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

The section 106 regulations, under 36 CFR 800.14(e), provide that an agency may request the Council for a “Program Comment” allowing it to comply with section 106 for a category of undertakings in lieu of conducting a separate review for each individual undertaking under the regular process.

According to the requirements for obtaining a Program Comment, the Army formally requested the Council comment on Capehart and Wherry Era Army family housing and associated structures and landscape features in lieu of requiring separate reviews under sections 800.4 through 800.6 of the section 106 regulations for each individual undertaking. The Army identified the category of undertakings as maintenance and repair; rehabilitation; layaway and mothballing; renovation; demolition; demolition and replacement; and transfer, sale or lease out of Federal control, affecting Army family housing built between 1949 and 1962 and termed “Capehart and Wherry.” The Army also specified the likely effects that these management actions would have on historic properties and the steps the Army would take to ensure that the effects are taken into account. The Army included in their request to the Council the public comments that it received from a 30-day public comment opportunity provided through an earlier notice (67 FR 2644, January 18, 2002).

The Council subsequently published a notice of intent to issue the Program Comment (67 FR 12966, March 20, 2002) and notified State Historic Preservation Officers (“SHPOs”), the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (“NCSHPO”), Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (“THPOs”), and the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, and requested their views on the Army's proposed Program Comment.

During its May 31, 2002 business meeting, the Council membership (with the Department of Defense recusing itself) voted unanimously to approve and issue the Program Comment found at the end of this notice. The vote was 19 in favor of approving and issuing the Program Comment and no votes against, with the Department of Defense abstaining.

Neither the Council nor the Army have engaged in the particularized consultation with Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.14(e)(4), since such consultation does not seem to be warranted. All Army actions considered under this Program Comment will be undertaken on Army property. The Program Comment will not have consequences for historic properties of religious and cultural significance, regardless of location, to any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization since any Capehart and Wherry actions which would affect these types of properties are specifically excluded under the Program Comment.

At the end of the 30-day comment period, only four comments had been filed: NCSHPO, the New Jersey SHPO, the National Trust for Historic Preservation (“Trust”), and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The following Council responses reflect significant comments and the manner in which the Council has modified the Program Comment to respond to these public comments. The public comments are printed in bold typeface, while the Council response follows immediately in normal typeface:

The Army's proposal will, in effect, exempt one property type from any and all future compliance with section 106. The Program Comment process is not an exemption. The Program Comment reflects what the Army must follow to be in compliance with section 106.

The period of significance for Capehart and Wherry Housing is less than fifty years old. For most properties the passage of time is considered to be essential in order to gain scholarly perspective. While the National Register criteria allow for properties of exceptional significance to be eligible for the Register prior to this 50-year benchmark, the Council believes that Capehart Wherry properties would never meet the significance test for this category of exceptional significance. Since these properties are now on the cusp of meeting the 50-year benchmark, we believe it is appropriate for the Army to take management action, which would reduce their administrative cost of managing these resources, to comply with Section 106 in advance of meeting the 50-year threshold. The Council supports proactive agency planning in order to reduce administrative costs and burdens.

Conclusions reached about the non-significance of properties that are less than fifty years old are inherently suspect. The Council's notice of intent states that “The Army considers its inventory of Capehart and Wherry properties, including any associated structures and landscape features, to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places for the purposes of section 106 compliance.”

The Army's plans should receive detailed consideration, possibly by the Council as a whole. The Council's Federal Agency Program Committee reviewed the Program Comment and provided recommendations to the Council membership for its deliberation and vote at the May 31, 2002, business meeting. As stated above, at that meeting, the Council membership discussed the Program Comment and unanimously voted to approve and issue it.

SHPOs from states with significant inventories of Capehart Wherry era housing should be invited to participate in the development of treatment plans. The Council and the Army provided all SHPOs and NCSHPO ample opportunity to comment on the proposed treatment plans detailed in the Program Comment. That resulted in the receipt of comments from only one SHPO (New Jersey) and NCSHPO. Both comments were closely considered in the final drafting of the Program Comment. The consultation met the requirements of the section 106 regulations for the issuance of a Program Comment.

While documentation of the affected resources may be one effective treatment, preservation of significant examples needs to be considered also. The Program Comment has been modified to allow for identification and preservation of properties of particular importance for continued use as military housing within the funding and mission constraints of the Army.

The Advisory Council needs more information on the resource type affected, such as information about representative individual examples or types and information about groups of resources as they exist today on military installations. The revised and expanded context study will provide more detailed information on individual examples of the types of Capehart and Wherry housing which exist at each installation. This information will be used by the Army to prepare the design guidelines that will be used by installations in future planning efforts that affect Capehart and Wherry communities.

The Council should insure that Capehart Wherry communities are evaluated within a comprehensive context, including evaluating significance within the context of local and state significance, Criteria for Evaluation B (related to individuals of historic importance) and C (work of a master). Because the housing program was not uniform across all installations, a post-by-post evaluation needs to be made for groups of resources in order to evaluate their significance. The revised and expanded context study will specifically address the importance of historically important builders, developers and architects that may have been associated with design and construction of Capehart and Wherry Era housing developments at specific Army installations.

The potential for secondary effects on National Register listed or eligible property that may be adjacent to Capehart Wherry era housing is not consider in this proposal, and archaeology is not considered either. Ground disturbing activities on Army installations should be evaluated on an individual basis. The Program Comment specifically states that it does not apply to the following properties historic properties: (a) Archaeological sites; (b) properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to federally recognized Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations; and/or (c) historic properties other than Army Capehart and Wherry Era housing, associated structures and landscape features. This is found in section III, Applicability.

The Council's regulations emphasize public participation. We do not believe the spirit of the Council's regulations have been addressed by one Federal Register notice. We disagree. The Council's regulations allow agencies to use their own public review processes, including NEPA, in complying with the public involvement requirements under the Council's regulations. The general public had an opportunity to respond to comments under the Army's NEPA document and again through the Council's notice of intent process. There were no general public comments received by either the Army or the Council during these public review processes. We believe that the non-response by the general public reflects its lack of interest in these types of properties, especially as they relate to military installations.

Would the program comment affect the Army's responsibilities under section 110 of the National Historic preservation Act? Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires agency's procedures for compliance with Section 106 to be consistent with the Council's regulations and provide a process for identification, evaluation, and consultation regarding the means by which adverse effects are considered. This Program Comment was issued and approved by the Council pursuant to the Council's section 106 regulations.

The Army's proposal includes no commitment that any of these useful documents (i.e., context study, design guidelines) will actually be used or applied by the Army. The intent of the Program Comment is that the Army apply these guidelines consistently across installations where Capehart and Wherry units will be retained by the Army. If the Council believes that the Army is not using the guidelines as intended, the Council may withdraw the Program Comment in its entirety.

There (is no) proposal by the Army to commit to the preservation of Capehart Wherry properties. The Program Comment has been modified to allow for identification and preservation of properties of particular importance for continued use as military housing within the funding and mission constraints of the Army.

The Army should not be allowed to proceed under the program comments demolition prior to the completion of the mitigation actions. While the Army is allowed to proceed with action which affect Capehart and Wherry properties prior to completion of mitigation, the Program Comment prevents them from completing management action which may preclude the eventual successful completion of the steps outlined in the Program Comment.

Rather than leaving to chance the question of which of these properties may survive, if any, the Army should identify a limited selection of these resources in advance, based on criteria of significance, and should place an explicit priority on actually preserving them. The Program Comment has been modified to establish a process for the identification of Capehart and Wherry Era properties of particular importance and to allow the preservation of such properties for continued use as military housing within the funding and mission constraints of the Army.

The Army's proposal does not contemplate any distinction whatsoever in the treatment of properties that have special architectural or other significance. The revised and expanded context study will include identification of significant architects, builders/contractors/developers and subcontractors. Upon completion, the context study will be reviewed for Capehart and Wherry Era properties of particular importance. Properties identified in this review process may have additional historical documentation completed for them, as needed, they will be taken into consideration in producing the video documentation and they will be considered for preservation through continued use as Army family housing.

The full text of the Program Comment is produced below:

This Program Comment, adopted pursuant to 36 CFR 800.14(e), demonstrates Department of the Army (Army) compliance with its responsibilities under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act with regard to the following management actions for Capehart and Wherry Era Army family housing, associated structures and landscape features: maintenance and repair; rehabilitation; layaway and mothballing; renovation; demolition; demolition and replacement; and transfer, sale of lease out of Federal control.

Structures associated with this family housing include detached garages, carports and storage buildings, and the landscape features (including but not limited to the overall design and layout of the Capeharts and Wherry Era communities, including road patterns, plantings and landscaping, open spaces, playgrounds, parking areas, signage, site furnishings, views into and out of the community, lighting, sidewalks, setbacks and all other associated cultural landscape features). A small percentage of buildings and structures constructed during this period were not constructed with funds provided through the Capehart and Wherry funding programs, but are similar in all other respects, and are therefore included in this Program Comment.

The Army conducted a historic context of its Capehart and Wherry properties in a report entitled For Want of a Home: A Historic Context for Wherry and Capehart Military Family Housing. On May 22, 2001, the Army sponsored a symposium on Capehart and Wherry Era housing management as it relates to historic preservation. The symposium was attended by preservation experts, including the National Trust for Historic Preservation (Trust), the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council), and nationally recognized experts in the field of historic preservation from academia and industry. As recommended by the symposium participants, the treatment section, below, presents the programmatic approach for complying with section 106. The Army considers its inventory of Capehart and Wherry Era properties, including any associated structures and landscape features, to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places for the purposes of section 106 compliance.

The Army requested a Program Comment as an Army-wide section 106 compliance action related to management of Capehart and Wherry Era housing, associated structures and landscape features. This programmatic approach will facilitate management actions for maintenance and repair; rehabilitation; layaway and mothballing; renovation; demolition; demolition and replacement; and transfer, sale or lease of Capehart and Wherry Era housing, associated structures and landscape features out of Federal control. Such actions present a potential for adverse effects to these historic properties.

The following treatment is based on the measures proposed by the Army in their request for Program Comment, the comments received from the Council's “notice of intent to issue program comments” as published in the Federal Register (67 FR 12956; March 20, 2002) and follow up discussions between the Council, the Army, NCSHPO. and the Trust.

(1) Context Study: The Army will expand and revise the existing historic context, For Want of a Home: A Historic Context for Wherry and Capehart Military Family Housing. Consistent with issues identified during the symposium on Capehart and Wherry Era Housing held by the Army in May 2001, and subsequent public review, the Army will expand the historic context to address the following important issues:

(1) Explore changing Army family demographics following the end of the World War II and their impact on housing needs and responsive programs;

(ii) Focus on post-World War II suburbanization, housing trends and affordable housing programs in the civilian sector;

(iii) Identify those Capehart and Wherry properties that may be of particular importance due to their association with historically important builders, developers and architects;

(iv) Discuss associated structures, and landscape features, in addition to addressing the housing units; and

(v) Describe the inventory of Capehart and Wherry Era housing, providing information on the various types of buildings and architectural styles and the quantity of each.

(2) Context Study Review: The Army review the results of the expanded and revised context study and determine whether any of those properties identified under section II(b)(1)(iii) are of particular importance. The Army will notify the Council of the results of this review, and the Council will forward the results to the NCSHPO, and the Trust.

(3) Design Guidelines: The Army's scoping process identified landscape features as an important attribute of Capehart and Wherry Era land-use planning and development. Using information developed in the expanded and revised context study, the Army will develop Capehart and Wherry Era Neighborhood Design Guidelines that consider the importance of Capehart and Wherry Era family housing, associated structures and landscape features. The Army will:

(i) Provide the design guidelines to the Council for review;

(ii) Distribute the design guidelines to those facilities and installations that have been identified in the expanded and revised context study as having Capehart and Wherry Era properties; and

(iii) Consider the design guidelines in planning actions that affect the Army's Capehart and Wherry Era housing, associated structures and landscape features.

(4) Properties of Particular Importance: For Capehart and Wherry properties that have been determined to have particular importance under section II(b)(2), above, the Army will:

(i) Consider the need to conduct additional historical documentation for these properties;

(ii) Focus video documentation efforts on such properties; and

(iii) Within funding and mission constraints, consider the preservation of these properties through continued use as military housing.

(5) Tax Credits: The Army will advise developers involved in the Army's privatization initiatives that Capehart and Wherry Era properties may be eligible for historic preservation tax credits.

(6) Video Documentation: The Army will document and record Capehart and Wherry Era housing, associated structures and landscape features through preparation of a video. The video will:

(i) Document and record representative structural types and landscape features at three installations, including appropriate examples of properties of particular importance;

(ii) Explain the relationship of this housing construction program to significant issues and topics researched for the expanded and revised context study;

(iii) Be distributed for educational purposes, and archived by the Army; and

(iv) Be provided, in digital format, to the Council, the Trust, and the NCSHPO.

(7) Schedule for Completion:

(i) Within 12 months from Council approval of the Program Comment, the Army shall complete:

(A) The expanded and revised context study for Capehart and Wherry Era housing as described in section II(b)(1), above;

(B) Review of the context study for properties of particular importance as described in II(b)(2), above; and

(c) The design guidelines as described in section II(b)(3), above; exclusive of section II(b)(3)(iii).

(ii) Within 24 months from Council approval of the Program Comment, the Army shall complete:

(A) Its consideration of properties of particular importance as described in section II(b)(4), above; and

(B) The video documentation of Capehart and Wherry Era housing as described in Section II(b)(6), above.

(8) Availability: Upon their completion, the Army will make final products available to installation commanders.

This Program Comment does not apply to the following properties that are listed, or eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places:

(a) Archeological sites;

(b) Properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to federally recognized Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations; and/or

(c) Historic properties other than Army Capehart and Wherry Era housing, associated structures and landscape features.

By the following this Program Comment, the Army meets its responsibilities for compliance under section 106 regarding management of its entire inventory of Capehart and Wherry Era housing (1949-1962), associated structures and landscape features. Accordingly, installations are no longer required to follow the case-by-case section 106 review process for each individual management action affecting Capehart and Wherry Era housing, associated structures and landscape features.

The Army may carry out management actions prior to the completion of the treatment steps outlined above, so long as such management actions do not preclude the eventual successful completion of these steps.

This Program Comment will remain in effect until such time as the Department of the Army determines that such comments are no longer needed, and notifies the Council, in writing, or the Council withdraws the Program Comment in accordance with 36 CFR 800.14(e)(6). Following such withdrawal, the Army would be required to comply with the requirements of 36 CFR 800.3 through 800.7 for each individual management action.

The Council approved this Program Comment on May 31, 2002.

