Section 402(a) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 1342(a), provides that the Administrator of EPA may issue permits under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program for the discharge of pollutants from point sources to waters of the United States. Any such discharge is subject to the specific terms and conditions prescribed in the applicable permit.

2. Pursuant to section 402(a) of the Act, EPA issued the “Final NPDES General Permit for New and Existing Sources and New Discharges in the Offshore Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Category for the Western Portion of the Outer Continental Shelf of the Gulf of Mexico,” 63 FR 58722 (November 2, 1998) (GMG290000), which was modified April 19, 1999 (64 FR 19156), and December 18, 2001 (66 FR 65209). The general permit authorizes discharges from new sources, existing sources, and new discharges in the Offshore Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category (40 CFR part 435, subpart A) to operators of lease blocks in the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category which are located in Federal waters of the Western Portion of the Gulf of Mexico (defined as seaward of the outer boundary of the territorial seas off Louisiana and Texas) to the Western Portion of the Federal Waters of the Gulf of Mexico (“the industry”), but only in accordance with the conditions of the permit. The permit does not authorize discharges from facilities located in or discharging to the territorial seas of Louisiana or Texas or from facilities defined as “coastal,” “onshore,” or “stripper” (see 40 CFR part 435, subparts C, E, and E). The permit does, however, authorize the discharge of produced water to the Western portion of the Federal Waters of the Gulf of Mexico from wells located in lease blocks in the territorial seas of Louisiana and Texas.

3. As published on December 18, 2001 (66 FR 65209), EPA Region 6 again modified the permit to allow for discharges of drill cuttings generated using synthetic and other non-aqueous based drilling fluids and hydrostatic test water from pressure testing of existing pipelines. These permit modifications, effective February 16, 2002, impose new discharge limitations and standards for non-aqueous drilling fluids as specified below. Any further reference to “the permit” in this Order shall refer to the modified permit published on December 18, 2001 (66 FR 65209).

The permittee shall analyze a representative sample of the stock base fluids at the frequencies listed below. The test results shall be reported on the Discharge Monitoring Report.

Alternatively, the permittee may provide certification, as documented by the supplier(s), that the stock base fluid being used on the well will meet the limits listed below.

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH). The mass ratio in grams of PAH (as phenanthrene) divided by the mass in grams of base fluids shall not exceed 0.00001. Monitoring shall be performed at least once per year on each base fluid blend. See part I, section D.10. of the permit.

Sediment Toxicity. The ratio of the 10-day LC 50 of C 16 -C 18 internal olefin or C 12 -C 14 or C 8 ester reference fluid divided by the 10-day LC 50 sediment toxicity test with Leptocheirus plumulosus of the base fluid shall not exceed 1.0. Monitoring shall be performed at least once per year on each base fluid blend. See part I, section D.8 of the permit.

Biodegradation Rate. The ratio of the cumulative gas production (ml) of C 16 -C 18 internal olefin or C 12 -C 14 or C 8 ester reference fluid divided by the cumulative gas production (ml) of stock base fluid, both at 275 days, shall not exceed 1.0. Monitoring shall be performed at least once per year on each base fluid blend. See part I, section D.9. of the permit.

Exception: Until February 1, 2003 a blend of different non-aqueous base fluids may be considered compliant with the biodegradation rate limit if the weighted average of the base fluids' biodegradation rate is greater than that of the C 16 -C 18 internal olefin standard tested concurrently.

Sediment Toxicity. The ratio of the 4-day LC 50 of C 16 -C 18 internal olefin reference drilling fluid divided by the 4-day LC 50 of the drilling fluids removed from cuttings at the solids control equipment shall not exceed 1.0. Monitoring shall be performed at least once per month on drilling fluids which meet the stock limitations for a C 16 -C 18 internal olefin. The final monthly sample shall be collected at the end of drilling with non-aqueous based drilling fluids. For drilling fluids which meet stock limitations for C 12 -C 14 ester or C 8 ester, monitoring shall be performed at least once per well at the end of drilling with non-aqueous based drilling fluids. See appendix A of the permit.

The reference drilling fluid shall be formulated from C 16 -C 18 internal olefin and meet the criteria listed in Table 1 of 40 CFR part 435, subpart A, appendix 8. A uniform emulsifier package shall be used for all formulations of reference drilling fluids.

Formation Oil. No discharge. Monitoring shall be performed on the drilling fluid as follows:

(1) Once prior to drilling using the gas chromatography/mass spectrometry test method specified in part I, section D.11. of the permit. The test results shall be reported on the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR).

Alternatively, the permittee may provide certification, as documented by the supplier(s), that the drilling fluid being used on the well will meet the no discharge limit for formation oil.

(2) Once per week during drilling using the Reverse Phase Extraction test method specified in part I, section D.12. of the permit.

Monitoring shall be performed at least once per day when generating new cuttings, except when meeting the conditions of the Best Management Practices described below. Operators conducting fast drilling (i.e., greater than 500 linear feet advancement of the drill bit per day using non-aqueous fluids) shall collect and analyze one set of drill cuttings samples per 500 linear feet drilled, with a maximum of three sets per day. Operators shall collect a single discrete drill cuttings sample for each point of discharge to the ocean. The weighted average of the results of all discharge points for each sampling interval will be used to determine compliance. See part I, section D.13. of the permit.

Drilling Fluids which meet stock limitations for C 16 -C 18 internal olefin: The end-of-well maximum weighted mass ratio averaged over all well sections drilled using non-aqueous fluids shall not exceed 6.9 grams non-aqueous base fluids per 100 grams of wet drill cuttings.

Drilling fluids which meet stock limitations for C 12 -C 14 ester or C 8 ester: The end-of-well maximum weighted mass ratio averaged over all well sections drilled using non-aqueous fluids shall not exceed 9.4 grams non-aqueous base fluids per 100 grams of wet drill cuttings.

See also part I, section B.2.c. of the permit.

4. To maintain oil and gas production and comply with the permit's new limits established in the permit modifications, Permittees may have to modify process controls to decrease the sediment toxicity, biodegradation, formation oil contamination, PAH content, and retention of drilling fluids on drill cuttings of the discharge. This may include installing new pollution control equipment for compliance with the permit.

5. Permittees may reasonably take all actions necessary to achieve final compliance with the permit's limitations by August 16, 2002, except for the four-day sediment toxicity limit, with which the Permittees may reasonably take all actions necessary to achieve compliance by February 1, 2003. Upon submission of a Compliance Order Notice, permittees shall become Respondents under this administrative compliance order. The EPA will acknowledge receipt of Compliance Order Notices and send confirmation to Respondents.

6. Respondents are “persons,” as that term is defined at section 502(5) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 1362(5), and 40 CFR 122.2.

7. At all relevant times, Respondents owned or operated offshore platforms described in the Compliance Order Notices (herein “the facilities”) and were therefore “owners or operators” within the meaning of 40 CFR 122.2.

8. At all relevant times, the facilities were “point sources” subject to a “discharge” of “pollutant[s]” with its discharges to the receiving waters of the Gulf of Mexico, which are “waters of the United States” within the meaning of section 502 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 1362, and 40 CFR 122.2.

9. Because Respondents owned or operated facilities that were point sources subject to discharges of pollutants to waters of the U.S., Respondents and the facilities were subject to the Act and the NPDES program.

10. Under section 301 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311, it is unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point source to waters of the United States, except with the authorization of, and in compliance with, an NPDES permit issued pursuant to section 402 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 1342.

11. Respondents obtained NPDES permit coverage for discharges from new sources, existing sources, and new discharges in the Offshore Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category.

12. Violations are those violations specified by Respondents in the Compliance Order Notices submitted to EPA per instructions in Order Paragraph A below.

13. Each violation of the conditions of the permit is a violation of section 402 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 1342, or section 301 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311, and may be subject to enforcement as set forth in section 309 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 1319.

14. Given the large number of persons regulated under the permit, it would be impractical for EPA to issue individual compliance orders to all permit violators or conduct “show cause” meetings to establish individual compliance schedules for all such violators. A general compliance order setting forth procedures for establishing such schedules will avoid delays attendant on such meetings and issuance of individual compliance orders.

Based on these Findings and pursuant to the authority of sections 308(a) and 309(a) of the Act, EPA hereby orders Respondents to take the following actions:

A. Any NPDES permittee in the Offshore Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Category for the Western Portion of the Outer Continental Shelf of the Gulf of Mexico with coverage under the permit may request coverage under this administrative compliance order by submitting a “Compliance Order Notice,” to EPA Region 6. Such Compliance Order Notices must be postmarked before August 16, 2002, and no more than thirty (30) days after becoming aware of a violation, except for violations of the four-day sediment toxicity limit. For violations of the four-day sediment toxicity limit, all Compliance Order Notices must be postmarked before February 1, 2003, and no more than thirty (30) day after becoming aware of a violation. All Compliance Order Notices shall be sent to: Ms. Sharon Haggard, Water Enforcement Branch (6EN-WC), U.S. EPA, Region 6, P.O. Box 50625, Dallas, Texas 75250.

The Compliance Order Notice must be signed and certified by an “authorized official” (40 CFR 122.22), and include the following:

i. Identification of the violating facility by name, location and NPDES facility identification number (GMG29####) (by lease block), the legal name and address of its operator, the name and address of an authorized official, as defined at 40 CFR 122.22, and the name, address, and telephone number of a contact person with whom EPA may further discuss the violation.

ii. A brief description of the violation, Respondent's opinion on the cause of the violation, and the basis for that opinion.

iii. A commitment to achieve final compliance with the permit by August 16, 2002, except for the four-day sediment toxicity limit; and a commitment to comply with the four-day sediment toxicity limit by February 1, 2003.

B. By August 16, 2002, Respondents shall complete all necessary pollution control changes for all discharges to come into compliance with the new permit modifications for all new limitations except the four-day sediment toxicity limit. By February 1, 2003, Respondents shall complete all necessary pollution control changes for all discharges to come into compliance with the new limitation for four-day sediment toxicity. This Order covers only those discharges by Respondents that are authorized by the permit published on December 18, 2001 (66 FR 65209) and listed in the Compliance Order Notices described above.

C. Respondents shall report all violations in accordance with permit requirements, including those that result during the period of this administrative compliance order. Part II.D.7. of the permit requires a 24 hour oral report or else a 24 hour e-mail to the following Internet e-mail address: r6genpermit@epa.gov. Additionally, part II.D.7 of the permit requires a written submission within 5 days of the time the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances. All reports submitted to the EPA shall be signed by an authorized person in accordance with part II.D.10. of the permit, and shall include the following certification set forth in this part of the permit:

D. Issuance of this Order shall not be deemed an election by EPA to forego any administrative, civil, or criminal action to seek penalties, fines, or any other relief appropriate under the Act for the violations cited herein. EPA reserves the right to seek any remedy available under the law that it deems appropriate for the violations cited.

E. Failure to comply with this Order or the Act can result in further administrative action, or a civil judicial action initiated by the U.S. Department of Justice. If the United States initiates a civil judicial action, Respondents will be subject to civil penalties of up to $27,500 per day per violation. 1

F. This Order is not an NPDES permit, and compliance with the terms and conditions of this Order does not relieve Respondents of their obligations to apply for and comply with any applicable permit, and comply with any applicable federal, state or local law or regulation.

G. This Order shall be effective on February 16, 2003.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0954.

Title: Implementation of the 911 Act.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit, state, not-for-profit institutions, and state, local or tribal governments.

Number of Respondents: 800.

Estimated Time Per Response: .50-2 hours (average).