[Signed by Chairman John L. Nau, III on May 31, 2002]

The Federal Government's patent rights in this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license this invention as Shrieve Chemical Co. has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

The meeting is open to the public. Public comment opportunity will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the Committee at that time.

Public Forum begins at 9:30 am. The fieldtrip will view future project proposals.

The environmental assessment of this federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, Patricia S. Leavenworth, State Conservationist, has determined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement are not needed for this project.

The project purposes are flood prevention and recreation. The planned works of improvement include the removal of two single family dwellings and a business from the hydraulic shadow of Structure Number 3, and the enactment of a county floodplain zoning ordinance which restricts future development within the hydraulic shadow of Structure Number 3. Sediment will be removed from the lake behind the dam.

The Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency and to various Federal, State, and local agencies and interested parties. A limited number of copies of the FONSI are available to fill single copy requests at the above address. Basic data developed during the environmental assessment are on file and may be reviewed by contacting Thomas Krapf at (608) 276-8732, Ext. 232.

No administrative action on implementation of the proposal will be taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in the Federal Register .

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 46-48(c) and 41 CFR 51. The Committee Chairperson and Vice Chairperson are elected by the members of the Committee and serve a term of two years. The Chairperson carries out all statutory, regulatory and other responsibilities as prescribed by the Javits-Wagner-O'Day (JWOD) Act and Committee regulations. The Vice Chairperson undertakes these responsibilities in the Chairperson's absence.

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

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

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

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

2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product and services to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the product and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.

The following product and services are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

On December 8, 2000, October 26, 2001, March 29, April 5, April 12, and April 19, 2002, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (65 FR 76985, 66 FR 54194, 67 FR 15175, 16366, 17965, 17966, and 19392) of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

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

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

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

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

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

The Census Bureau plans to request a three-year extension of the Office of Management and Budget approval for the Quarterly Survey of the Finances of Public-Employee Retirement Systems. This quarterly survey was initiated by the Census Bureau in 1968 at the request of both the Council of Economic Advisers and the Federal Reserve Board. It gathers data on the assets of the 100 largest state and local government public-employee retirement systems. These systems hold over $2 trillion in assets, which represent approximately 90 percent of all state and local government public-employee retirement system assets.

These important data are used by the Federal Reserve Board to track the public sector portion of the flow of founds accounts. The Bureau of Economic Analysis uses the data on corporate stock holdings to estimate dividends received by State and local government public-employee retirement systems. These estimates, in turn, are used as a component in developing the national income and product accounts.

Canvass methodology consists of a mail out/mail back questionnaire. Responses are screened manually, then put into an electronic format. No statistical methods are used to calculate the data. In those instances when we are not able to obtain a response, estimates are made for nonrespondents by using historical data for the same system or the latest available annual data.

OMB Number: 0607-0143.

Form Number: F-10.

Type of Review: Regular.

Affected Public: State and local governments.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 100.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1 hour.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 400.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $6,828.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C., Section 182.

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

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

In Census 2000, the Census Bureau conducted four separate tests examining innovative ideas. One of these “experiments” was the Response Mode and Incentive Experiment (RMIE). RMIE attempted to measure the extent to which respondents choose to use electronic response options including Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI), Interactive Voice Response (IVR), and Internet. Preliminary findings from the RMIE initial mailout component and Operator Assistance indicate that Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing does not offer clear advantages relative to the Internet in terms of increasing the overall response rate. The IVR mode showed promise but requires additional design work while the Internet mode yielded relatively high data quality. One major recommendation resulting from the RMIE was to investigate the best ways to present the availability of response options, and how to word messages included with the mailed questionnaire. To take advantage of evolving technology, the Census Bureau needs to research various self-response options toward developing a strategy that encourages the public to respond to the census using either paper or electronic options before Nonresponse Follow-up (NRFU) occurs. The method and optimum timing to contact, inform and, remind the public should be included.

The Census Bureau is planning a two-part test in 2003. The first part will examine the impact of offering various self-response options and the interactions among various options on overall response rates and data quality. These options include mail, Internet, Interactive Voice Recognition (IVR), and a combination of Internet and IVR. This test is also designed to address questions about the relative timing and content of various contacts. We hope to answer the following questions: (1) What is the effect of offering alternative data collection modes on response (i.e. increase, decrease, shift)? and (2) what is the effect of new or additional contact strategies on overall response?

The goal of this portion of the test is to identify, for further testing in 2004, the best strategy for increasing self-enumerated response to the census thus reducing the NRFU workload. Successful accomplishment of this goal will greatly improve the data quality of Census 2010 while reducing the cost of data collection.

The second part of the Census 2003 Test will assess the effects of dropping the “Some other race” response option. This test is designed to answer whether item nonresponse to the race question will increase if the “Some other race” response option with a write-in line is deleted, and what effect this will have on the overall quality of race reporting. In past decennial censuses, the Census Bureau has received an exception from the Office of Management and Budget which allowed it to include a “Some other race” category. This category is a source of noncomparability between the census and surveys and race data produced by other agencies. The purpose of this test is to develop and evaluate a mailout version of the race question that conforms to OMB standards by excluding the “Some other race” category. It will also measure the effectiveness of revised instructions for the Hispanic origin and race questions to convey to respondents the intent of the questions; more specifically that different responses are being requested in each of these questions. In addition, revisions to the Hispanic origin question, including the addition of examples of Hispanic groups to obtain more complete reporting of detailed Hispanic subgroups are to be tested. Examples for the Other Asian and the Other Pacific Islander response categories to the question on race also will be included. It is desirable to assess the feasibility of these changes to the questions on race and Hispanic origin so that alternatives can be developed and tested in a timely way before final question versions are adopted. The Census Bureau plans to conduct multiple rounds of cognitive testing to identify problems and revise question wordings and instructions before finalizing them for this test.

The goal of the race and Hispanic origin portion of the test is to develop question wording and content that will lead to improved self-reporting of both race and Hispanic origin in the census.

The methodology for the Census 2003 Test consists of a data collection strategy involving fourteen different experimental panels. The control panel is a mailing strategy comprised of four pieces—an advance letter, an initial questionnaire, a reminder postcard, and a replacement questionnaire targeted to non-responding housing units. Essentially, this control panel is similar to the Census 2000 mailout strategy with the addition of a replacement questionnaire. In addition, the timing of each mail piece is different from Census 2000. The questionnaire used in nine of the panels will be a Census 2000 short form. The remaining six panels will use a Census 2000 short form with changes to both the Hispanic origin and race questions, their response categories, and instructions to answer both questions. “Census Day,” the reference date for enumerating respondents, will be February 6, 2003. The advance letter will be delivered to housing units in the sample by the United States Postal Service between January 22 and 24, 2003. The initial questionnaire will be delivered on January 28 and 30, followed by the reminder postcard during February 3-5. On February 10, we will determine the universe of non-respondents who will be mailed a replacement questionnaire on February 15-18, 2003.

A national sample of 220,000 addresses will be selected from housing units in Census 2000. The sample is restricted to addresses in Mailout/Mailback areas that are not in the American Community Survey sample during the test period. Based on Census 2000 return rates, census blocks will be stratified into high response and low response strata. A random sample of 5,000 housing units will be drawn from each stratum for each of the eight response strategy test panels, yielding a total of 10,000 housing units per panel. For the control panel and each of the six race and ethnicity panels, a sample of 10,000 housing units from each stratum will be selected, yielding a total of 20,000 housing units per panel.

The eight response strategy test panels consist of various treatments providing alternatives and additions to the control panel's mailing strategy. The sample households in one panel will have the option of responding via the Internet in addition to the option of completing a paper questionnaire and returning it by mail. Two other panels test a telephone interactive voice recognition (IVR) system as an alternative to mailing back the paper questionnaire. The distinction among these two panels is the extent to which residents are encouraged to choose the IVR option instead of mail. One panel will encourage residents to respond by telephone without including a paper questionnaire and the second will give them the option of responding by telephone or with a questionnaire. Two panels, one without an initial questionnaire in the envelope, will give residents both the Internet and IVR as response options. Other response strategy treatment panels include using a telephone call reminder in lieu of a reminder postcard, putting a due date on the questionnaire envelope, and a mailing strategy without a replacement questionnaire.

Responses from paper mail returns, the Internet, and IVR will be data captured in order to analyze the demographic characteristics of respondents and patterns of item nonresponse. Results of the test will help shape the data collection strategy for the next census.

The six additional test panels are designed to test the effects on the overall and item nonresponse of changes to the questions on Hispanic origin and race. The purpose of this test is to examine the effects of dropping the “Some other race” response category from the race question, and whether additional instructions can ameliorate the resulting increase in race item nonresponse expected, as well as convey to respondents the intent of this question. Previously, the overwhelming majority of responses in the “Some other race” category were Hispanic ethnicities. It is vital that respondents understand that the intent of the question on race is for them to self-report their race using one or more of the race categories shown on the form. In addition, revisions to the Hispanic Origin question, including adding examples of Hispanic groups to obtain more complete reporting of detailed Hispanic subgroups, are being tested.

Because of the listing of Asian and Pacific Islander ethnicities, along with other design effects of the question, some respondents think we are asking them to report their ethnicity and not their race. Others do not see a difference between race and ethnicity. We also are including Other Asian and Other Pacific Islander examples to obtain more complete reporting of detailed Other Asian and Other Pacific Islander subgroups. The six panels test the effects of the following changes compared to the control panel.

1. A modified Hispanic origin question, including the addition of the word “origin,” slight revisions to the instruction for the question, and removing the slashes (/). (The same modified Hispanic question is used in all six panels.)

2. The inclusion of examples of Hispanic groups and Other Asian and Other Pacific Islander groups to obtain more complete reporting of detailed other Asian and Other Pacific Islander subgroups.

3. The deletion of the “Some other race” response option and write-in area.

4. The deletion of the “Some other race” response option and write in area and the addition of examples of Hispanic groups and Other Asian and Pacific Islander groups.

5. The deletion of the “Some other race” response and addition of an “informative instruction” to increase respondents awareness that race and Hispanic origin are different.

6. The deletion of the “Some other race” response, addition of “informative instruction” to increase respondents awareness that race and Hispanic origin are different and, adding examples of Hispanic groups and Other Asian and Other Pacific Islander groups.

Responses from these paper mail returns also will be data captured in order to analyze the demographic characteristics of respondents and patterns of item nonresponse.

OMB Number: Not available.

Form Number(s): DA-1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1DD, DA-1(CC-9), 10, 11, 12, 13.

Type of Review: Regular.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 220,000.

Estimate Time Per Response: 10 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 36,666 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: There is no cost to respondents except for their time to respond.

Respondent Obligation: Mandatory.

Legal Authority: Title 13 of the United States Code, Sections 141 and 193.

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

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

The Service Annual Survey (SAS) provides, for selected service industries, total revenue estimates for taxable firms and total revenue and expense estimates for tax-exempt firms. Selected service industries include professional, scientific and technical services; administrative and support services; health care and social assistance; telecommunications, publishing, broadcasting and other information service industries; trucking, courier and messenger, and warehousing; selected financial services; and arts, entertainment and recreation. These data are needed to provide a sound statistical basis for the formation of policy by various governmental agencies. The Census Bureau is authorized by Title 13, United States Code, to conduct surveys necessary to furnish current data on subjects covered by the major censuses. These surveys provide continuing and timely national statistical data for the period between economic censuses.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the primary Federal user of these annual program statistics, uses the information in developing the national income and product accounts, compiling benchmark and annual input-output tables, and computing Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by industry. Agencies of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) use the data for policy development and program management and evaluation. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) uses the data as inputs to its Producer Price Indexes and in developing productivity measurements. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) uses the data in the development of the National Health Expenditure Accounts. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) uses the data as a means for assessing FCC policy. The Census Bureau uses the data to provide new insight into changing structural and cost conditions that will impact the planning and design of future economic census questionnaires. Private industry also uses the data as a tool for marketing analysis.

Data are collected from all of the largest firms and from a sample of small- and medium-sized businesses selected using a stratified sampling procedure. The samples are reselected periodically, generally at 5-year intervals. The largest firms continue to be canvassed when the sample is re-drawn, while nearly all of the small- and medium-sized firms from the prior sample are replaced. We collect these data by using a mail-out/mail-back survey questionnaire.

At the present time, we are only requesting an extension for the current Service Annual Survey program. We will not be implementing any new changes for survey year 2002. However, the Service Annual Survey program began testing the North American Product Classification System (NAPCS) for the information sector (NAICS 51, except 512) and computer system services group (NAICS 5415) for survey year 2001 and we plan to expand coverage of NAPCS to the following subsectors for survey year 2003: Professional, Scientific and Technical Services (NAICS 541); Administrative Support Services (NAICS 561) and Waste Management and Remediation Services (NAICS 562). In subsequent survey years, we intend to expand product lines to additional industries covered by SAS.

NAPCS was developed jointly by the statistical agencies in the United States, Canada, and Mexico to systematically identify and define the products of the service industries. The comprehensive demand-oriented product classification system will complement the supply-oriented North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) introduced in 1997. APCS was launched as a multi-phase initiative by the three countries on February 2, 1999, and it was announced by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the Federal Register on April 16, 1999. Phase I, an exploratory phase launched in early 1999, targeted the following four NAICS sectors: Information (NAICS 51); Finance and Insurance (NAICS 52); Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (NAICS 54); and Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services (NAICS 56). Phase II, launched in July 2001, extended the product development work to industries in five additional NAICS service sectors: Transportation and Warehousing (NAICS 48 and 49), Educational Services (NAICS 61), Health Care and Social Assistance (NAICS 62), Arts, Entertainment and Recreation (NAICS 71), and Accommodation and Food Services (NAICS 72). Phase III, which is expected to be launched in mid-2003, will seek to complete product development and classification for all NAICS services industries.

Compared to goods-producing industries, there is a serious lack of information about and data for the products produced by the service industries in the U.S. and elsewhere. The collection and dissemination of NAPCS service statistics will provide much needed data for private sector firms, policy analysts and trade negotiators seeking to determine and develop market opportunities and to track industrial performance.

Future initiatives also include the collection of annual data on the cost of selected purchased services and materials in the 2003 Service Annual Survey for the following industries: Information (NAICS 51); Securities, Commodity Contracts, and Other Financial Investments and Related Activities (NAICS 523); Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (NAICS 541); and Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services (NAICS 56). For the 2004 survey, we will begin collecting these data for all remaining industries covered in SAS. Key data items include the cost of purchased telecommunications services, software and data processing services, management and consulting services, fuels, electricity, lease and rental payments, materials and supplies other than for resale, and contract labor. The availability of this data will greatly improve the quality of the intermediate-inputs and value-added estimates in BEA's annual input-output and GDP by industry accounts. Annual data on purchased services and materials will also be used as indicators to update census year data collected on the Business Expenditures Survey.