Frequency of Response: Third party disclosure requirement, on occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 3,100 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Needs and Uses: On January 11, 2002, the Commission received emergency OMB approval for information collection burdens contained in rules adopted in a Fifth Report and Order, in CC Docket No. 92-105, First Report and Order in WT Docket No. 00-110, and Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration in both dockets, regarding implementation of the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999. The approval expires on June 30, 2002. Therefore, the Commission now resubmits this information collection, with no change, to the Office of Management and Budget for the regular three-year approval. The Commission requires certain carriers to file various transition reports. Those affected carriers are only: (1) Those operating in counties where there is no 911 service; (2) those operating in counties that are in the process of implementing 911; or (3) those operating in counties that have basic 911 service only in some parts as summarized by the National Emergency Number Association (NENA) in its Report Card to the Nation (Congressional Summary, 2001), and more specifically identified in the list NENA has submitted at the Commission's request. In addition, in March 2002, the Commission issued a Public Notice in which it offered a suggested template or sample as an optional guide to completing these reports. The coordination requirements will help to minimize the chances of confusion between all concerned parties and will improve the chances of a smooth, speedy transition to 911 service.

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated May 7, 2002, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.

Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the authority vested in the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency under Executive Order 12148, I hereby appoint Michael Bolch of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.

I do hereby determine the following areas of the Commonwealth of Kentucky to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:

Breckinridge, Crittenden, Grayson, Hancock, Hardin, Henderson, Hopkins, McLean, Meade, Ohio, Union, and Webster Counties for Individual Assistance.

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 May 7, 2002:

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective May 10, 2002.

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Missouri is hereby amended to include Individual Assistance in 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 May 6, 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:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Virginia is hereby amended to include Public Assistance in 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 May 5, 2002:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of West Virginia is hereby amended to include Public Assistance in 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 May 5, 2002:

In a notice published in the Federal Register of June 7, 2000 (65 FR 36148), FDA announced that a color additive petition (CAP 0C0271) had been filed by Wesley Jessen, Corp., 333 East Howard Ave., Des Plaines, IL 60018 (now Ciba Vision Corp., 11460 Johns Creek Pkwy., Duluth, GA 30097-1556). The petition proposed to amend the color additive regulations to provide for the safe use of mica to color contact lenses.

During its review of the petition, the agency determined that the subject color additives are composite pigments, commonly known as pearlescent pigments, composed of mica coated with iron oxides or mica coated with titanium dioxide. Therefore, FDA is amending the filing notice of June 7, 2000, to state that the petition proposes that the color additive regulations in 21 CFR part 73 subpart D—Medical Devices be amended to provide for the safe use of mica coated with iron oxides or mica coated with titanium dioxide, collectively identified as mica-based pearlescent pigments, in contact lenses.

The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.32(l) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (sec. 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5))), notice is given that a food additive petition (FAP No. 2A4735) has been filed by Nutrinova, Inc., 285 Davidson Ave., suite 102, Somerset, NJ 08873. The petition proposes to amend the food additive regulations in § 172.800 Acesulfame potassium (21 CFR 172.800) to provide for the safe use of acesulfame potassium as a general-purpose sweetener and flavor enhancer.

The potential environmental impact of this action is being reviewed. To encourage public participation consistent with regulations promulgated under the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1501.4(b)), the agency is placing the environmental assessment submitted with the petition that is the subject of this notice on display at the Dockets Management Branch (see ADDRESSES ) for public review and comment. Interested persons may submit to the Dockets Management Branch (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments, on or before June 19, 2002. Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. FDA will also place on public display any amendments to, or comments on, the petitioner's environmental assessment without further announcement in the Federal Register . If, based on its review, the agency finds that an environmental impact statement is not required and this petition results in a regulation, the notice of availability of the agency's finding of no significant impact and the evidence supporting that finding will be published with the regulation in the Federal Register in accordance with 21 CFR 25.51(b).

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

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

Title of Proposal: Single Family Mortgage Insurance on Hawaiian Homelands.

OMB Control Number, if applicable: 2502-0358.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: FHA insures mortgages on single family dwelling under various provisions of the National housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. ). The Housing and Urban Rural Recovery Act (HURRA), Pub. L. 98-181, amended the National Housing Act to add Section 247 to permit FHA to insure mortgages for properties located on Hawaiian Homelands. Under this program the mortgagor must be a Native Hawaiian. The Statute preconditions that the Department of Hawaiian Homelands (DHHL) of the State of Hawaii (a) agrees to be a co-mortgagor, and (b) guarantees to reimburse the Secretary for any mortgage insurance claims paid in connection with a property on Hawaiian Homelands or offers other security acceptable to the Secretary. The collection of information and the regulatory origins for them are in accordance with Section 203.43i which states that the lender will: (a) Verify that the loan applicant is a Native Hawaiian and that the applicant holds a lease on land in a Hawaiian Homelands' area; (b) report on delinquent borrowers in accordance with Section 203.439(c); and (c) provide documentation to HUD to support that the requirements of Section 203.665 have been met.

Agency form numbers, if applicable: None.

Estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: The estimated total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection is 253; the number of respondents is 112 generating approximately 1,170 annual responses; the frequency of response is on occasion; and the number of hours per response varies from 3 minutes to 30 minutes.

Status of the proposed information collection: Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired.

On March 26, 2002 (67 FR 13826), HUD published its Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 Super Notice of Funding Availability (SuperNOFA) for HUD's discretionary grant programs. The FY 2002 SuperNOFA announced the availability of approximately $2.2 billion in HUD program funds covering 41 grant categories within programs operated and administered by HUD offices.

This notice published in today's Federal Register makes certain corrections and clarifications to the funding availability announcements of the following programs: Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance; Youthbuild; Resident Opportunities and Self Sufficiency (ROSS) Program; Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program; Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities Program; Community Outreach Partnership Centers; Historically Black Colleges and Universities; Tribal Colleges and Universities Program; Rural Housing and Economic Development; Brownfield Economic Development Initiative; Lead Hazard Control; Healthy Homes and Lead Technical Studies; Healthy Homes Demonstration Program; and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program for Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages.

A summary of the technical corrections that will be made by this document are as follows. The page numbering shown in bracket identifies where the individual funding availability announcement that is being corrected can be found in the March 26, 2002 SuperNOFA, and the page numbering in parentheses identifies where the specific language that is being corrected can be found in the March 26, 2002 SuperNOFA.

HUD amends the List of HUD Field Offices in APPENDIX A-1 on page 13844 to show the correct address, phone and FAX numbers of all HUD Field Offices. The previous Appendix contained some inaccurate listings. ( See page 13844).

In the table on page 13915, under paragraph J of Section V (Application Selection Process), HUD corrects the number of points under Rating Factor 3, Subfactor 1 to read 14 points. HUD also corrects the number of points under Rating Factor 3, Subfactor (2) to read 5 points. Additionally, the entry “All Project Types” under “PROJECT TYPE” for Rating Factor 2 is erroneous and is removed.

Under Rating Factor 2 (Need/Extent of the Problem) on page 13916, HUD is revising paragraph (2) to add language with respect to the requirements for documenting persons employed by the project.

Paragraph (C)(6) of Section VI on page 13919 is removed, because it is not possible to award RC/EZ/EC bonus points under the Community Development Block Grants For Indian Tribes And Alaskan Native Villages program.

Section I on page 13929 is revised to add a new paragraph that sets out the appropriate address to which applications are to be mailed. The revision also corrects the caption and placement of some of the paragraphs in the section.

Paragraph (D) of Section IV (Program Requirements) is amended by adding a new sentence at the end of the paragraph to read “You should use HUD-3001 Community Outreach Partnership Centers Matching Requirements to show how you have met the match requirements.” (See page 13931).

Paragraph IV(D)(2)(b) (Outreach Activities) is amended by removing the last two sentences in the second paragraph and substituting the following sentence: “An example of how you should calculate match correctly, and Forms 30011 (New Directions) and 30012 (New Grants) are included in the Application Kit. The completed form should be included with your application.” (See page 13931).

Paragraph (C) of Section VI (Application Submission Requirements) is removed because the form is not required. The remaining paragraphs are redesignated accordingly. (See page 13935).

HUD corrects the form number in paragraph (A)(3) of Section VI (Application Submission Requirements) to read SF-424D. (See page 13956).

In Section III(B) (Eligible Applicants) on page 13972, HUD adds an introductory sentence that clarifies the definition of an “Eligible Applicant.”

In the Program Overview at page 13981, HUD extends the Application Deadline from June 20, 2002 to July 20, 2002. Consistent with the HUD Reform Act of 1989, this change permits NHIs with multiple campuses time to submit one application per campus, rather than being limited to submitting one application per institution. Similarly, in Section I (Application Due Date, Application Kits, Further Information, and Technical Assistance), page 19383, second column, last paragraph, HUD removes language that limits NHIs with multiple campuses from submitting more than one application per institution.

In Section III(B) (Eligible Applicants), on page 13984, HUD adds an introductory sentence that clarifies the definition of an “Eligible Applicant.”

Also in Section III(B), in the second paragraph, middle column, HUD corrects the first sentence of the paragraph to read “ If you are an NHI and your institution has multiple campuses, each one is eligible to apply separately, as long as it meets the above-described enrollment threshold. You may undertake as many projects and activities as you want, as long as you do not exceed the $600,000 cap for an application.” The remainder of the paragraph is removed.

In Section III(B) (Eligible Applicants) on page 13995, HUD adds an introductory sentence that clarifies the definition of an “Eligible Applicant.”

In paragraph (E)(3) of Section V (Application Submission Requirements) on page 13999, HUD corrects the number of factors for award to read five.

HUD amends paragraph B of Section IV (Program Requirements) to add a sentence at the end of the paragraph that reserves to HUD the right to approve no-cost time extensions for a period not to exceed 36 months. ( See page 14070).

HUD amends paragraph (c)(ii) on page 14074 under Rating Factor 3 (Soundness of Approach) to correct the unit of measurement to read μg with respect to the standard for testing lead in dust.

HUD amends Section V(A) (Submitting Applications for Grants) on page 14096 to remove the parenthetical phrase—“( e.g., 12 to 24 months from the date of award)”. (See page 14096, middle column, first full paragraph.)

HUD amends Section IV(E) (Period of Performance) by removing the existing language and substituting new language to read as follows: “ Period of Performance . The period of performance is 36 months. HUD reserves the right to approve no-cost time extensions for up to an additional 3 years based upon the submission of adequate justification by the grantee.” (See page 14096).

HUD amends paragraph (B) (Period of Performance) of Section IV by removing the existing language and substituting new language to read as follows: “ Period of Performance . The period of performance is 36 months. HUD reserves the right to approve no-cost time extensions for up to an additional 3 years based upon the submission of adequate justification by the grantee.” (See page 14117).

In Section VI (Application Selection Process), HUD amends paragraph (B)(3)(A)(ii) to remove the word “more” and substitute in its place “fewer.” ( See page 14167).

On page 14147, first column, HUD amends paragraph (G)(4) of Section VI (Application Submission Requirements) to add the requirement that Form HUD 40122, Section 108 Loan Guarantee, State Certifications Related to Nonentitlement Entities be submitted to HUD as part of the BEDI application package, along with the requirement to submit Form HUD-40076-EDI/BEDI, Rating Factor 4: Leveraging Resources/Financial Need Sources and Uses Statement. The two Forms are added to Appendix A at pages 14154 and 14155.

On page 14364, middle column, HUD amends the final paragraph of Section II (Amount Allocated) to correct the reference to “FY 2003” to read “calendar year 2003”.

On page 14365, third column, Section III(A)(3) (Project Renewals), in line 7 of the first paragraph, HUD also is correcting the reference to “FY 2003” to read “calendar year 2003”.

HUD amends paragraph (C)(2)(iii) of Section II (Amount Allocated) on page 14208 to clarify the category and maximum amounts for which tribes are eligible. The amendment also makes clear that Tribes/TDHEs may serve a single tribal group.

In paragraph (3)(a)(i) (Maximum grant amount) of Section II (Amount Allocated) on page 14208, the reference to section III(e) is corrected to read II(C)(3)(e).

In paragraph (C)(3)(e) of Section II on page 14208, the reference to the fiscal year is corrected to read 2002, not 2001.

Paragraph (D)(1)(a) of Section III on page 14213 is corrected to add “and tribes/TDHEs” immediately after “(IROs)”.

In paragraph (ii) of Section (II)(C)(5), the introductory phrase is amended by removing the words “new and”. (See page 14209).