We collect this information by mail, fax, and telephone follow-up.

OMB Number: 0607-0422.

Form Number: The SAS program consists of 58 forms which are too extensive to list here.

Type of Review: Regular Submission.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit organizations, not-for-profit institutions, Government hospitals and Federal Government.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 50,000.

Estimated Time Per Response: On average, we expect 1 hour and 30 minutes as an estimate.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 61,662 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: The cost to the respondents for fiscal year 2003 is estimated to be $1,289,352 based on the median hourly salary of $20.91 for accountants and auditors. (Occupational Employment Statistics-Bureau of Labor Statistics “2000 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates”) http://www.bls.gov/oes/2000/oes132011.htm.

Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

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

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

The Census Bureau is requesting clearance for the collection of data concerning the HVS. The current clearance expires August 31, 2002. The HVS has been conducted in conjunction with the CPS since 1956 and serves a broad array of data users as described below.

We conduct the HVS interviews with landlords or other knowledgeable persons concerning vacant housing units identified in the monthly CPS sample and meeting certain criteria. The HVS provides the only quarterly and annual statistics on rental vacancy rates and homeownership rates for the United States, the four census regions, the 50 states and the District of Columbia, and the 75 largest Metropolitan Areas (MAs). Private and public sector organizations use these rates extensively to gauge and analyze the housing market with regard to supply, cost, and affordability at various points in time. In addition, the rental vacancy rate is a component of the index of leading economic indicators published by the Department of Commerce.

Policy analysts, program managers, budget analysts, and congressional staff use these data to advise the executive and legislative branches of government with respect to the number and characteristics of units available for occupancy and the suitability of housing initiatives. Several other government agencies use these data on a continuing basis in calculating consumer expenditures for housing as a component of the gross national product; to project mortgage demands; and to measure the adequacy of the supply of rental and homeowner units. In addition, investment firms use the HVS data to analyze market trends and for economic forecasting.

Field representatives collect this HVS information by personal-visit interviews in conjunction with the regular monthly CPS interviewing. We collect HVS data concerning units that are vacant and intended for year-round occupancy as determined during the CPS interview. Approximately 5,760 units in the CPS sample meet these criteria each month. All interviews are conducted using computer-assisted interviewing.

OMB Number: 0607-0179.

Form Number: There are no forms associated with this supplement. We conduct all interviewing on computers.

Type of Review: Regular.

Affected Public: Individuals who have knowledge of the vacant sample unit (e.g., landlord, rental agents, neighbors).

Estimated Number of Respondents: 5,760 per month.

Estimated Time Per Response: 3 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,456.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: The only cost to respondent is that of their time.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Legal Authority: Title 13, U.S.C., Section 182.

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

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

Public Law 97-446, as amended by Public Law 103-465, requires the Departments of Commerce and the Interior to administer the distribution of duty-exemptions and duty-refunds to watch producers in the U.S. insular possessions and the Northern Mariana Islands. Public Law 106-36, enacted June 25, 1999, provides for the distribution of duty-refund benefits for any jewelry within heading 7113 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States which is the product of the U.S. Territories and the Northern Mariana Islands in accordance with the new provisions of the note in chapter 71 and additional U.S. note 5 to chapter 91. The primary consideration in collecting information is the enforcement of the laws and the information gathered is limited to that necessary to prevent abuse of the program and to permit a fair and equitable distribution of its benefits. Form ITA-334P is the principal program form used for recording the operational data on the basis of which program entitlements are distributed among the producers (and the provision of which to the Departments constitutes their application for these entitlements). The form is completed by watch and watch movement manufacturers and has been modified with special instructions for completion by the new jewelry manufacturers. Because the duty-refund benefit has been changed from an annual benefit to a biannual benefit, Form ITA-334P is also used, with modified instructions, to gather the information needed to calculate the interim duty-refund certificate for the jewelry and watch manufacturers.

The Department of Commerce sends Form ITA-334P to each watch producer biannually. A company official completes the form and returns it to the Department of Commerce.

OMB Number: 0625-0040.

Form Number: ITA-334P.

Type of Review: Revision—regular submission.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 7.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1 hour.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 14 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Costs: The estimated annual cost for this collection is $40,350 ($350 for respondents and $40,000 for federal government (included are most administration costs of program).

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

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

Public Law 97-446, as amended by Public Law 103-465, requires the Department of Commerce and the Interior to administer the distribution of duty-exemptions and duty-refunds to watch producers in the U.S. insular possessions and the Northern Mariana Islands. Public Law 106-36, enacted in 1999, extended the duty-refund benefit for any jewelry within heading 7113 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States which is the product of the U.S. Territories and the Northern Mariana Islands in accordance with the provisions of the note in chapter 71 and additional U.S. note 5 to chapter 91. The primary consideration in collecting information is the enforcement of the law and the information gathered is limited to that necessary to prevent abuse of the program and to permit a fair and equitable distribution of its benefits. Form ITA-340P provides the data to assist in verification of duty-free shipments of watches into the United States and make certain the allocations are not exceeded. Forms ITA-360P and ITA-361P are necessary to implement the duty-refund program for the watch and jewelry producers. Because the duty-refund benefit has been changed from an annual benefit to a biannual benefit, Forms ITA-360P and ITA-361P will now also be used for the distribution of an interim duty-refund benefit.

The Department of Commerce issues Form ITA-360P to each watch and jewelry producer biannually. No information is requested unless the recipient wishes to transfer the certificate. Form ITA-361P is obtained from the Department of Commerce and must be completed each time a certificate holder wishes to obtain a portion, or all, of the duty-refund authorized by the certificate. The form is then sent to the Department of Commerce for validation and returned to the producer. Form ITA-340P may be obtained from the territorial government or may be produced by the company in an approved computerized format or any other medium or format approved by the Department of Commerce and the Interior. The form is completed for each duty-free shipment of watches and watch movements into the U.S. and a copy is transmitted to the territorial government. Only if entry procedures are not transmitted electronically through Customs' automated broker interface, do the regulations require a copy of the permit be sent to Customs along with other entry paperwork.

OMB Number: 0625-0134.

Form Number: ITA-340P, 360P, 361P.

Type of Review: Revision-regular submission.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 4 (Form ITA-340); 7 (Forms ITA-360P & 361P).

Estimated Time Per Response: 10 minutes (Forms ITA-340P & 361P); 0 (ITA-360P).

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 65 hours and 40 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Costs: The estimated annual cost for this collection is $10,788 ($788 for respondents and $10,000 for federal government (included are some administration costs of program).

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

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

On July 31, 2001, a respondent in this proceeding, Jilin Pharmaceutical Import and Export Company, Jilin Pharmaceutical (U.S.A.) Inc., and Jilin Pharmaceutical Limited Company (collectively, “Jilin Pharmaceutical”) notified the Department that in 1999, its corporate name changed to Jilin Henghe Pharmaceutical Company Ltd. (“Jilin Henghe”). On December 14, 2001, Jilin Pharmaceutical stated that during the period of review (“POR”) of the concurrent administrative review ( see Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 66 FR 43570 (August 20, 2001)), the export operations for subject merchandise, which were handled by Jilin Pharmaceutical Import and Export Company during the original investigation ( see Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Bulk Aspirin from the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 39598 (May 25, 2000) (“LTFV investigation”)), were handled by the sales department for medicinal materials of Jilin Henghe. Jilin Pharmaceutical also stated that during the POR, subject merchandise was produced at the same facilities that Jilin Pharmaceutical used to produce subject merchandise during the LTFV investigation. On May 24, 2002, Jilin Pharmaceutical provided documentation to support this claim, consisting of a government document approving its name change and its continuing right to export subject merchandise to the United States.

The information submitted by Jilin Pharmaceutical shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review. Therefore, we are initiating a changed circumstances administrative review pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act to determine whether entries naming Jilin Henghe as manufacturer or exporter should receive the cash deposit rate currently applied to Jilin Pharmaceutical.

The merchandise subject to this review is bulk acetylsalicylic acid, commonly referred to as bulk aspirin, whether or not in pharmaceutical or compound form, not put up in dosage form (tablet, capsule, powders or similar form for direct human consumption). Bulk aspirin may be imported in two forms, as pure ortho-acetylsalicylic acid or as mixed ortho-acetylsalicylic acid. Pure ortho-acetylsalicylic acid can be either in crystal form or granulated into a fine powder (pharmaceutical form). This product has the chemical formula C 9 H 8 O 4 . It is defined by the official monograph of the United States Pharmacopoeia (“USP”) 23. It is classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheading 2918.22.1000.

Mixed ortho-acetylsalicylic acid consists of ortho-acetylsalicylic acid combined with other inactive substances such as starch, lactose, cellulose, or coloring materials and/or other active substances. The presence of other active substances must be in concentrations less than that specified for particular nonprescription drug combinations of aspirin and active substances as published in the Handbook of Nonprescription Drugs, eighth edition, American Pharmaceutical Association. This product is classified under HTSUS subheading 3003.90.0000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive.

Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act, the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of information concerning, or a request from an interested party of, an antidumping duty order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order.

Jilin Pharmaceutical contends that its corporate name and successor-in-interest have changed and that no changes have occurred with respect to its production facilities. We therefore find good cause to conduct a changed circumstances review. See 19 CFR 351.216(c). Therefore, in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating a changed circumstances review based upon the information contained in Jilin Pharmaceutical's submissions.

The Department will publish in the Federal Register a notice of preliminary results of changed circumstances antidumping duty administrative review, concurrent with the ongoing administrative review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4) and 351.221(c)(3)(i), which will set forth the Department's preliminary factual and legal conclusions. The Department will issue its final results of review in accordance with the time limits set forth in 19 CFR 351.216(e).

This notice is in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act.

On May 6, 2002, MISI requested that the Department revoke in part the antidumping duty order on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Japan. Specifically, MISI requested that the Department revoke the order with respect to imports meeting the following specifications: (1) diffusion annealed, non-alloy nickel-plated carbon products, with a substrate of cold-rolled battery grade sheet (“CRBG”) with both sides of the CRBG initially electrolytically plated with pure, unalloyed nickel and subsequently annealed to create a diffusion between the nickel and iron substrate, with the nickel plated coating having a thickness of 0-5 microns per side with one side equaling at least 2 microns; and with the nickel carbon sheet having a thickness of from 0.004″ (0.10mm) to 0.030″ (0.762mm) and conforming to the following chemical specifications (%): C ≤ 0.08; Mn ≤ 0.45; P ≤ 0.02; S ≤ 0.02; Al ≤ 0.15; and Si ≤ 0.10; and the following physical specifications: Tensile = 65 KSI maximum; Yield = 32-55 KSI; Elongation = 18% minimum (aim 34%); Hardness = 85-150 Vickers; Grain Type = Equiaxed or Pancake; Grain Size (ASTM) = 7-12; Delta r value = aim less than ±0.2; Lankford value = ≥ 1.2.; and (2) next generation diffusion-annealed nickel plate meeting the following specifications: (a) Nickel-graphite plated, diffusion annealed, tin-nickel plated carbon products, with a natural composition mixture of nickel and graphite electrolytically plated to the top side of diffusion annealed tin-nickel plated carbon steel strip with a cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; having both sides of the cold rolled substrate electrolytically plated with natural nickel, with the top side of the nickel plated strip electrolytically plated with tin and then annealed to create a diffusion between the nickel and tin layers in which a nickel-tin alloy is created, and an additional layer of mixture of natural nickel and graphite then electrolytically plated on the top side of the strip of the nickel-tin alloy; having a coating thickness: top side: nickel-graphite, tin-nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; tin layer only ≥ 0.05 micrometers, nickel-graphite layer only > 0.2 micrometers, and bottom side: nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; (b) nickel-graphite, diffusion annealed, nickel plated carbon products, having a natural composition mixture of nickel and graphite electrolytically plated to the top side of diffusion annealed nickel plated steel strip with a cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; with both sides of the cold rolled base metal initially electrolytically plated with natural nickel, and the material then annealed to create a diffusion between the nickel and the iron substrate; with an additional layer of natural nickel-graphite then electrolytically plated on the top side of the strip of the nickel plated steel strip; with the nickel-graphite, nickel plated material sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to permit forming without cracking, flaking, peeling, or any other evidence of separation; having a coating thickness: top side: nickel-graphite, tin-nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; nickel-graphite layer ≥ 0.5 micrometers; bottom side: nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; (c) diffusion annealed nickel-graphite plated products, which are cold-rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to the chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; having the bottom side of the base metal first electrolytically plated with natural nickel, and the top side of the strip then plated with a nickel-graphite composition; with the strip then annealed to create a diffusion of the nickel-graphite and the iron substrate on the bottom side; with the nickel-graphite and nickel plated material sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to permit forming without cracking, flaking, peeling, or any other evidence of separation; having coating thickness: top side: nickel-graphite layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; bottom side: nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; (d) nickel-phosphorous plated diffusion annealed nickel plated carbon product, having a natural composition mixture of nickel and phosphorus electrolytically plated to the top side of a diffusion annealed nickel plated steel strip with a cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to the chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; with both sides of the base metal initially electrolytically plated with natural nickel, and the material then annealed to create a diffusion of the nickel and iron substrate; another layer of the natural nickel-phosphorous then electrolytically plated on the top side of the nickel plated steel strip; with the nickel-phosphorous, nickel plated material sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to permit forming without cracking, flaking, peeling or any other evidence of separation; having a coating thickness: top side: nickel-phosphorous, nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; nickel-phosphorous layer ≥ 0.1 micrometers; bottom side: nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; (e) diffusion annealed, tin-nickel plated products, electrolytically plated with natural nickel to the top side of a diffusion annealed tin-nickel plated cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to the chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; with both sides of the cold rolled strip initially electrolytically plated with natural nickel, with the top side of the nickel plated strip electrolytically plated with tin and then annealed to create a diffusion between the nickel and tin layers in which a nickel-tin alloy is created, and an additional layer of natural nickel then electrolytically plated on the top side of the strip of the nickel-tin alloy; sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to permit forming without cracking, flaking, peeling or any other evidence of separation; having coating thickness: top side: nickel-tin-nickel combination layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; tin layer only ≥ 0.05 micrometers; bottom side: nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; and (f) tin mill products for battery containers, tin and nickel plated on a cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; having both sides of the cold rolled substrate electrolytically plated with natural nickel; then annealed to create a diffusion of the nickel and iron substrate; then an additional layer of natural tin electrolytically plated on the top side; and again annealed to create a diffusion of the tin and nickel alloys; with the tin-nickel, nickel plated material sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to permit forming without cracking, flaking, peeling or any other evidence of separation; having a coating thickness: top side: nickel-tin layer ≥ 1 micrometer; tin layer alone ≥ 0.05 micrometers; bottom side: nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometer.