In Section V(D)(2) (Factors for Award Used to Evaluate and Rate HSS Applications) in the second sentence, HUD corrects a typographical error to change the maximum number of points available to read 102, not 1024 (See page 14221).

Paragraph (i) of Section II(C)(4) is amended to add “/or” immediately after “and” in the first sentence. (See page 14208).

Paragraph (E) (Number of Applications Permitted) of Section II is amended to add a new sentence before the last sentence in the paragraph to read as follows: “A PHA, RA, RO, or nonprofit may not submit an application to serve the same development.” ( See page 14209).

In Section III (Program Description; Eligible Applicants; Eligible Activities) paragraph (F)(1) (Eligible Applicants) is amended by adding “/or” immediately after “and” and by adding “or participated” immediately after “participates”. Also in Section III, paragraph (F)(2)(a) is amended by adding “/or” immediately after “and” and by adding “or participated” immediately after “participates”. ( See page 14215).

Paragraph (E)(2)(b) in Section VI (Application Submission Requirements) is revised to read “(b) and/or participates or participated in a public housing family self-sufficiency program funded from operating subsidies,” ( See page 14229).

In Section I (Application Due Date, Application Kits, Further Information, and Technical Assistance), HUD corrects the first paragraph to provide that all mailed applications must be postmarked on or before midnight of June 5, 2002 and received by HUD within 15 days of the due date. ( See page 14377).

Also in Section I, HUD is adding a paragraph 5 to state that “Applications for projects proposed to be located within the jurisdiction of the Grand Rapids, Michigan Office must be submitted to the Detroit, Michigan Office.” (See middle column, page 14377). Further, HUD is notifying applicants of address changes to several local HUD offices. See the Section 811 technical corrections involving page 14439 of the Section 811 program NOFA.

The Note at the end of Section III(D) (Ineligible Activities) is amended to clarify that existing Federally funded or assisted projects or projects insured or guaranteed by a Federal agency involving refinancing are not permissible activities under this Section 202 NOFA. This clarification is necessary because HUD does not consider it appropriate to utilize scarce program resources to refinance projects that have already received some form of assistance under a Federal program. For example, Section 202 or Section 202/8 direct loan projects cannot be refinanced with capital advances and project rental assistance. ( See middle column, page 14383).

Section V(C) on page 14385, middle column, is amended to add Renewal Communities (RC) to the other two federally designated areas appearing in the section. Identical amendments are made to Section V(D), first column (see page 14386), Section V(D), Bonus Points, third column (see page 14387), and the Table of Contents in Appendix B (see page 14396). The reference in Section V(C), Section V(D) and in the Table of Contents in Appendix B now reads RC/EZ/EC, making it consistent with the reference used in Section III(C)(1) of the General Section of the SuperNOFA. ( See page 13839). The amendment clarifies that projects that are located in an RC/EZ/EC area are eligible to receive the two bonus points in the rating of their application.

HUD amends paragraph (B)(7)(i) of Section VI (Application Submission Requirements) to correct the title of Form HUD-2990 to read Certification of Consistency with the RC/EZ/EC Strategic Plan (HUD-2990). (See page 14391).

In Section VI (Application Submission Requirements), paragraph (B)(4)(c)(iv) is amended to read “Describe your plan for getting your project to initial closing and start of construction within the initial 18-month term of the fund reservation (optional).” (See page 14389). In making the revision, HUD is not asking applicants to describe their plans to complete construction and finally close the project within the initial 18-month fund reservation term because HUD recognizes that such an event would be unlikely.

Under Rating Factor 3 (Soundness of Approach), paragraph (h) is amended to read “(-1 point) Your application did not include a plan for getting your project to initial closing and start of construction within the initial fund reservation period of 18-months.” ( See page 14387). The amendment here is consistent with the change made to Section VI(B)(4)(c)(iv).

Paragraph (B)(4)(d)(i)(A) (pertaining to HUD's site control requirements) of Section VI (Application Submission Requirements) is amended to require a lease with a term of 50 years with renewable provisions for 25 years in cases where the form of site control is a leasehold. HUD recognizes that in some areas, applicants are unable to obtain a lease on sites for an initial term of 75 years due to, for example, state, local or tribal laws prohibiting such long-term leases. This restriction has the effect of excluding such sites from the Section 202 program. HUD has determined to make the change to require 50-year leases with renewable provisions for 25 years to expand the supply of housing for the elderly in those areas that otherwise would be denied the benefit of such housing.

In Appendix B, HUD corrects the Application Form needed to file your Section 202 application with HUD and replaces it with Form HUD-92015-CA, Supportive Housing for the Elderly, Section 202, Application for Capital Advance Summary Information. (See page 14397) This correction is necessary because Form HUD-92016-CA, Section 811, Application for Capital Advance Summary Information, which was inadvertently included in Appendix B of the Section 202 program NOFA, is not used in filing a Section 202 application.

In Section I (Application Due Date, Application Kits, Further Information, and Technical Assistance), HUD corrects the first paragraph to provide that all mailed applications must be postmarked on or before midnight of June 5, 2002 and received by HUD within 15 days of the due date. (See page 14423).

Also in Section I, HUD is adding a paragraph 5 to state that “Applications for projects proposed to be located within the jurisdiction of the Grand Rapids, Michigan Office must be submitted to the Detroit, Michigan Office”. ( See middle column, page 14423). APPENDIX A: Local HUD Offices in the section captioned Notes similarly is amended to reflect the addition of paragraph 5 and corrections to addresses and/or telephone numbers of several local HUD Offices (listed as paragraph 6 in APPENDIX A). ( See page 14439).

HUD amends the Fiscal Year 2002 Section 811 Allocations chart on page 14427 to add the following footnote to the Los Angeles Hub total (the footnote is indicated by an asterisk): “This amount includes $518,500 in capital advance authority to fund Therapeutic Living Centers for the Blind of West Hills, California. Since this 6-unit project was not selected in FY 2001 due to HUD error, the application will be funded from the FY 2002 allocation to the Los Angeles Office.”