The products covered by the antidumping duty order include flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the HTSUS under item numbers 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090. Included in this order are corrosion-resistant flat-rolled products of non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process ( i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling”)—for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges.

Excluded from this order are flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin-free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating.

Also excluded from this order are clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness.

Also excluded from this order are certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat-rolled products less than 4.75 millimeters in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio.

Also excluded from this order are certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products meeting the following specifications: (1) Widths ranging from 10 millimeters (0.394 inches) through 100 millimeters (3.94 inches); (2) thicknesses, including coatings, ranging from 0.11 millimeters (0.004 inches) through 0.60 millimeters (0.024 inches); and (3) a coating that is from 0.003 millimeters (0.00012 inches) through 0.005 millimeters (0.000196 inches) in thickness and that is comprised of either two evenly applied layers, the first layer consisting of 99% zinc, 0.5% cobalt, and 0.5% molybdenum, followed by a layer consisting of chromate, or three evenly applied layers, the first layer consisting of 99% zinc, 0.5% cobalt, and 0.5% molybdenum followed by a layer consisting of chromate, and finally a layer consisting of silicate.

Also excluded from this order are carbon steel flat products measuring 1.84 millimeters in thickness and 43.6 millimeters or 16.1 millimeters in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) clad with an aluminum alloy that is balance aluminum, 20% tin, 1% copper, 0.3% silicon, 0.15% nickel, less than 1% other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 783 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys.

Also excluded from this order are carbon steel flat products measuring 0.97 millimeters in thickness and 20 millimeters in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper-lead alloy powder that is balance copper, 9% to 11% tin, 9% to 11% lead, less than 1% zinc, less than 1% other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 792 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys, the second layer consisting of 45% to 55% lead, 38% to 50% PTFE, 3% to 5% molybdenum disulfide and less than 2% other materials.

Also excluded from this order are doctor blades meeting the following specifications: carbon steel coil or strip, plated with nickel phosphorous, having a thickness of 0.1524 millimeters (0.006 inches), a width between 31.75 millimeters (1.25 inches) and 50.80 millimeters (2.00 inches), a core hardness between 580 to 630 HV, a surface hardness between 900-990 HV; the carbon steel coil or strip consists of the following elements identified in percentage by weight: 0.90% to 1.05% carbon; 0.15% to 0.35% silicon; 0.30% to 0.50% manganese; less than or equal to 0.03% of phosphorous; less than or equal to 0.006% of sulfur; other elements representing 0.24%; and the remainder of iron.

Also excluded from this order are products meeting the following specifications: carbon steel flat products measuring 1.64 millimeters in thickness and 19.5 millimeters in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) with a lining clad with an aluminum alloy that is balance aluminum; 10 to 15% tin; 1 to 3% lead; 0.7 to 1.3% copper; 1.8 to 3.5% silicon; 0.1 to 0.7% chromium, less than 1% other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 783 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys.

Also, excluded from this order are products meeting the following specifications: carbon steel coil or strip, measuring 1.93 millimeters or 2.75 millimeters (0.076 inches or 0.108 inches) in thickness, 87.3 millimeters or 99 millimeters (3.437 inches or 3.900 inches) in width, with a low carbon steel back comprised of: carbon under 8%, manganese under 0.4%, phosphorous under 0.04%, and sulfur under 0.05%; clad with aluminum alloy comprised of: 0.7% copper, 12% tin, 1.7% lead, 0.3% antimony, 2.5% silicon, 1% maximum total other (including iron), and remainder aluminum.

Also excluded from this order are products meeting the following specifications: carbon steel coil or strip, clad with aluminum, measuring 1.75 millimeters (0.069 inches) in thickness, 89 millimeters or 94 millimeters (3.500 inches or 3.700 inches) in width, with a low carbon steel back comprised of: carbon under 8%, manganese under 0.4%, phosphorous under 0.04%, and sulfur under 0.05%; clad with aluminum alloy comprised of: 0.7% copper, 12% tin, 1.7% lead, 2.5% silicon, 0.3% antimony, 1% maximum total other (including iron), and remainder aluminum.

Also excluded from this order are products meeting the following specifications: carbon steel coil or strip, measuring a minimum of and including 1.10mm to a maximum of and including 4.90mm in overall thickness, a minimum of and including 76.00mm to a maximum of and including 250.00mm in overall width, with a low carbon steel back comprised of: carbon under 0.10%, manganese under 0.40%, phosphorous under 0.04%, sulfur under 0.05%, and silicon under 0.05%; clad with aluminum alloy comprised of: under 2.51% copper, under 15.10% tin, and remainder aluminum as listed on the mill specification sheet.

Pursuant to sections 751(d)(1) and 782(h)(2) of the Act, the Department may revoke an antidumping or countervailing duty order, in whole or in part, based on a review under section 751(b) of the Act ( i.e., a changed circumstances review) where the Department determines that “producers accounting for substantially all of the production of that domestic like product have expressed a lack of interest in issuance of an order.” Section 782(h)(2) of the Act. See, e.g., Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the Netherlands: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 66 FR 57415, 57416 (November 15, 2001). Section 751(b)(1) of the Act requires a changed circumstances review to be conducted upon receipt of a request which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review. Section 351.222(g) of the Department's regulations provides that the Department will conduct a changed circumstances administrative review under 19 CFR 351.216, and may revoke an order (in whole or in part), if it determines that producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product to which the order pertains have expressed a lack of interest in the relief provided by the order, in whole or in part, or if other changed circumstances sufficient to warrant revocation exist.

In addition, in the event that the Department concludes that expedited action is warranted, 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii) permits the Department to combine the notices of initiation and preliminary results.

In accordance with sections 751(d)(1) and 782(h)(2) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.222(g), based on affirmative statements by domestic producers of the like product, Bethlehem Steel Corporation; National Steel Corporation; and United States Steel Corporation (“Domestic Producers”), no further interest exists in continuing the order with respect to certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products meeting the following specifications: (1) Diffusion annealed, non-alloy nickel-plated carbon products, with a substrate of cold-rolled battery grade sheet (“CRBG”) with both sides of the CRBG initially electrolytically plated with pure, unalloyed nickel and subsequently annealed to create a diffusion between the nickel and iron substrate, with the nickel plated coating having a thickness of 0-5 microns per side with one side equaling at least 2 microns; and with the nickel carbon sheet having a thickness of from 0.004” (0.10mm) to 0.030” (0.762mm) and conforming to the following chemical specifications (%): C ≤ 0.08; Mn ≤ 0.45; P ≤ 0.02; S ≤ 0.02; Al ≤ 0.15; and Si ≤ 0.10; and the following physical specifications: Tensile = 65 KSI maximum; Yield = 32-55 KSI; Elongation = 18% minimum (aim 34%); Hardness = 85-150 Vickers; Grain Type = Equiaxed or Pancake; Grain Size (ASTM) = 7-12; Delta r value = aim less than ± 0.2; Lankford value = ≥ 1.2.; and (2) next generation diffusion-annealed nickel plate meeting the following specifications: (a) Nickel-graphite plated, diffusion annealed, tin-nickel plated carbon products, with a natural composition mixture of nickel and graphite electrolytically plated to the top side of diffusion annealed tin-nickel plated carbon steel strip with a cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; having both sides of the cold rolled substrate electrolytically plated with natural nickel, with the top side of the nickel plated strip electrolytically plated with tin and then annealed to create a diffusion between the nickel and tin layers in which a nickel-tin alloy is created, and an additional layer of mixture of natural nickel and graphite then electrolytically plated on the top side of the strip of the nickel-tin alloy; having a coating thickness: top side: nickel-graphite, tin-nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; tin layer only ≥ 0.05 micrometers, nickel-graphite layer only > 0.2 micrometers, and bottom side: nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; (b) nickel-graphite, diffusion annealed, nickel plated carbon products, having a natural composition mixture of nickel and graphite electrolytically plated to the top side of diffusion annealed nickel plated steel strip with a cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; with both sides of the cold rolled base metal initially electrolytically plated with natural nickel, and the material then annealed to create a diffusion between the nickel and the iron substrate; with an additional layer of natural nickel-graphite then electrolytically plated on the top side of the strip of the nickel plated steel strip; with the nickel-graphite, nickel plated material sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to permit forming without cracking, flaking, peeling, or any other evidence of separation; having a coating thickness: top side: Nickel-graphite, tin-nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; nickel-graphite layer ≥ 0.5 micrometers; bottom side: nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; (c) diffusion annealed nickel-graphite plated products, which are cold-rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to the chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; having the bottom side of the base metal first electrolytically plated with natural nickel, and the top side of the strip then plated with a nickel-graphite composition; with the strip then annealed to create a diffusion of the nickel-graphite and the iron substrate on the bottom side; with the nickel-graphite and nickel plated material sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to permit forming without cracking, flaking, peeling, or any other evidence of separation; having coating thickness: top side: nickel-graphite layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; bottom side: nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; (d) nickel-phosphorous plated diffusion annealed nickel plated carbon product, having a natural composition mixture of nickel and phosphorus electrolytically plated to the top side of a diffusion annealed nickel plated steel strip with a cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to the chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; with both sides of the base metal initially electrolytically plated with natural nickel, and the material then annealed to create a diffusion of the nickel and iron substrate; another layer of the natural nickel-phosphorous then electrolytically plated on the top side of the nickel plated steel strip; with the nickel-phosphorous, nickel plated material sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to permit forming without cracking, flaking, peeling or any other evidence of separation; having a coating thickness: top side: nickel-phosphorous, nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; nickel-phosphorous layer ≥ 0.1 micrometers; bottom side : nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; (e) diffusion annealed, tin-nickel plated products, electrolytically plated with natural nickel to the top side of a diffusion annealed tin-nickel plated cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to the chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; with both sides of the cold rolled strip initially electrolytically plated with natural nickel, with the top side of the nickel plated strip electrolytically plated with tin and then annealed to create a diffusion between the nickel and tin layers in which a nickel-tin alloy is created, and an additional layer of natural nickel then electrolytically plated on the top side of the strip of the nickel-tin alloy; sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to permit forming without cracking, flaking, peeling or any other evidence of separation; having coating thickness: top side: nickel-tin-nickel combination layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; tin layer only ≥ 0.05 micrometers; bottom side: nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; and (f) tin mill products for battery containers, tin and nickel plated on a cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; having both sides of the cold rolled substrate electrolytically plated with natural nickel; then annealed to create a diffusion of the nickel and iron substrate; then an additional layer of natural tin electrolytically plated on the top side; and again annealed to create a diffusion of the tin and nickel alloys; with the tin-nickel, nickel plated material sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to permit forming without cracking, flaking, peeling or any other evidence of separation; having a coating thickness: top side: nickel-tin layer ≥ 1 micrometer; tin layer alone ≥ 0.05 micrometers; bottom side: nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometer. See Domestic Producers' May 14, 2002, letter to the Department. Therefore, we are initiating this changed circumstances administrative review.

Furthermore, because domestic producers have expressed a lack of interest, we determine that expedited action is warranted, and we preliminarily determine that continued application of the order with respect to certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products falling within the description above is no longer of interest to domestic interested parties. Because we have concluded that expedited action is warranted, we are combining these notices of initiation and preliminary results. Therefore, we are hereby notifying the public of our intent to revoke in part the antidumping duty order with respect to imports of certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products meeting the above-mentioned specifications from Japan.

If the final revocation in part occurs, we intend to instruct the U.S. Customs Service (“Customs”) to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties, as applicable, and to refund any estimated antidumping duties collected for all unliquidated entries of certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products meeting the specifications indicated above, not subject to final results of administrative review as of the date of publication in the Federal Register of the final results of this changed circumstances review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222. We will also instruct Customs to pay interest on such refunds in accordance with section 778 of the Act. The current requirement for a cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products meeting the above specifications will continue unless and until we publish a final determination to revoke in part.

Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties to the proceedings may request a hearing within 14 days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held no later than two days after the deadline for the submission of rebuttal briefs, or the first workday thereafter. Case briefs may be submitted by interested parties not later than 14 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to the issues raised in those comments, may be filed not later than five days after the deadline for submission of case briefs. All written comments shall be submitted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303 and shall be served on all interested parties on the Department's service list in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303. Persons interested in attending the hearing should contact the Department for the date and time of the hearing.

This notice is published in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.222.

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department of Commerce (the Department) to issue the preliminary results of a review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order or finding for which a review is requested and the final results within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within that time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time limit for the preliminary results to a maximum of 365 days and for the final results to 180 days (or 300 days if the Department does not extend the time limit for the preliminary results) from the date of the publication of the preliminary results.

On October 1, 2001, the Department published in the Federal Register the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review with respect to certain large diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe, covering the period February 4, 2000 through July 31, 2001 (66 FR 49924). The preliminary results were originally due on May 3, 2002. On May 10, 2002 (67 FR 17397) the Department published a 30-day extension of the preliminary results. On May 29, 2002, petitioner in this case made a submission arguing that the reveiw should not be rescinded. Because it is not practicable to address the issues raised by June 3, 2002, we are postponing the preliminary determination an additional 90 days, until September 3, 2002, in accordance with 751(a)((3)(A) of the Act.

We determine that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of this review within the time limit. Therefore, we are extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results until no later than September 3, 2002. See Decision Memorandum from Melissa Skinner to Bernard Carreau, dated May 31, 2002, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, B-099 of the main Commerce Building. We intend to issue the final results no later than 120 days after the publication of the notice of preliminary results of this review.

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

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

On May 25, 2000, the Department published in the Federal Register an amended final determination and antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber (PSF) from Korea (65 FR 33807).

The Department published a notice advising of the opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on May 1, 2001 (66 FR 21740). In response to timely requests by Stein Fibers, an importer of the subject merchandise, and certain manufacturer/exporters ( i.e. , Daeyang Industrial Co., Ltd. (Daeyang), Estal Industry Co., Ltd. (Estal), Huvis Corporation (Huvis), Keon Baek Co., Ltd. (Keon Baek), Mijung Ind., Co., Ltd. (Mijung), Sam Young Synthetics Co., Ltd. (SamYoung) and Sunglim Co., Ltd. (Sunglim)), the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review with respect to these same companies (66 FR 32934, June 19, 2001).

On September 4, 2001, the Department extended the time limit for the preliminary results in this review until May 31, 2002 (66 FR 46260).

On October 9, 2001, the Department issued antidumping duty questionnaires to the above-mentioned respondent companies. We received responses from all seven respondents in November and December, 2001.

On December 28, 2001, the Department received allegations from the petitioners 1 that Daeyang, Estal, Huvis, Keon Baek, Mijung, and Sunglim sold certain PSF in Korea at prices below the cost of production (COP). The Department initiated cost investigations of these companies' home-market sales of PSF on January 30, 2002. ( See Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production (company-specific memoranda), dated January 30, 2002.) In accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, Sam Young was requested to provide complete COP information at the time the questionnaire was issued, based on having made sales below cost in the original investigation.

We issued supplemental questionnaires and received responses from all of the respondents in March through May, 2002. Certain supplemental responses were not received in sufficient time to be analyzed fully by the Department prior to the issuance of these preliminary results. While we are using the data in the supplemental responses as the bases for our preliminary results, adjusted as described below, we may request additional information from respondent companies prior to issuing our final results.

For the purposes of this order, the product covered is certain polyester staple fiber (PSF). PSF is defined as synthetic staple fibers, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning, of polyesters measuring 3.3 decitex (3 denier, inclusive) or more in diameter. This merchandise is cut to lengths varying from one inch (25 mm) to five inches (127 mm). The merchandise subject to this order may be coated, usually with a silicon or other finish, or not coated. PSF is generally used as stuffing in sleeping bags, mattresses, ski jackets, comforters, cushions, pillows, and furniture. Merchandise of less than 3.3 decitex (less than 3 denier) currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) at subheading 5503.20.00.20 is specifically excluded from this order. Also specifically excluded from this order are polyester staple fibers of 10 to 18 denier that are cut to lengths of 6 to 8 inches (fibers used in the manufacture of carpeting). In addition, low-melt PSF is excluded from this order. Low-melt PSF is defined as a bi-component fiber with an outer sheath that melts at a significantly lower temperature than its inner core.

The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the HTSUS at subheadings 5503.20.00.40 and 5503.20.00.60. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under order is dispositive.

To determine whether sales of PSF by the respondents to the United States were made at less than normal value (NV), we compared export price (EP), as appropriate, to NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice.Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the export prices of individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average NV of the foreign like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as discussed in the “Cost of Production Analysis” section below.

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced by the respondents covered by the description in the “Scope of the Order” section, above, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act, in order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared each respondent's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. (For further details, see the “Normal Value” section below.)

We compared U.S. sales to sales made in the appropriate comparison market within the contemporaneous window period, which extends from three months prior to the U.S. sale until two months after the sale. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. Where there were no sales of identical or similar merchandise made in the ordinary course of trade in the comparison market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to constructed value (CV). In making product comparisons, consistent with our final determination in the investigation, we matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by the respondents in the following order: 1) composition; 2) type; 3) grade; 4) cross section; 5) finish; and 6) denier ( see Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea , 65 FR 16880, 16881, March 30, 2000 ( Investigation Final )).

We used export price methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because all respondents sold the subject merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States prior to importation and constructed export price methodology was not otherwise indicated. We based export price on packed, FOB, C&F, CIF, ex-port/warehouse, ex-dock duty paid and delivered prices, as appropriate, to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States.

We made deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for movement expenses including foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling ( e.g. , terminal handling charges, wharfage, bill of lading charges, container taxes), international freight, marine insurance, U.S. duty, and U.S. Customs fees, in accordance with section 772(c)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(a). For Keon Baek, we adjusted the reported movement expenses for foreign brokerage and handling, container tax, bill of lading charge, and terminal handling charges to account for a rounding error. In addition, for Keon Baek's U.S. sales where the invoice date was after the reported shipment date, consistent with Department practice, we used shipment date as the date of sale ( see, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Structural Steel Beams from Luxembourg , 67 FR 35888 (May 20, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4; and Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Brazil , 67 FR 31200, 31202 (May 9, 2002)). For Estal, we made adjustments to gross price and certain reported expenses to account for differences between actual and theoretical weights. Also, for both Estal and Sunglim, we recalculated the short-term interest rate, based on published Federal Reserve rates, to reflect more accurately the POR.

We increased EP, where appropriate, for duty drawback in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. Respondents in this review claim to have received duty drawback under the two systems in place in Korea: either the individual rate system or the fixed rate system ( i.e. , the simplified fixed drawback system).

In prior investigations and administrative reviews, the Department has examined the individual rate system and found that the government controls in place ensure that the Department's criteria for receiving a duty drawback adjustment are met (i.e., that 1) the rebates received were directly linked to import duties paid on inputs used in the manufacture of the subject merchandise, and 2) there were sufficient imports to account for the rebates received). See Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Termination of Administrative Review: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea , 62 FR 55574, 55577 (October 27, 1997). Daeyang, Huvis, and Sunglim have each provided documentation for the record demonstrating that they received duty drawback under the individual rate system. Accordingly, we are allowing the full drawback adjustment on all U.S. sales by Daeyang and Huvis and on those U.S. sales by Sunglim on which the duty drawback was received under the individual rate system.

For the remaining U.S. sales by Sunglim and all sales by Estal, Keon Baek, Mijung, and Sam Young, duty drawback was received under the fixed rate system. The Department has found that the Korean fixed rate duty drawback system does not sufficiently link import duties paid to rebates received upon export. Therefore, the fixed rate system does not, in and of itself, meet the Department's criteria, i.e. , that the rebates received were directly linked to import duties paid on inputs used in the manufacture of the subject merchandise, and that there were sufficient imports to account for the rebates received. See id . In this case, none of the respondents have demonstrated successfully that duty drawback which it received under the fixed rates system met the Department's criteria for a duty drawback adjustment. Accordingly, for purposes of these preliminary results, we are not granting duty drawback adjustments claimed under the fixed rate system.

As stated above in the “Product Comparisons” section of this notice, we compared each respondent's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to its volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise in order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.

Aggregate home market sales volumes of the foreign like product for Daeyang, Estal, Huvis, Keon Baek, Mijung and Sunglim, respectively, were greater than five percent of their aggregate volumes of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Therefore, we determined that the home market provides a viable basis for calculating NV for these companies.

Sam Young reported that its home market sales of PSF during the POR were less than five percent of its sales in the United States. Therefore, Sam Young did not have a viable home market for purposes of calculating NV. Sam Young reported that the People's Republic of China (PRC) was its largest viable third-country market and, consequently, submitted its sales to the PRC for purposes of calculating NV.

Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. Id .; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa , 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997). In order to determine whether the comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market ( i.e. , the “chain of distribution”), 2 including selling functions, 3 class of customer (“customer category”), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales ( i.e. , NV based on either home market or third country prices 4 ), we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States, et. al. , 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (affirming this methodology).

When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data show that the difference in LOT affects price comparability, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

Daeyang sold to end users only in both the home market and in the United States. Estal and Huvis reported that they sold to distributors and end users in both the home market and in the United States. Keon Baek and Mijung sold to end users in the home market and to distributors in the United States. Sam Young sold only to distributors in the United States and to distributors and end users in the PRC. Sunglim sold to distributors and end users in the home market and to distributors and wholesalers in the United States.

Each respondent has reported a single channel of distribution and a single level of trade in each market, and has not requested a level of trade adjustment. We examined the information reported by each respondent regarding its marketing process for making the reported comparison market and U.S. sales, including the type and level of selling activities performed and customer categories. Specifically, we considered the extent to which sales process, freight services, warehouse/inventory maintenance, and warranty services varied with respect to the different customer categories ( i.e. , distributors, wholesalers, and end users) within each market and across the markets. Based on our analyses, we found a single level of trade in the United States, and a single, identical level of trade in the comparison market for all respondents. Thus, it was unnecessary to make a LOT adjustment for any of the respondents in comparing EP and comparison market prices.

Huvis made sales in the home market to affiliated customers. To test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated customers to those of unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, direct and indirect selling expenses, discounts and packing. Where the price to an affiliated customer was on average 99.5 percent or more of the price to Huvis' unaffiliated customers, we determined that the sales made to the affiliated customer were at arm's length and included those sales in our calculation of NV pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c). Where prices to Huvis' affiliated customers were, on average, less than 99.5 percent of the prices to unaffiliated customers, we determined that these sales were not at arm's length and excluded them from our analysis.

No other respondent made comparison market sales to affiliated customers.

As discussed in the case history section above, there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that each respondent made sales of the subject merchandise in its comparison market at prices below the cost of production (“COP”) in accordance with section 773(b) of the Act.

We calculated the COP on a product-specific basis, based on the sum of the respondents' costs of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, including interest expenses, and the costs of all expenses incidental to placing the foreign like product in a condition packed ready for shipment in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act.

We relied on COP information submitted by the respondents except for the following adjustments. For Huvis, we revised the calculation of the G&A expense ratios to include additional non-operating income and expense items in the numerator of the calculation, and to exclude packing expenses that were included in the cost of manufacture in the denominator of the calculation. We made the same adjustment to the denominator of the interest expense calculation. These adjustments resulted in small changes to the reported G&A and interest expense amounts ( see Huvis Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum , dated May 31, 2002).

We also disallowed certain offsets to Daeyang's and Mijung's reported G&A expenses See Daeyang Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum and Mijung Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum , dated May 31, 2002.

For each respondent, on a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-average COP figures for the POR to the comparison market sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales were made at prices below the COP. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP, consisting of the cost of manufacturing, G&A and interest expenses, to the comparison market prices, less any applicable movement charges, rebates, discounts, and direct and indirect selling expenses. In determining whether to disregard comparison market sales made at prices less than their COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether such sales were made (1) within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and (2) at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time.

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

We found that for Daeyang, Estal, Huvis, Mijung, and Sam Young, for certain specific products, more than 20 percent of the comparison market sales were at prices less than the COP and, thus, the below-cost sales were made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities. In addition, these sales were made at prices that did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales and used the remaining sales, if any, as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1).

Keon Baek made no home market below-cost sales during the POR. Sunglim did not make below-cost sales within an extended period of time in substantial quantities during the POR. Therefore, we have not excluded any home market sales by Keon Baek or Sunglim from our calculation of NV.

We based NV on the price at which the foreign like product is first sold for consumption in the comparison market, in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, and at the same LOT as the export price, as defined by section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. We calculated NV based on ex-factory, delivered, FOB and CIF prices to affiliated end users and unaffiliated customers, where appropriate. We made deductions for movement expenses including, where appropriate, domestic inland freight, domestic brokerage, wharfage, container taxes, terminal handling fees and international freight under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act.

In addition, we made adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in circumstances of sale including imputed credit expenses, bank charges and letter of credit fees, where appropriate. For Huvis, we recalculated home market imputed credit to account for the imputed revenue received for payments made prior to shipment. In addition, for home market sales made in U.S. dollars, we recalculated imputed credit expenses using the U.S. dollar interest rate in the calculation.

We adjusted Keon Baek's reported selling expenses for bank charges and letter of credit fees to account for a rounding error.

Finally, we made adjustments to NV, where appropriate, for differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411.

We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A of the Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

We preliminarily find that the weighted-average dumping margins for the period November 8, 1999 through April 30, 2001, are as follows:

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

Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If requested, a hearing will be scheduled upon determination of the briefing schedule.

Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. Case briefs from interested parties and rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the respective case briefs, may be submitted in accordance with a schedule to be determined by the Department. All interested parties will be notified of the briefing schedule once it has been established. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties are also encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited.

The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.

Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties. For assessment purposes, we intend to calculate importer/customer-specific assessment rates for the subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales examined and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be those established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 11.35 percent, the “All Others” rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

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

This administrative review and notice are published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act), as amended. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (2001).

The Department published an antidumping duty order on SSPC from Belgium on May 21, 1999 (64 FR 27756). On May 1, 2001, the Department published in the Federal Register (66 FR 21740) a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this antidumping duty order. On May 16, 2001, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), respondent ALZ, N.V. (ALZ) and its affiliated U.S. importer TrefilARBED, Inc. (TrefilARBED), and the petitioners, Allegheny Ludlum, Corp., AK Steel Corporation, Butler Armco Independent Union, North American Stainless, Zanesville Armco Independent Union, and the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC (collectively, petitioners), timely requested a review of the antidumping duty order on certain SSPC from Belgium. On June 19, 2001, we published a notice of initiation of the antidumping review of SSPC from Belgium. See 66 FR 32934.

Due to complicated issues in this case, on December 17, 2001, the Department extended to deadline for the preliminary results of this antidumping duty administrative review until no later than May 31, 2002. See Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 66 FR 64950 (December 17, 2001).

The product covered by this order is certain stainless steel plate 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 plate products are flat-rolled products, 254 mm or over in width and 4.75 mm or more in thickness, in coils, and annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject plate may also be further processed ( e.g. , cold-rolled, polished, etc.) provided that it maintains the specified dimensions of plate following such processing. Excluded from the scope of these orders are the following: (1) plate not in coils, (2) plate that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled, (3) sheet and strip, and (4) flat bars. In addition, certain cold-rolled stainless steel plate in coils is also excluded from the scope of these orders. The excluded cold-rolled stainless steel plate in coils is defined as that merchandise which meets the physical characteristics described above that has undergone a cold-reduction process that reduced the thickness of the steel by 25 percent or more, and has been annealed and pickled after this cold reduction process.

The merchandise subject to these orders is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 7219.11.00.30, 7219.11.00.60, 7219.12.00.06, 7219.12.00.21, 7219.12.00.26, 7219.12.00.51, 7219.12.00.56, 7219.12.00.66, 7219.12.00.71, 7219.12.00.81, 7219.31.00.10, 7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 7220.11.00.00, 7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the orders is dispositive.

The period of review (POR) is May 1, 2000 through April 30, 2001.

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the sales and cost information provided by ALZ and TrefilARBED. We used standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's facilities and the examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the public and proprietary versions of the verification reports, which are on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the main Department building.

ALZ reported invoice date as the date of sale. Invoice date is also the Department's presumptive date for date of sale. See section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium , 64 FR 15476 (March 31, 1999) ( SSPC Final Determination ). In the original investigation, we determined that invoice date was the proper date of sale in both markets. For purposes of this review, we also have examined whether invoice date or some other date better represents the date on which the material terms of sale were established. The Department has examined sales documentation, including order confirmations and invoices, provided by ALZ and TrefilARBED for its home market and U.S. sales, and has preliminarily found that the material terms of sale are set as of the invoice date in both markets. Specifically, changes in price and quantity may occur after the initial order confirmation date, and up to the invoicing date. See Sales and Cost Verification of ALZ, N.V.: Antidumping Administrative Review on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium , from Julio A. Fernandez, through Sally C. Gannon, to the File (May 24, 2002), at page 5. See also Sales Verification of TrefilARBED, Inc.: Antidumping Administrative Review on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium , from Julio A. Fernandez and Brett L. Royce, through Sally C. Gannon, to the File (May 30, 2002), at page 11. As such, pursuant to section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations, we preliminarily determine that invoice date is the appropriate date of sale for both the home and U.S. markets in this administrative review because it better reflects the date upon which the material terms of sale were finally established.