The Note at the end of Section III(C) (Eligible Activities) is amended to clarify that existing Federally funded or assisted projects or projects insured or guaranteed by a Federal agency involving refinancing are not permissible activities under this Section 811 NOFA. This clarification is necessary because HUD does not consider it appropriate to utilize scarce program resources to refinance projects that have already received some form of assistance under a Federal program. For example, Section 202, Section 202/8, or 202/PAC direct loan projects cannot be refinanced with capital advances and project rental assistance. (See middle column, page 14428).

Section V(C) on page 14431 is amended to add Renewal Communities (RC) to the other two federally designated areas appearing in the section. Identical amendments are made to Section V(D), first column, (see page 14432), Section V(D), Bonus Points , third column, (see page 14433), and the Table of Contents in the Appendix to the NOFA (see page 14446). The reference in Section V(C), V(D), and in the Table of Contents in the Appendix now reads RC/EC/EZ, making it consistent with the reference used in Section III(C)(1) of the General Section of the SuperNOFA. (See page 13839). The amendment clarifies that projects that are located in an RC/EZ/EC area are eligible to receive the two bonus points in the rating of their application.

HUD amends paragraph (B)(7)(i) of Section VI (Application Submission Requirements) to correct the title of Form HUD-2990 to read Certification of Consistency with the RC/EZ/EC Strategic Plan (HUD-2990). ( See page 14438).

Paragraph (B)(4)(c)(iv) in Section VI is amended to read “Describe your plan for getting your project to initial closing and start of construction within the initial 18-month term of the fund reservation (optional).” (See page 14435). The amendment makes it clear that HUD is not asking applicants to describe their plans to complete construction and finally close the project within the initial 18-month fund reservation term because HUD recognizes that such an event would be unlikely.

Under Rating Factor 3 (Soundness of Approach), paragraph (f) is amended to read “(-1 point) Your application did not include a plan for getting your project to initial closing and start of construction within the initial fund reservation period of 18-months.” ( See page 14433). The amendment here is consistent with the change made to Section VI(B)(4)(c)(iv).

Paragraph (B)(4)(d)(i)(A) (pertaining to HUD's site control requirements) of Section VI(Application Submission Requirements) is amended to require a lease with a term of 50 years with renewable provisions for 25 years in cases where the applicant submits an application with site control and the form of site control is a leasehold. HUD recognizes that in some areas, applicants are unable to obtain a lease on sites for an initial term of 75 years due to, for example, state, local or tribal laws prohibiting such long-term leases. This restriction has the effect of excluding such sites from the Section 811 program. HUD has determined to make the change to require 50-year leases with renewable provisions for 25 years to expand the supply of housing for persons with disabilities in those areas that otherwise would be denied the benefit of such housing.

Accordingly, in the Super Notice of Funding Availability (SuperNOFA) for HUD's Discretionary Grant Programs for Fiscal Year 2002 [Docket No. FR-4723-N-01], beginning at 67 FR 13826, in the issue of Tuesday, March 26, 2002, the following corrections are made.

Appendix A-1 List of HUD Field Offices beginning on page 13844 and continuing through page 13859 is removed and replaced with a corrected Appendix A-1. List of HUD Field Offices.

On page 13915, in the table under paragraph (J) (Factors for Award Used to Evaluate and Rate Applications), HUD makes the following corrections:

(a) the number of points under Rating Factor 3, Subfactor (1) is corrected to read 14.

(b) the number of points under Rating Factor 3, Subfactor (2) is corrected to read 5.

(c) Under the heading “Project Type”, for Rating Factor 2 the entry “All Project Types” is removed.

As corrected, the table now reads as follows:

On page 13916, under Rating Factor 2 (Need/Extent of the Problem), HUD adds the following language to the end of paragraph (2)—

For documenting persons employed by the project, you do not need to submit a demographic data certification and corresponding documentation. However, you do need to submit information that describes the nature of the jobs created or retained. Such information includes but is not limited to proposed job descriptions, salaries and the number of full-time equivalent positions. If you believe jobs will be retained as a result of the ICDBG project, include information that shows clearly and objectively, that jobs will be lost without the ICDBG project. Jobs that are retained only for the period of the grant will not count under this Rating Factor.

On page 13919, paragraph (C)(6) of Section VI (Application Submission Requirements) is removed.

On page 13919, existing paragraphs (C)(7) and (C)(8) of Section VI (Application Submission Requirements) are renumbered (C)(6) and (C)(7), respectively.

On page 13929, Section I, HUD corrects the caption (the text of the paragraph remains unchanged) that reads “Address for Submitting Applications” to read “Application Submission Procedures”.

On page 13929 in Section I (Application Due Date, Application Kits, Further Information, and Technical Assistance), HUD adds a new section to follow the paragraph captioned “Mailed Applications” to read as follows:

Address for Submitting Applications. Your completed application consists of one original and two copies of your application. Submit the original and two copies to the following address: Processing and Control Branch, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Room 7251, Washington, DC, 20410. When submitting your application, please refer to the COPC program, and include your name, mailing address (including zip code) and telephone number (including area code).

On page 13931, HUD amends Section IV(D) (Match) by adding a new sentence at the end of the section to read as follows:

You should use HUD-30001 Community Outreach Partnership Centers Matching Requirements to show how you have met the match requirements.

On page 13931, HUD amends Section IV(D)(1)(b) by removing the last two sentences in the second paragraph and adding new language in their place. As amended, the new paragraph now reads:

(b) Outreach Activities. 35% of the total project costs of establishing and operating outreach activities.

In previous competitions, some applicants incorrectly based their match calculations on the Federal grant amount, not on the total project costs. An example of how you should calculate match correctly, and Forms 30011 (New Directions) and 30012 (New Grants) are included in the Application Kit. The completed form should be included with your application.

On page 13935, paragraph (C) (Application Checklist) of Section VI (Application Submission Requirements) is removed.

On page 13956, in paragraph (A)(3) of Section VI (Application Submission Requirements), HUD corrects the form number to read SF-424D, Assurances for Construction Programs.