To determine whether sales of SSPC from Belgium to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared the CEP to the NV for ALZ as specified in the “Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual U.S. transactions.

We calculated CEP, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, because sales to the first unaffiliated purchaser took place after importation into the United States.

We based CEP on the packed ex-warehouse or delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions for billing adjustments (adjustment for freight and adjustments for customer claims), where applicable, and further processing expenses. We also made deductions for the following movement expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act: foreign inland freight, foreign inland insurance (including marine insurance), international freight (including foreign brokerage), U.S. inland freight from port to warehouse, U.S. inland insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. warehouse expenses, U.S. inland freight from warehouse to unaffiliated customer and U.S. Customs duty. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses (credit costs), inventory carrying costs, and indirect selling expenses. We also deducted the profit allocated to these expenses, in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act.

In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared the volume of ALZ's home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Based on this comparison, we determined that the aggregate volume of ALZ's home market sales of the foreign like product is greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of ALZ's U.S. sales. Thus, we determined that ALZ had a viable home market during the POR. Consequently, we based NV on home market sales.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that ALZ had made home market sales at prices below its cost of production (COP) in this review because the Department had disregarded sales that failed the cost test in the original investigation. See SSPC Final Determination . See also Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 66 FR 56272 (November 7, 2001), and Issues and Decision Memorandum for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium , from Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Enforcement III, to Faryar Shirzad, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated November 7, 2001 (wherein ALZ's margin was based on total adverse facts available). Therefore, the Department initiated an investigation to determine whether ALZ made home market sales during the POR at prices below its COP. Accordingly, we calculated the COP based on the sum of respondent's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general and administrative expenses (“SG&A”) and packing costs, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act.

For these preliminary results, we recalculated respondent's reported COP based on information obtained during verification. See Memorandum to the File from Julio A. Fernandez through Sally C. Gannon Regarding Analysis of ALZ, N.V. , dated May 31, 2002, for a discussion of the business proprietary facts underlying this conclusion. We compared the COP figures to home market sales of the foreign like product as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to home market prices, less any applicable movement charges and discounts.

In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined (1) whether, within an extended period of time ( i.e. , one year), such sales were made in substantial quantities, and (2) whether such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of the respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of the respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we determined such sales to have been made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, because we compared prices to POR weight-averaged costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act. Therefore, we disregarded the below-cost sales.

In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used constructed value (CV) as the basis for NV when there were no contemporaneous sales of identical or similar merchandise in the comparison market that passed the cost test. We calculated CV, in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, based on the sum of ALZ's cost of materials, fabrication, SG&A, profit, and U.S. packing costs. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A and profit on the actual amounts incurred and realized by ALZ in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country. For selling expenses, we used the average of the selling expenses reported for home market sales that passed the cost test, weighted by the total quantity of those sales.

We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated home market customers. We made deductions for billing adjustments (adjustment when customer picks up the merchandise), early payment discounts, inland freight, and inland insurance. In accordance with section 773(a)(6), we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs and U.S. credit expenses.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the CEP transaction. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market. Further, in identifying levels of trade for export price (EP) and comparison-market sales ( i.e. , NV based on either home-market or third-country prices), we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States , 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. March 7, 2001).

To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade than CEP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a different LOT, and the difference involves the performance of different selling activities and is demonstrated to affect price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP-offset provision). See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa , 62 FR 61731, 61732-61733 (November 19, 1997).

In this case, ALZ requested that the Department adjust NV to account for different levels of trade in the home market and the U.S. market. However, the information on the record does not justify treating CEP sales and home market sales as sales at different levels of trade. Because much of the information on LOT is business proprietary, our analysis is set forth in a Memorandum to the File from Julio A. Fernandez through Sally C. Gannon Regarding Level of Trade Analysis for ALZ, N.V. (May 31, 2002) ( LOT Analysis Memo ) (public version on file in the Department's CRU). Because we found that the home market LOT did not differ from the CEP LOT, we preliminarily did not make a LOT adjustment, or, as requested by respondent, a CEP offset for sales by ALZ in Belgium which are compared with CEP sales in the United States.

We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank, in accordance with section 773A of the Act.

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the antidumping margin for ALZ, for the period May 1, 2000 through April 30, 2001, to be as follows:

The Department will disclose, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), its calculations to interested parties within 5 days of the date of public announcement of these results, or if no public announcement, within 5 days of publication of this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Unless otherwise notified by the Department, any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication. 19 CFR 351.309(d). Unless the due date for the final results is extended, the Department will publish a notice of final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.

Upon issuance of the final results of this review, the Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We have calculated importer-specific ad valorem assessment rates for ALZ based on entered values. We will direct Customs to assess this ad valorem rate against the entered value on all appropriate entries. Upon completion of this review, the Department will issue assessment instructions directly to Customs.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of these reviews for all shipments of stainless steel plate in coils from Belgium entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate established in the final results of this review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in these reviews but covered in the original investigation of sales at LTFV or a previous review, the cash deposit will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this or a previous review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) for all other producers and/or exporters of this merchandise, the cash deposit rate shall be 9.86 percent, the “all others” rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. See SSPC Final Determination . These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

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

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

This notice announces new appointments by the Under Secretary for International Trade, Grant Aldonas, of the ITA Performance Review Board. This is a revised list of new members and the appointment of previous board members as listed in the June 8, 2000, Federal Register (65 FR 36411). The appointments are for a period of 2 years. The purpose of the International Trade Administration's Performance Review Board is to review and make recommendations to the Appointing Authority on performance management issues such as appraisals, bonuses, ES-level Increases and Presidential Rank Awards for members of the Senior Executive Service.

The Performance Review Board members are:

The petition in this proceeding was filed by AL Tech Specialty Steel Corp.; Carpenter Technology Corp.; Republic Engineered Steels; Talley Metals Technology, Inc.; and, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC (the petitioners).

Since the publication of the notice of initiation in the Federal Register ( see Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Revocations in Part , 66 FR 54195 (October 26, 2001) ( Initiation Notice )), the following events have occurred. On November 28, 2001, we issued countervailing duty questionnaires to the Government of Italy (GOI), Acciaierie Valbruna S.p.A (Valbruna), and the European Commission (EC). On January 25, 2002, we received responses to our initial questionnaires from the GOI, the EC and Valbruna (respondent), the producer/exporter of the subject merchandise.

For purposes of this investigation, certain stainless steel wire rod (SSWR or subject merchandise) comprises products that are hot-rolled or hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled and/or descaled rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in coils, that may also be coated with a lubricant containing copper, lime or oxalate. SSWR is made of alloy steels containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. These products are manufactured only by hot-rolling or hot-rolling, annealing, and/or pickling and/or descaling, and are normally sold in coiled form, and are of solid cross-section. The majority of SSWR sold in the United States is round in cross-sectional shape, annealed and pickled, and later cold-finished into stainless steel wire or small-diameter bar. The most common size for such products is 5.5 millimeters or 0.217 inches in diameter, which represents the smallest size that normally is produced on a rolling mill and is the size that most wire drawing machines are set up to draw. The range of SSWR sizes normally sold in the United States is between 0.20 inches and 1.312 inches in diameter. Two stainless steel grades SF20T and K-M35FL are excluded from the scope of the investigation. The percentages of chemical makeup for the excluded grades are as follows:

The requested modification has been granted under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), the provisions of § 222.306 of the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened fish and wildlife (50 CFR 222-226).

The Permit authorizes the Holder to a attach five (5) radio/sonic transmitters and to five (5) radio transmitters to loggerhead, green or Kemp’s ridley turtles already authorized to be taken. No additional animals were authorized to be taken. This activity will occur in 2002 and 2003.

Issuance of this amendment, as required by the ESA was based on a finding that such permit (1) was applied for in good faith, (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species which is the subject of this permit, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

Persons desiring to make oral presentations or submit written statements for consideration at the Committee meeting must contact Dr. Jane M. Arabian at the address or telephone number above no later than June 24, 2002.

1. The South River, Raritan River Basin, Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study was authorized by resolution of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Public Works and Transportation and adopted May 13, 1993. The resolution states that: Resolved by the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the United States House of Representatives, that, the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is requested to review the report of the Chief of Engineers, titled Basinwide Water Resources Development Report on the Raritan River Basin, New Jersey, published as House Document 53, Seventy-first Congress, Second Session, and other pertinent reports, to determine whether modifications of the recommendations contained therein are advisable at the present time in the interest of flood control and related purposes on the South River, New Jersey.

2. The South River, Raritan River Basin, Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study has been conducted by the Corps with the non-Federal project partner, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). The study area initially included the entire South River basin. The South River is the first major tributary of the Raritan River, located approximately 8.3 miles upstream of the Raritan River's mouth at Raritan Bay. The South River is formed by the confluence of the Matchaponix and Manalapan Brooks, just above Duhernal Lake, and flows northward from Duhernal Lake a distance of approximately 7 miles, at which point it splits into two branches, the Old South River and the Washington Canal. Both branches flow northward into the Raritan River. The South River is tidally controlled from its mouth upstream to Duhernal Lake Dam; fluvial conditions prevail above the dam. Based on coordination with NJDEP, County and local governments, it was determined that there are no widespread flooding problems in the South River watershed upstream of the Duhernal Lake dam. Consequently, the study area was modified, focusing on river reaches below the dam, specifically flood-prone areas within the Boroughs of South River and Sayreville, the Township of Old Bridge, and the Historic Village of Old Bridge (located within the Township of East Brunswick). The downstream river reaches encompass virtually all the flood-prone structures in the watershed and the areas of greatest ecological degradation (and greatest potential for ecosystem restoration).

3. Periodic hurricanes and storms have caused severe flooding along the South River. Flood damages downstream of Duhernal Lake are primarily due to storm surges with additional damages associated with basin runoff. The communities repeatedly affected by storm surges are the Boroughs of South River and Sayreville, the Township of Old Bridge, and the Historic Village of Old Bridge in East Brunswick Township. There are approximately 1,247 structures (1,082 residential; 165 commercial) in the 100-year floodplains of these communities and 1,597 structures in the 500-year floodplains (1,399 residential; 198 commercial). Storm surges create the greatest damages in the study area occurring during hurricanes and northeasters that generate sustained onshore winds through multiple tidal cycles. For example, the northeaster of March 1993 (a 25-year event) resulted in approximately $17 million damage (2001 dollars) and closed the highway bridge connecting the Boroughs of South River and Sayreville.

4. The area under consideration for ecosystem restoration encompasses 1,278 acres along the Old South River and the Washington Canal and includes the 380-acre Clancy Island bounded by these waterways and by the Raritan River. Wetland plant communities account for 786 acres (61 percent) of the study area land cover. Uplands account for the remaining 492 acres, of which 234 acres are occupied by residential, commercial, and industrial development. These wetlands and uplands are ecologically degraded. Approximately 527 acres (41 percent of the study area) are dominated by monotypic stands of common reed (Phragmites australis). Other wetland communities are scattered around the site in a patchwork of fragmented parcels. The uplands are dominated by low quality scrub-shrub land cover. The current degraded ecological conditions appear to be the result of: (1) Construction and maintenance dredging associated with the Federal navigation channels in the South River, Washington Canal, and Raritan River and (2) clay excavation and industrial activity associated with the defunct Sayreville brick industry.

5. Plan formulation for hurricane and storm damage reduction along the South River considered a full range of structural and nonstructural measures. Alternative plans that survived the initial screening of alternatives included: (1) A storm surge barrier at the confluences of the South River and Washington Canal with the raritan River, (2) multiple levee and floodwall configurations, and (3) buy-out of flood-prone properties. Further investigation determined that the storm surge barrier alternative at the confluence of the Washington Canal and the Raritan River was not economically feasible and that there would be significant adverse environmental effects on study area wetlands. It was also determined that acquisition of structures in the flood plains was not economically feasible. In contrast, preliminary analysis indicated that the levee and floodwall protection of flood-prone properties in the study area was found to be economically and technically feasible.

6. More detailed analysis indicated that levees and floodwalls along the eastern and western banks of the lower South River would be economically justified and would have minimal effects on study area wetlands. It was also determined that structural protection of upstream reaches would not be economically justified. A storm surge barrier (different location than previously described), located just downstream (north) of the Veterans Memorial Bridge, was subsequently evaluated in combination with levees/floodwalls in the lower reaches. The barrier was found to be an economically feasible means to protect upstream reaches. In addition, it would: (1) Minimize environmental impacts on wetlands, (2) avoid potential Hazardous Toxic Radioactive Waste (HTRW) sites upstream, and (3) preclude the need for nonstructural protection in upstream communities by providing comprehensive storm surge protection.

7. Economic analysis of the hurricane and storm reduction plans indicated that the levee/floodwall system with upstream storm surge barrier would result in the greatest net benefits. Subsequent optimization of this plan determined that a 500-year level of protection would provided the greatest net benefits. Consequently, the levee/floodwall system with upstream storm surge barriers providing a 500-year level of protection was designated as the National Economic Development (NED) plan and was selected as the recommended plan. Using a combination of levees, floodwalls, and a storm surge barriers, structural protection will extend to an elevation of +21.5 feet NGVD. The levees will extend 10,712 feet in length, and the floodwalls will extend 1,655 feet in length. The storm surge barrier will span the South River for a length of 320 feet and will have a clear opening of 80 feet. It is anticipated that the first costs of the selected hurricane and storm reduction plan will be approximately $62.5 million with average annual costs estimated at $4.3 million. With an average annual benefits estimated at $9.1 million, the average annual net benefits associated with the selected hurricane and storm reduction plan will be approximately $4.8 million. The selected hurrican and storm reduction plan is expected to have a benefit-cost ratio of 2.1 to one.

Even though the selected hurricane and storm damage reduction plan was specifically designed to avoid and minimize environmental impacts, there were some unavoidable impacts to the natural resources in the South River. Based on a Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) study and an Evaluation of Planned Wetlands (EPW) assessment, the selected NED plan will result in a loss of 1.07 Average Annual Habitat Units (AAHUs) and 20.74 Functional Capacity Units (FCUs). Consequently, to offset these impacts it was determined that the mitigation goal will replace at least 100% of the combined loss of AAHUs summed across evaluation species and FCUs summed across wetland functions, and at least 50% (agreed upon by HEP Team) of the loss of AAHUs per evaluation species and FCSs lost per function, as a result of implementation of the selected hurricane and storm damage reduction measures.

8. To achieve the mitigation goal, a screening analysis was conducted to evaluate the feasibility of improving the available habitat on the proposed levee (e.g., plant shrubs to improve songbird habitat); improving the existing habitats (e.g., increase the density/cover of the vegetation by planting more shrubs and/or herbaceous species); and, converting one habitat/cover type to another more valuable habitat (e.g., covert areas of Phragmites to salt marsh or wetland scrub-shrub).

9. Based on an analysis of the acreages, costs, benefits, and incremental cost/output for each of these plans it was determined that Mitigation Alternative 2 had ecological outputs that were worth its associated costs. The selected mitigation plan will fulfill the mitigation goal and will involve the conversion of 11.1 acres of degraded wetland Phragmites and disturbed habitat to a combination of wetland scrub-shrub (7.8 acres) and salt marsh (3.3 acres). This plan is estimated to cost $2,865,300 and is included in the hurricane and storm damage reduction cost provided earlier.

10. Plan formulation for ecosystem restoration considered a wide variety of restoration measures to address opportunities associated with ecosystem restoration along the South River. Restoration goals and objectives were specified early in the plan formulation process. Restoring biodiversity and ecological functioning were established as the restoration goals; the restoration objectives included: restoring habitat for threatened and endangered species, increasing site biodiversity, increasing tidal flushing, reducing Phragmites, improving water quality, and stabilizing and protecting desirable wetland habitat. After a preliminary restoration screening process that the assessed ecological benefits and engineering constraints of eleven different alternatives, four priority habitats were chosen for ecological restoration of the study area: low emergent marsh, intertidal mudflat, wetland forest scrub-shrub, and open water (i.e., tidal creeks and tidal ponds). Using different proportions of each habitat, more than 250 potential mathematical combinations of these habitats were evaluated.

11. These combinations were then applied to four potential restoration areas delineated in the study area using four different scales of restoration for degraded acreage in each area: 25 percent, 50 percent, 75 percent, and 100 percent. Cost effectiveness and incremental cost analysis was applied to the resultant 40,000 potential restoration plans, resulting in identification of eight “best buy” restoration plans for the study area. These plans represent the most efficient means to achieve ecosystem restoration in the study area. Based upon the incremental analysis and the ability of the alternative plans to achieve the restoration planning goals and objectives, one of the Best Buy plans was selected as the National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) plan.

12. The NER plan will restore 100 percent of the 379 acres of degraded wetlands in the potential restoration areas. The NER plan will restore the following habitats: low emergent marsh (151 acres: 40 percent), wetland forest/scrub-shrub (170 acres: 45 percent; plus an additional 19 acres, or 5 percent, as upland forest/scrub-shrub), mudflat (19 acres: 5 percent), and open water (19 acres: 5 percent). It is expected that implementation of the NER plan will cost approximately $50.6 million with an average annual cost of approximately $3.3 million.

13. The costs of project implementation for the hurricane and storm damage reduction features and ecosystem restoration features will be shared by the Federal government and the non-Federal project partner (NJDEP) on a 65 percent/35 percent basis. All operations and maintenance costs will be borne by the non-Federal project partner. For the hurricane and storm damage reduction features, the project implementation costs will be shared as follows: $40,608,700 Federal and $21,866,200 non-Federal with annual O&M costs of $221,500 (non-Federal). This includes mitigation costs associated with the implementation of these features ($2,865,300 total with $1,862,400 Federal and $1,002,900 non-Federal). For the ecosystem restoration features, the project implementation costs $50,552,800 million will be shared with $32,859,300 Federal and $17,693,500 non-Federal with O&M costs of $80,000 (non-Federal).

14. Potential beneficial cumulative impacts to migratory waterfowl and songbirds are likely to result from implementation of the selected mitigation and ecosystem restoration plans. These plans, in conjunction with similar projects in the South River watershed, should increase the overall ecological value of the area. Specifically, the mitigation and restoration plans will add large areas of more desirable wetland communities and increase the study area's biodiversity (i.e., improve the areas composition and abundance of plant and animal species).

15. The construction and maintenance of both the hurricane and storm damage reduction measures and the ecosystem restoration measures will not negatively impact any Federally or state listed endangered or threatened species, areas of designated critical habitat, or essential fish habitat. By providing increased cover and opportunities for foraging and nesting, the selected plans will also improve habitat for the Federally listed threatened bald eagle thought to utilize habitats in the general vicinity, and for many of the State of New Jersey endangered and threatened species observed in the restoration area (e.g., black skimmer, northern harrier, peregine falcon, yellow-crowned night heron, osprey, black-crowned night heron, and American bittern).

16. In sum, the recommended plan will efficiently reduce hurricane and storm damages along the South River and improve the structure and function of degraded ecosystems in the study area. The non-Federal project partner, NJDEP, has indicated its support for the recommended plan and is willing to enter into a Project Cooperation Agreement with the Federal Government for the implementation of the plan. At this time, there are no known major areas of controversy or unresolved issues regarding the study and selected plan among agencies or the public interest.

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

Type of Review: New.

Title: Local-Flex Application.

Abstract: Application for local educational agencies (LEAs) seeking to enter into local flexibility demonstration agreements (“Local-Flex” agreements). By statute, the Department can select 80 LEAs through a competitive process with which to enter into Local-Flex agreements. These agreements give LEAs the flexibility to consolidate certain Federal education funds and to use those funds for any educational purpose permitted under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in order to meet the State's definition of adequate yearly progress (AYP) and specific measurable goals for improving student achievement and narrowing achievement gaps.

Additional Information: An emergency clearance is necessary to enable the Department to select Local- Flex agreement LEAs by September 15 of this year. While LEAs may still have difficulty implementing the program during school year 2002-03, approval after the school year begins will surely delay implementation to the following year. In our view, harm to the public would thus occur if this clearance is not approved by June 12, 2002. The Department plans to make applications available by mid-June to allow applicants sufficient time to prepare their Local-Flex agreement. The Department would then have approximately one month to complete a peer review and negotiate final agreements with selected applicants.

Frequency: Semi-Annually.

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

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 240.

 Burden Hours: 19,200.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2058. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail address vivan.reese@ed.gov. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements, contact Kathy Axt at (540) 776-7742 or via her Internet address Kathy.Axt@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

As the President's new Early Childhood Initiative recognizes, research demonstrates the strong relationship between high-quality educational experiences for children before kindergarten and their later success in school. The National Research Council report, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (1998), concludes that the majority of reading problems faced by today's adolescents and adults could have been avoided or resolved in the early years of childhood. The Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes report (June 1999), partially funded by the Department, concludes that children's cognitive and social competence in the second grade can be predicted by the experiences that they had four years previously in child care, even after taking into account kindergarten and first-grade classroom experiences. The report also found that children who have traditionally been at risk for not doing well in school are more affected by the quality of child care experiences than are other children.

Early Reading First grants will help meet this challenge by funding projects that demonstrate the capacity to provide high-quality, research-based experiences in language and early literacy for preschool age children. These grants will improve the instruction and environment of programs primarily serving young children living in poverty, in programs such as Title I preschools and schoolwide programs, Head Start, Even Start Family Literacy programs, and publicly funded or subsidized child care.

Early Reading First projects must provide the following activities, with accommodations as needed for children with disabilities: High-quality oral language and print-rich environments; professional development for staff based on scientifically based reading research knowledge of language, cognitive, and early reading development that will assist in developing preschool age children's oral language, phonological awareness, print awareness, and alphabet knowledge; activities and instructional materials based on scientifically based reading research for use in developing language, cognitive, and early reading skills; acquisition, training, and implementation of screening reading assessments; and integration of the instructional materials, activities, tools, and measures into the applicant's overall programs. These activities, required by section 1222(d) of the ESEA, are more specifically described in the application guide.

The Secretary is particularly interested in Early Reading First projects that will serve a significant number of children with special needs, including those with disabilities and those with limited English proficiency. These programs would provide those children access, through appropriate accommodations, to the same high-quality environments and early reading curricula and activities based on scientifically based reading research as would be provided to children without special needs, to support their age-appropriate development of oral language, phonological awareness, print awareness, and alphabetic knowledge.

(1) One or more local educational agencies (LEAs) identified as being eligible on the list of “Eligible LEAs” on the Department's Web site at http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/earlyreading/index.html; (2) one or more public or private organizations or agencies located in a community served by one of those LEAs, which organization or agency is acting on behalf of one or more programs (which may include themselves) that serve young children, such as a Head Start program, a child care program, an Even Start program; or (3) one or more of the eligible LEAs, applying in collaboration with one or more of the eligible organizations or agencies. In addition to obtaining the list of “Eligible LEAs” from the Department's Web site, the public may obtain that list by contacting one of the individuals identified below under FOR APPLICATIONS AND FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

As defined for the Early Reading First Program under section 1221(b)(2) and (3) of the ESEA, the terms listed have the following meanings:

(1) The term “scientifically based reading research,” as defined in section 1208—(6) of the ESEA, means research that—

(A) applies rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain valid knowledge relevant to reading development, reading instruction, and reading difficulties; and

(B) includes research that—

(i) employs systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment;

(ii) involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses and justify the general conclusions drawn;

(iii) relies on measurements or observational methods that provide valid data across evaluators and observers and across multiple measurements and observations; and

(iv) has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or approved by a panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous, objective, and scientific review.

(2) The term “screening reading assessment,” as defined in section 1208(7)(B) of the ESEA, means an assessment that is—

(i) valid, reliable, and based on scientifically based reading research; and

(ii) a brief procedure designed as a first step in identifying children who may be at high risk for delayed development or academic failure and in need of further diagnosis of their need for special services or additional reading instruction.

The following provisions of the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) contained in Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) apply to these Early Reading First Program grants: 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.

It is the Secretary's practice, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), to offer interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed rules that are not taken directly from statute. Ordinarily, this practice would have applied to the priorities and requirements in this notice. Section 437(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), however, exempts from this requirement rules that apply to the first competition under a new or substantially revised program. The Secretary, in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, has decided to forgo public comment with respect to the rules in this grant competition in order to ensure timely awards. These rules will apply only to the FY 2002 grant competition.

The FY 2002 Early Reading First grant competition will be conducted through a Pre-Application and Full Application process. All applicants must submit a Pre-Application, which must include a narrative that briefly describes the existing preschool program(s) to be supported and improved with Early Reading First funds, and then addresses four key concepts related to the proposed project that are described below under Pre-Application Selection Criteria. In addition, the Pre-Application must include an estimated budget and brief budget justification. The Pre-Application is limited to: 2 double-spaced pages for describing the context, 10 double-spaced pages to address the selection criteria and priorities, and 3 double-spaced pages for the budget justification, with formatting requirements and limited appendices that are described in the application guide.

The Secretary, through a peer review panel of experts convened under section 1203(c)(2) of the ESEA in accordance with section 1222(c) of the ESEA, will evaluate each Pre-Application based upon the Pre-Application selection criteria and three competitive priorities included in this notice. The Secretary will invite those applicants to submit Full Applications whose Pre-Applications the peer review panel rate highly in the competitive Pre-Application review process and recommend as having the potential to become successful projects. The Department will inform applicants of the outcome of the Pre-Application phase.

The Full Application must include a narrative addressing the Full Application selection criteria, a budget, and a budget narrative. Those Full Application selection criteria are different than the Pre-Application selection criteria. The Secretary, through a separate peer review panel of experts also convened under section 1203(c)(2) of the ESEA in accordance with section 1222(c) of the ESEA, will evaluate each Full Application based upon the Full Application selection criteria and Full Application competitive priority included in this notice. The Full Application is limited to: 35 pages for the narrative, and 5 pages for the budget narrative, with formatting requirements and limited appendices that are described in the application guide.

The Secretary will select applicants for funding based on the quality of the Full Applications and the recommendations of the Full Application peer review panel. The Secretary will consider for funding only those applications that the peer review panel recommends as demonstrating the greatest potential for creating improvements in early childhood education programs and for becoming successful projects that are centers of excellence for early learning.

In making funding decisions, the Department will use the procedures in EDGAR, 34 CFR 75.217, which may include the use of on-site reviews for some or all Full Applications following the peer review process. When making awards, the Secretary may take into consideration other information that is relevant to obtaining a variety of types of funded projects and an equitable distribution of awards throughout the nation, such as geographical representation, location in high-need urban and rural areas, project size, and type of program. The Department anticipates making final awards in December 2002.

Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2), the Secretary gives three separate competitive preferences to Pre-Applications as follows:

Early Reading First projects that are operated by a partnership that includes at least the following two partners: (1) a State educational agency (SEA) or a local educational agency (LEA) (or both); and (2) a preschool that is not under the administrative control of an LEA. The Secretary considers a preschool to be under the administrative control of an LEA for the purpose of this competitive priority if the LEA is the fiscal agent, operates, supervises, controls, or manages the preschool. A preschool that is located in a school or LEA building is not necessarily under the administrative control of an LEA.

Programs that form new qualifying partnerships for Early Reading First will meet this priority, as will programs operated through existing partnerships between LEAs and preschools that are not under the administrative control of an LEA. To qualify for points under this first Pre-Application competitive priority, at least one partner must qualify as an eligible applicant. In addition, to qualify under this competitive priority all preschools that will be supported by the proposed Early Reading First project must be located in a community served by an eligible LEA or primarily serve children who will attend kindergarten in an eligible LEA (see list of eligible LEAs on the Department's Web site listed above under “Eligible Applicants”).

An application that meets this first Pre-Application competitive priority would receive 10 points in the Pre-Application portion of the grant competition. These points are in addition to any points the applicant earns under the Pre-Application selection criteria and any other Pre-Application competitive priority.

This competitive priority is designed to: Ensure that the preschool programs supported with Early Reading First funds are closely coordinated and aligned with the State's kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) educational system and goals; enhance collaboration and instructional continuity between those preschools and the elementary schools children will enter after preschool; and give State and local support to preschools not part of the State K-12 public education system.

The preschool program(s) to be supported by the proposed Early Reading First project primarily serve children from low-income families.

An application that meets this second Pre-Application competitive priority would receive from 0-15 points in the Pre-Application portion of this grant competition, based on the applicant's demonstration of the degree to which the program serves children from low-income families. These points are in addition to any points the applicant earns under the Pre-Application selection criteria or any other Pre-Application competitive priority.

When awarding points, the Secretary will consider the relative percentage of children from low-income families. Applicants must include in their Early Reading First Program Pre-Application Narrative a description of the preschool program(s) to be served by the proposed project, which includes demographic and socioeconomic information on the preschool age children enrolled in those programs. Applicants may use data of their choice to demonstrate that the preschool age children primarily are from low-income families. For example, an applicant may use such information such as census data, the percentage of children receiving a free or reduced price lunch, or other similar measures of poverty to demonstrate the percentage of children from low-income families. The Secretary will consider the different definitions of poverty used in these data sources in determining the extent to which a project primarily serves children from low-income families.

This competitive priority is designed to ensure that Early Reading First funds are used to support local efforts to enhance the early language, literacy, and prereading development, particularly of preschool children who are from low-income families.

The applicant is a novice applicant (or a group of novice applicants) under 34 CFR 75.225 that is otherwise eligible to apply under this competition. A “novice applicant” under 34 CFR 75.225 means the following for this Pre-Application competitive priority: an applicant that has not had an active discretionary grant from the Federal Government in the five years before the deadline date for the Pre-Application in this grant competition. For the purposes of this requirement, a grant is active until the end of the grant's project or funding period, including any extensions of those periods that extend the grantee's authority to obligate funds. In the case of applications from more than one eligible applicant (that is, a group application), every eligible applicant must be a novice applicant to meet this Pre-Application competitive priority.

This competitive priority is included to broaden and diversify the pool of qualified applicants and provide greater opportunities for inexperienced applicants with high-quality applications to receive funding. An application that meets this third Pre-Application competitive priority would receive 5 points in the competition. These points are in addition to any points the applicant earns under the Pre-Application selection criteria or any other Pre-Application competitive priority.

Under 34 CFR 75.225, the Secretary gives a competitive priority to Full Applications as follows:

The applicant is a novice applicant (or a group of novice applicants) under 34 CFR 75.225 that is otherwise eligible to apply under this competition. A “novice applicant” under 34 CFR 75.225 means the following for this initial competition in the new Early Reading First Program: an applicant that has not had an active discretionary grant from the Federal Government in the five years before the deadline date for a Full Application under this grant competition. For the purposes of this requirement, a grant is active until the end of the grant's project or funding period, including any extensions of those periods that extend the grantee's authority to obligate funds. In the case of applications from more than one eligible applicant (that is, a group application), every eligible applicant must be a novice applicant to meet this Full Application competitive priority.

This competitive priority is included to broaden and diversify the pool of qualified applicants and provide greater opportunities for inexperienced applicants with high-quality applications to receive funding. An application that meets this Full Application competitive priority would receive 5 points in the competition. These points are in addition to any points the applicant earns under the selection criteria.

The Secretary will use the following selection criteria in accordance with 34 CFR 75.200(b)(2) and 75.209 to evaluate Pre-Applications under this grant competition. The maximum score for all of these selection criteria is 100 points. The maximum score for each criterion is indicated in parenthesis with the criterion.

Applicants must first use up to two (2) pages of their applications to describe the context of the existing early childhood education programs serving preschool age children (preschool programs) that they propose to support with Early Reading First funds. The Secretary recommends that, in the case of center-based programs, applicants generally include no more than a total of 5 centers to ensure that funds are sufficiently concentrated to achieve the program goals. This description must include the following information: the ages and number of children being served; demographic and socioeconomic information on those children; information on the type of special needs that any of the children may have; the average hours the children attend the program (hours/day, days/week, and months/year); primary funding source(s) for the program; the basic instructional program; and the number of staff and their qualifications.

In addition to the 2-page context description, applicants must also include, in the Appendix to the Pre-Application: (1) A list of the names and addresses of the preschool programs that the Early Reading First project will support, and, if the applicant intends to qualify under Pre-Application Competitive Priority 1 (State Educational System Partnership), the name of the eligible LEA in which each preschool is located or the name(s) of the eligible LEA(s) in which the kindergartens are located that the preschool age children primarily will attend; and (2) a one-page organizational chart showing the relationship between the members of the project proposal, which indicates the eligible applicant(s), the fiscal agent, and the preschools to be served.

Each applicant must then use no more than a total of 10 additional pages to address the following selection criteria and Pre-Application Competitive Priority 2 (Children from Low-Income Families). (Pre-Application Competitive Priority 1 (State Educational System Partnership) and Pre-Application Competitive Priority 3 (Novice Applicant) will be addressed by separate forms in the application package.)

(1) Vision (up to 25 points): Starting from the context of the existing early childhood education program(s) that the Early Reading First project would support, applicants must describe their vision for what those programs would look like if they were to become centers of educational excellence. Using the scientific reading research upon which their vision is based, applicants must describe the overall goals for their proposed Early Reading First project.

In evaluating the response to this first Pre-Application selection criterion, the Secretary will consider the clarity, creativity, comprehensiveness, and feasibility of the overall vision. The Secretary also will consider how well the goals reflect the vision, and the extent to which those goals incorporate high expectations, based on scientific research, for improvements in the early learning environment, curricula, teacher instruction, and enhancing children's language, cognitive, and early reading skills.

(2) Key Research and Program Design (up to 40 points): Applicants must discuss the key scientifically based research in the areas of language, cognitive, and early reading development for preschool age children, and include citations to the sources of that research. Applicants must tie that research to their program design by explaining the research-based strategies they would use, and the changes they would make, which appropriately address the needs of all children in the project including children with special needs, in each of the following core areas: classroom environment, professional development, curricula and instruction, and on-going screening assessment or other appropriate measures to monitor the children's progress. Applicants must explain any changes that they would make in the amount of time the program spends on developing children's language, cognition, and early reading skills, and how they would engage parents in helping with their children's development in those areas.

In evaluating the response to this second Pre-Application selection criterion, the Secretary will consider the relevance and rigor of the research cited, and how well the program design clearly links the proposed strategies with the major findings of up-to-date scientifically based reading research about best practices in language, cognitive, and early reading development. These best practices may include, for example, how the Early Reading First project will create high-quality print-rich environments, use on-going intensive professional development for preschool staff, support children's learning through explicit and scaffolded instruction in phonological awareness, oral language skills, print awareness, and alphabet knowledge, and use continuous screening assessments to monitor children's progress.

The Secretary also will consider the clarity and feasibility of the overall program design, based upon the Pre-Application estimated budget and budget justification and the proposed project activities, including the extent to which, in the case of center-based early education programs for preschool age children, the number of centers to be supported by Early Reading First is limited enough (generally, to no more than five (5) centers) to achieve the project goals with the amount of funds requested.

(3) Continuity and Coordination with Formal School Instruction (up to 10 points): Applicants must describe how they would work with the LEA that the preschool children would later attend to link the Early Reading First activities with the instructional program in kindergarten through third grade (including with any activities in the LEA under the Reading First State Grants Program authorized by subpart 1 of part B of title I of the ESEA). This will ensure close coordination with the State's educational goals and to promote continuity so that cognitive and literacy gains that children made in the preschool are sustained and supported once the children begin formal classroom instruction. Applicants must indicate whether or not their State has preschool standards in the cognitive domain, and if it does, briefly describe those standards. Applicants must explain how their proposed Early Reading First project would prepare young children to meet their State's preschool content standards (if any) and their State's reading or language arts content standards for kindergarten or the lowest elementary grade for which the State has those content standards.

In evaluating the response to this third Pre-Application selection criterion, the Secretary will consider how well the project design would result in the language, cognitive, and early reading gains children make in preschool being sustained once they begin formal schooling, and how well the Early Reading First strategies and activities would prepare children to meet the State's preschool cognitive standards (if any), and the State's content standards in reading or language arts for the lowest grade for which the State has those standards.

(4) Measuring success (up to 25 points): Applicants must describe how they will evaluate the success of their Early Reading First activities. Specifically, applicants must explain how they will determine whether the early language, literacy, and pre-reading development of the preschool age children served by the Early Reading First Program has improved and been enhanced as a result of their Early Reading First strategies and changes. Applicants must describe the key outcomes that they would expect to see in the classroom environment, instructional practice, and children's learning, how they plan to measure those outcomes, and how they would use the results for continuous program improvement.

In evaluating the response to this fourth Pre-Application selection criterion, the Secretary will consider how well the expected outcomes are linked to the program's goals, and how well the proposed child measures will demonstrate those outcomes. The Secretary will also consider the validity and rigor of the proposed measures, their appropriateness for the target population, and the degree to which the program will use the results to inform future instruction and program improvement.

The Secretary will use the following selection criteria in accordance with 34 CFR 75.200(b)(2) and 75.209 to evaluate Full Applications under this grant competition. The maximum score for all of the Full Applicant selection criteria is 100 points. The maximum score for each criterion is indicated in parenthesis with the criterion.

In addition, when making awards, the Secretary will consider for awards only those high-quality applications that the peer review panel recommends as demonstrating the greatest potential for creating improvements in early childhood education programs and for becoming successful projects that are centers of excellence for early learning. When making awards, the Secretary may take into consideration other information that is relevant to obtaining a variety of types of funded projects and an equitable distribution of awards throughout the nation, such as geographical representation, location in high-need urban and rural areas, project size, and type of program.

In evaluating Full Applications, the Secretary will take into consideration the responsiveness of the applicant to the comments of peer reviewers on the applicant's Pre-Application, including the extent to which the applicant refines its initial vision and the broad plan described in that Pre-Application, based upon the comments of the Pre-Application reviewers and other new information the applicant may have obtained.

(a) Significance of project (up to 15 points). (1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project.

(2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The likelihood that the applicant's vision (as described in the Pre-Application and refined as appropriate for the Full Application) will result in a project that is a center of educational excellence for at-risk preschool age children, as demonstrated by the learning environment, instruction, and student achievement.

(ii) The extent to which the field of early childhood education can benefit from the project through products such as information, materials, and techniques, and the potential for those resources being used effectively in other settings.

(b) Quality of project activities and services (up to 35 points). (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the proposed project's activities and services.

(2) In determining the quality of the proposed project's activities and services, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the applicant presents a detailed plan (with research citations where appropriate) that describes the activities and services that the project will provide, to support the development of language, cognitive, and early reading skills for preschool age children, in all of the following areas, and how those activities and services are based on up-to-date knowledge from scientifically based reading research:

(A) Providing a rich oral language and print-rich environment.

(B) Preparing and providing ongoing assistance to staff, through professional development and other support.

(C) Providing services and using instructional materials and activities, and integrating those instructional materials and activities into the applicant's preschool programs and family literacy services.

(D) Using screening reading assessments or other appropriate measures to determine the skills children are learning and identify children who might be at risk of reading failure.

(E) Helping children, especially those experiencing difficulty with language and early reading skills, to make the transition from preschool to formal classroom instruction.

(F) Involving parents meaningfully in their children's early education.

(ii) The extent to which the planned activities and services in each of the above areas will help staff in the programs to meet more effectively the diverse needs of preschool age children in the community, including those with limited English proficiency, disabilities, or other special needs.

(c) Quality of project personnel (up to 10 points). (1) The Secretary considers quality of project personnel.

(2) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The strength of the qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project staff.

(ii) The strength of the qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of personnel with whom the project will contract to assist in project activities, including research-based professional development for staff to support children's development of language, cognitive, and early reading skills.

(d) Quality of management plan (up to 20 total points).

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project.

(2) In determining the quality of the management plan, the Secretary considers the feasibility of the proposed project and the likelihood that the project will be able to achieve its expected goals (as described in the applicant's Pre-Application and refined as appropriate for the Full Application), taking into consideration the strength of any partnership, and using the following factors:

(i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the goals of the proposed project on time and within budget, including: clearly defined goals, activities, responsibilities, and timeline for accomplishing project tasks (up to 10 points).

(ii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel, including any partnership commitments, are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project (up to 5 points).

(iii) The extent to which the proposed costs are adequate in relation to the proposed activities, the number of persons to be served, and the anticipated results and benefits (up to 5 points).

(e) Quality of the project evaluation (up to 20 total points).

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the proposed project evaluation.

(2) In considering the quality of the proposed project evaluation, the Secretary considers the extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective, valid, and reliable performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data in the following areas:

(i) Improvement in classroom environment (up to 5 points).

(ii) Improvement in teacher knowledge and qualifications (up to 5 points).

(iii) Improvement in teacher instruction and planning (up to 5 points).

(iv) Improvement in outcomes for children's language, cognitive, and early reading skills (up to 5 points).

The procedures and requirements contained in this notice relate to an application package that the Department has developed for the Early Reading First Program grants. The public may obtain copies of this application package by calling or writing the individual identified below as the Department's contact, or through the Department's Web site at: www.ed.gov/GrantApps/#84.359; or http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/earlyreading/index.html.

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget has approved the use of this application package under OMB control number 1810-0654, which expires October 31, 2002.

Education Publications Center (ED Pubs), P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398. Telephone (toll free): 1-877-433-7827. FAX: (301) 470-1244. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call (toll free): 1-877-576-7734.

You may also contact ED Pubs at its Web site: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html.

Or you may contact ED Pubs at its e-mail address: edpubs@inet.ed.gov.

If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.359(A and B).

The public also may obtain a copy of the application package on the Department's Web site at the following address: www.ed.gov/GrantApps/#84.359.

An LEA is eligible for an award under the Small, Rural School Achievement Program if—

(a) The total number of students in average daily attendance at all of the schools served by the LEA is fewer than 600; or each county in which a school served by the LEA is located has a total population density of fewer than 10 persons per square mile; and

(b) All of the schools served by the LEA are designated with a school locale code of 7 or 8 by the Department's National Center for Education Statistics; or the Secretary has determined, based on a demonstration by the LEA and concurrence of the SEA, that the LEA is located in an area defined as rural by a governmental agency of the State.

We previously requested each SEA to provide, on behalf of their LEAs, data that the Department needs to determine eligibility and calculate FY 2002 allocations under the Small, Rural School Achievement Program. (A copy this request and information concerning the program is available on the Department's web site at http://wwe.ed.gov/offices/OESE/reap.html. ) On February 21, 2002, we also published a notice in the Federal Register (67 FR 8014-8015) announcing the acceptability of alternative average daily attendance (ADA) data and establishing an April 1, 2002 deadline for States to submit ADA and other eligibility and allocation data to the Department. On the basis on the information that States have provided to us, we will award formula grants to eligible LEAs that submit a timely application for funds under the program.

We are now establishing a deadline for the submission of LEA applications, because the precise amount of funding that an eligible LEA will receive under the program for FY 2002 is affected by whether other eligible LEAs throughout the country participate in the program. The Department cannot determine final allocations under the Small, Rural School Achievement Program without a deadline for the submission of applications.

Electronic Submission of Applications: To receive its share of FY 2002 funding, an eligible LEA must submit an electronic application to the Department by July 8, 2002. Submission of an electronic application involves the use of the Electronic Grant Application System (e-APPLICATION, formerly e-GAPS) portion of the Grant Administration and Payment System (GAPS).

You can access the electronic application for the Small, Rural School Achievement Program at: http://e-grants.ed.gov.

Once you access this site, you will receive specific instructions regarding the information to include in your application.

The regular hours of operation of the e-Grants Web site are from 6 a.m. until 12 midnight (Washington, DC time) on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays; and from 6 a.m. until 7 p.m. on Wednesdays and Saturdays. The system is unavailable on the second Saturday of every month, Sundays, and Federal holidays.