On page 13972, HUD amends Section III(B) (Eligible Applicants) by adding an introductory sentence to read as follows:

“Eligible applicants are public or private nonprofit institutions of higher education granting two- or four-year degrees and accredited by a national or regional accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education.” With the addition of the sentence, paragraph (B) now reads as follows:

(B) Eligible Applicants. Eligible applicants are public or private nonprofit institutions of higher education granting two- or four-year degrees and accredited by a national or regional accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. Only if your institution is a nonprofit institution of higher education and meets the statutory definition of an HSI in Title V of the 1998 Amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965 (Pub. L. 105-244) are you eligible to apply. In order for you to meet this definition, at least 25 percent of the full-time undergraduate students enrolled in your institution must be Hispanic and not less than 50 percent of these Hispanic students must be low-income individuals. You are not required to be on the list of eligible institutions prepared by the U.S. Department of Education. However, if you are not, you will be required to certify in the application that you meet the statutory definition. If you are one of several campuses of the same institution, you may apply separately from the other campuses as long as your campus has a separate administrative structure and budget from the other campuses. In addition, in order to fund as many different HSIs as possible, you can only apply if you did not receive an HSIAC grant in FY 2001. If you received an HSIAC grant in FY 2000, you may reapply as long as: (1) you propose an entirely new project for a different activity; (2) you propose a different project director; and (3) you have drawn down at least 75% of your previous grant by the application due date.

On page 13983, HUD amends the paragraph entitled “Application Deadline” in the Program Overview Section to read as follows:

Application Deadline: July 20, 2002.

On page 13983, HUD amends Section I, second column, last paragraph, second sentence, to read as follows: “For ANIs, HUD only will accept one application per campus. Similarly, for NHIs HUD will only accept one application per campus.” HUD also removes the balance of this paragraph.

On page 13984, HUD amends Section III(B) by adding a new introductory sentence to read as follows: “Eligible applicants are public or private nonprofit institutions of higher education granting two- or four-year degrees and accredited by a national or regional accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education.” Also, HUD corrects the first sentence in the second paragraph of Section III(B) to read as follows: “If you are an NHI and your institution has multiple campuses, each one is eligible to apply separately, as long as it meets the above-described enrollment threshold. You may undertake as many projects and activities as you want, as long as you do not exceed the $600,000 cap for an application.”

As amended, Section III(B) now reads as follows:

(B) Eligible Applicants. Eligible applicants are public or private nonprofit institutions of higher education granting two- or four-year degrees and accredited by a national or regional accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. Only if your institution is a nonprofit institution of higher education and meets the statutory definition of either an Alaska Native institution of higher education or a Native Hawaiian institution of higher education, as contained in Title III, Part A, Section 317 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-244) are you eligible to apply. If you are an Alaska Native institution of higher education, in order for you to meet this definition, at least 20 percent of your undergraduate headcount enrollment must be Alaska Native students. If you are a Native Hawaiian institution of higher education, in order to meet this definition at least 10 percent of your undergraduate headcount enrollment must be Native Hawaiian students. You are not required to be on a list of eligible AN/NHIs prepared by the U.S. Department of Education. However, if you are not, you will be required to certify in the application that you meet the statutory definition. If you are an ANI and received a grant in FY 2001, you are not eligible to submit an application in FY 2002. If you are an NHI and received a grant in FY 2001, you are not permitted to submit an application for the same specific project in a different neighborhood, another project in the same neighborhood, or another project with the same project director as the project funded in FY 2001.

If you are an NHI and your institution has multiple campuses, each one is eligible to apply separately, as long as it meets the above-described enrollment threshold. You may undertake as many projects and activities as you want, as long as you do not exceed the $600,000 cap for an application.

On page 13995, HUD amends Section III(B) by adding a new introductory sentence to read as follows:

“Eligible applicants are public or private nonprofit institutions of higher education granting two- or four-year degrees and accredited by a national or regional accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education.” As amended, Section III(B) now reads as follows:

(B) Eligible Applicants. Eligible applicants are public or private nonprofit institutions of higher education granting two- or four-year degrees and accredited by a national or regional accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. Only if your institution is a nonprofit institution of higher education and meets the statutory definition of a TCU in Title III of the 1998 Amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965 (Pub. L. 105-244) are you eligible to apply. If you are one of several campuses of the same institution, you may apply separately from the other campuses as long as your campus has a separate administrative structure and budget from the other campuses.

On page 13999, in paragraph (E)(3) of Section V (Application Submission Requirements), HUD corrects the number of factors for award to read five, instead of four. As amended, paragraph (E)(3) now reads as follows:

(3) Your narrative statement addressing the factors for award should address each of the five factors for award. (Please note that although submitting pages in excess of the page limit will not disqualify your application, HUD will not consider the information on any excess pages, which may result in a lower score or failure to meet a threshold.)

In addressing Factor 4, for each leveraging source, cash or in-kind, you must submit a letter, dated no earlier than the date of this NOFA, from the provider on the provider's letterhead that addresses the following:

On page 14070, HUD amends Section IV(B) (Period of Performance) to add a sentence at the end of paragraph (B) to read as follows: HUD reserves the right to approve no-cost time extensions based upon the submission of adequate justification by the grantee. As amended, paragraph (B) now reads:

(B) Period of Performance. The period of performance is 36 months for first-time grant recipients. The period of performance for current and prior grantees is 30 months, except grantees receiving an award under a “Request for Renewal,” for which there is a 24-month period of performance. HUD reserves the right to approve no-cost time extensions for a period of up to 36 months based upon the submission of adequate justification by the grantee.

On page 14074, HUD amends paragraph (c)(ii) under Rating Factor 3 (Soundness of Approach) to correct the unit of measurement to read μg with respect to the standard for testing lead in dust. The corrected paragraph (c)(ii) now reads:

(ii) Describe your testing methods, schedule, and costs for performing blood lead testing, risk assessments, inspections and clearance examinations to be used. If you propose to use a more restrictive standard than the HUD/EPA thresholds ( e.g., less than 0.5% or 1.0 mg/ square centimeter for lead in paint, or less than 40, 250, 400 μg/square foot for lead in dust on floors, sills and troughs respectively); or 400 ppm in bare soil in children's play areas and 1200 ppm for bare soil in the rest of the yard), identify the standard(s) that will be used. All testing shall be performed in accordance with applicable regulations.

On page 14096, HUD amends paragraph (E) (Period of Performance) of Section IV by removing the existing language and substituting new language. As amended, Section IV(E) now reads as follows:

(E) Period of Performance. The period of performance is 36 months. HUD reserves the right to approve no-cost time extensions for up to an additional 3 years based upon the submission of adequate justification by the grantee.

On page 14096, HUD amends Section V(A) (Submitting Applications for Grants) to remove the parenthetical phrase—“( e.g., 12 to 24 months from the date of award)”. (The parenthetical phrase appears in the fourth paragraph in Section V(A). As amended, Section (V)(A) now reads:

(A) Submitting Applications for Grants. Applications that meet all of the threshold requirements will be eligible to be scored and ranked, based on the total number of points allocated for each of the rating factors described below in Section V(B) of this program section of the SuperNOFA. Your application must receive a total score of at least 70 points to remain in consideration for funding.

Awards will be made separately in rank order for Healthy Homes Technical Studies applications and Lead Technical Studies applications, within the limits of funding availability for each program.

Within each of the two technical studies programs, you may address more than one of the technical study topic areas within your proposal ( e.g., a HH technical studies applicant can address multiple topics consistent with the HHI program objectives), or submit separate applications for different topic areas. Projects need not address all of the objectives within a given topic area. While you will not be penalized for not addressing all of the specific objectives for a given topic area, if two applications for technical study in a given topic have equal scores, HUD will select the applicant whose project addresses the most objectives.

Regarding the amount to be awarded to the selected applicants, please refer to the Negotiations section in the General Section of the SuperNOFA.

Grants will be awarded in amounts ranging in size from $250,000 to $1 million. Final dollar amounts will be negotiated based upon the initial application submission, elimination of duplicative programs or activities based upon previously funded awards or selected applicants and ineligible activities.

On page 14117, HUD amends paragraph (B) (Period of Performance) of Section IV by removing the existing language and substituting new language. As amended, Section IV(B) now reads as follows:

(B) Period of Performance. The period of performance is 36 months. HUD reserves the right to approve no-cost time extensions for up to an additional 3 years based upon the submission of adequate justification by the grantee.

HUD amends paragraph (G)(4) of Section VI (Application Submission Requirements) on page 14147, first column, to add the requirement that Form HUD 40122, Section 8 Loan Guarantee, State Certifications Related to Nonentitlement Entities be submitted to HUD as part of the BEDI application package, along with the requirement to submit Form HUD-40076-EDI/BEDI, Rating Factor 4: Leveraging Resources/Financial Need Sources and Uses Statement.

As amended, paragraph (G)(4) now reads:

(4) Rating Factor 4: Leveraging Resources. The response should include a completed copy of Form HUD-40076-EDI/BEDI, Rating Factor 4: Leveraging Resources/Financial Need Sources and Uses Statement and Form HUD 40122, Section 108 Loan Guarantee, State Certifications Related to Nonentitlement Entities.

At page 14154 of Appendix A, HUD adds Form HUD-40076-EDI/BEDI, Rating Factor 4: Leveraging Resources/Financial Need Sources and Uses Statement and at page 14155 Form HUD-40122, Section 108 Loan Guarantee, State Certifications Related to Nonentitlement Entities.

On page 14167, HUD amends Section VI (Application Selection Process) paragraph (B)(3)(a)(ii) to remove the word “more” and substitute in its place “fewer.” As amended, paragraph (B)(3)(a)(ii) now reads:

(ii) A county with an urban population of 20,000 inhabitants or fewer.

On page 14208, HUD amends paragraph (C)(2)(iii) of Section II (Amount Allocated) to read as follows:

(iii) The maximum amounts for CB grants are: $100,000 for CWROs per applicant, and $240,000 per applicant for all other eligible applicants. Applicants are required to allocate at least two-thirds of the total grant to direct funding of CB activities for site-based RAs/ROs and/or tribal ROs. CWROs are required to serve a minimum of 3 RAs. All other applicants are required to serve a minimum of 10 RAs. Tribes/TDHEs may serve a single tribal group.

On page 14208, HUD amends paragraph (C)(3)(a)(i) to read as follows:

(i) Maximum grant amount. For RSDM, the maximum grant amounts are as follows: For PHAs applying for family grants, the maximum grant application award will be based on the number of occupied family conventional public housing units. Tribes/TDHEs applying for RSDM should refer to section II(C)(3)(e) of this NOFA for computation of units for the maximum grant amount.

On page 14208, HUD amends paragraph (C)(3)(e) of Section II to read as follows:

(e) Tribes/TDHEs should use the number of units counted as Formula Current Assisted Stock for Fiscal Year 2002 as defined in 24 CFR 1000.316. Tribes who have not previously received funds from the Department under the 1937 Housing Act should count housing units under management that are owned and operated by the Tribe and are identified in their housing inventory as of September 30, 2001 for either family or elderly/disabled units.

On page 14208, HUD amends paragraph (i) of Section II(C)(4) to read as follows:

(i) This funding category provides grants for a targeted group of public housing residents who were beneficiaries of previously awarded ROSS grants, and/or public housing Family Self-Sufficiency participants funded through operating subsidy. This funding category recognizes the improved earning capacity of residents participating in self-sufficiency programs and provides the support necessary to achieve increased opportunities for homeownership for public housing residents through housing choice vouchers. Under this funding category, PHAs will receive grants for counseling and other supportive services to achieve homeownership for public housing residents. PHAs will design and develop homeownership supportive services for public housing residents. These supportive services shall comprehensively address the needs identified by the PHA for public housing families to obtain homeownership.

On page 14209, HUD amends paragraph (ii) of Section II(C)(5) to read as follows:

(ii) To update and expand existing technology centers, PHAs must use the number of occupied conventional family public housing units to determine the maximum grant amount in accordance with the categories listed below for families: