The Fishtrap analysis area of approximately 36,400 acres is located approximately 20 air miles north of Thompson Falls, Montana, Sanders County, in T23N, R28W; T23N, R29W; T24N, R27W; T24N, R28W; T24N, R29W; and T25N, R28W; PMM. Within this area, the Lolo National Forest proposes (1) Approximately 2921 acres of timber harvest; (2) approximately 1037 acres of precommercial thinning; (3) approximately 887 acres of prescribed burning; (4) approximately 2 1/2 miles of temporary road construction to access some of the harvest units; (5) approximately 177 miles of road decommissioning; (6) approximately 30-35 miles of road reconstruction; (7) approximately 30 miles of herbicide treatment of noxious weeds along roadsides; (8) abandonment of the Fishtrap grazing allotment; and (9) to correct Forest Plan mapping errors in scattered parcels throughout the analysis area by changing an approximate net 625 acres from timber-suitable to unsuitable management areas. In addition to these proposals, the Forest Service will consider alternate road access to the Fishtrap Lake campground, which may include long-term specified road construction.

The Lolo National Forest Plan, 1986, provides overall guidance for land management activities in the project area. The purposes for these actions are to: (1) Improve water quality, fish habitat and fish passage; (2) Improve grizzly bear habitat within the Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone; (3) Restore, maintain or enhance native “at risk” vegetative communities, as identified in the Northern Region Overview, USDA 1998; (4) Provide for ecological sustainability and community stability through the use of forest products; (5) Improve and maintain big game winter range; (6) Provide for a transportation system that better reflects current access and resource concerns and reduces economic burdens associated with maintaining unneeded roads.

Issues currently identified for analysis in the EIS include potential effects on wildlife (particularly grizzly bear), water quality, fisheries and forest access.

The Forest Service will consider a range of alternatives. A No Action alternative and other alternatives, which respond to significant issues, will be developed, analyzed and compared in the Draft EIS.

The Draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public review in April 2003. Comments on the Draft EIS will be considered and responded to in the Final EIS, scheduled to be completed by August 2003.

The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register .

The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel , 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day scoping comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

Responsible Official: Deborah L.R. Austin, Forest Supervisor, Lolo National Forest, Building 24—Fort Missoula, Missoula, MT 59804, is the responsible official. In making the decision, the responsible official will consider comments, responses, disclosure of environmental consequences, and applicable laws, regulations, and policies. The responsible official will state the rationale for the chosen alternative in the Record of Decision.

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

On November 21, 2001, the Department published a notice of initiation of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on barium chloride from the People's Republic of China, covering the period October 1, 2000, through September 30, 2001. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part , 66 FR 58432. On July 3, 2002, the Department published a notice extending the time limits for completing the preliminary results of its review until August 3, 2002. See Barium Chloride From the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 67 FR 45088 (July 3, 2002).

We determine that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of this review within the current time limit. Therefore, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results until no later than October 31, 2002. See Decision Memorandum from Holly A. Kuga to Bernard T. Carreau, dated concurrently with this notice, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Department's main building. We intend to issue the final results no later than 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results notice.

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

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.

The Government of Ukraine and Krivorozhstal, the sole respondent in the instant proceeding, have requested revocation of Ukraine's non-market economy (“NME”) status. In response to the request, the Department has invited and received public comments and rebuttal comments regarding Ukranian economic reforms. See 67 FR 19394 (April 19, 2002). In addition, the Department has compiled and analyzed information regarding Ukrainian economic reforms from independent third-party sources that we commonly cite for our decisions in this area.

The Department has developed a great deal of information regarding Ukraine's economic reforms. The information raises a broad range of issues that require additional time to evaluate before the Department makes a decision on this matter. The Department is therefore deferring its decision regarding Ukraine's non-market economy status beyond the instant investigation's final determination date of August 23, 2002. Since a country's NME status remains in effect until revoked, Ukraine will continue to be treated as a NME country for purpose of the instant final determination ( see section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act).

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“Act”), as amended. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (“Department”) regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (2002).

On July 11, 2002, the Department received a petition on imports of saccharin from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) filed in proper form by PMC Specialities Group, Inc., hereinafter referred to as “the Petitioner.” On July 23, 2002, the Department requested clarification of certain areas of the petition and received a response on July 26, 2002.

In accordance with section 732(b) of the Act, the Petitioner alleges that imports of saccharin from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, and threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States.

The Petitioner is a saccharin producer and accounts for over fifty percent of domestic production of saccharin, as defined in the petition. Therefore, the Department finds that the Petitioner has standing to file the petition because it is an interested party as defined under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, with respect to the merchandise subject to this investigation. The Petitioner has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the antidumping duty investigation, which it is requesting the Department to initiate ( see “Determination of Industry Support for the Petition” below).

The product covered by this investigation is saccharin. Saccharin is a non-nutritive sweetener used in beverages and foods, personal care products such as toothpaste, table top sweeteners, and animal feeds. It is also used in metalworking fluids. There are four primary chemical compositions of saccharin: (1) sodium saccharin (American Chemical Society Chemical Abstract Service (“CAS”) Registry #128-44-9); (2) calcium saccharin (CAS Registry #6485-34-3); (3) acid (or insoluble) saccharin (CAS Registry #81- 07-2); and (4) research grade saccharin. Most of the U.S.-produced and imported grades of saccharin from the PRC are sodium and calcium saccharin, which are available in granular, powder, spray-dried powder, and liquid forms.

The merchandise subject to this investigation is classifiable under subheading 2925.11.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) and includes all types of saccharin imported under this HTSUS subheading, including research and specialized grades. 1 Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the Department's written description of the scope of this investigation remains dispositive.

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

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

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product.

Thus, to determine whether the petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (“ITC”), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product ( see section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes and pursuant to separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the domestic like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. 2

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this subtitle.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation,” i.e. , the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition.

In this case, the domestic like product referred to in the petition is the single domestic like product defined in the “Scope of Investigation” section, above. At this time, the Department has no basis on the record to find the petition's definition of the domestic like product to be inaccurate. The Department, therefore, has adopted the domestic like product definition set forth in the petition.

Moreover, the Department has determined that the petition contains adequate evidence of industry support; therefore, polling was unnecessary. See Import Administration AD Investigation of Saccharin from the PRC: Initiation Checklist, (July 31, 2002) (“ Initiation Checklist ”), at Attachment II (public version on file in the Central Records Unit of the Department of Commerce, Room B-099). To the best of the Department's knowledge, the Petitioner supporting the petition represents over 50 percent of total production of the domestic like product. Additionally, no person who would qualify as an interested party pursuant to section 771(9) (C), (D), (E), (F), or (G) of the Act has expressed opposition to the petition.

Accordingly, the Department determines that this petition is filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.

The following is a description of the allegation of sales at less than fair value (“LTFV”) upon which the Department based its decision to initiate this investigation. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and factors of production are also discussed in the Initiation Checklist . Should the need arise to use any of this information as facts available under section 776 of the Act in our preliminary or final determination, we may reexamine the information and revise the margin calculations, if appropriate. The anticipated period of investigation (“POI”) is January 1, 2002 through June 30, 2002.

The Petitioner identified five PRC companies as producers and exporters of saccharin in the PRC. See Initiation Checklist at Attachment I.

The Petitioner submitted an LTFV analysis for the PRC as a non-market economy (“NME”). The Petitioner provided a dumping margin calculation using the Department's NME methodology as required by 19 C.F.R. § 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C).

Petitioner calculated a range of export prices using average unit values (AUVs) of saccharin imports reported by the U.S. Census Bureau and the price quotes it obtained, subtracting ocean freight, insurance, brokerage and handling charges and foreign inland freight, where appropriate. See Petition at Exhibit 6; and Letter from Petitioner to the Department: Response to Petition Clarifications Questions (July 26, 2002) (“ Petition Clarifications ”) at Exhibits 1 and 2, for a detailed calculation of these export prices. Petitioner did not calculate imputed credit expenses for PRC sales because the petition bases normal value (“NV”) on a factors of production analysis pursuant to section 773(c) of the Act. See Initiation Checklist for further information.

Petitioner argues that, because at least one PRC producer of saccharin sells to an affiliated reseller in the United States, some sales during the period of investigation (“POI”) should be considered constructed export price (“CEP”) sales. 3 See Initiation Checklist .

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's regulations are to the regulations at 19 CFR Part 351 (2001).

On July 31, 1991, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil. See Antidumping Duty Order: Silicon Metal from Brazil 56 FR 36135 (July 31, 1991). On July 2, 2001, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil for the period July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review , 66 FR 34910 (July 2, 2001). On July 13, 2001, CBCC requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its sales. On July 13, 2001, Minasligas requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its sales and partially revoke the order with respect to Minasligas pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222. On July 31, 2001, Rima requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its sales and partially revoke the order with respect to Rima pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222.

On July 31, 2001, petitioners requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of sales made by CBCC, Minasligas and Rima. On August 20, 2001, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part , 66 FR 43570 (August 20, 2001). On September 5, 2001, the Department issued questionnaires to CBCC, Minasligas and Rima. 1

On October 19, 2001, the Department received responses to sections A through D of the questionnaire from Minasligas. On October 22, 2001, the Department received responses to sections A through C of the questionnaire from Rima. On November 5, 2001, the Department received responses to sections A through D of the questionnaire from CBCC. On February 22, 2002, the Department initiated a cost investigation with respect to Rima. On March 5, 2002, the Department informed Rima that it was required to respond to section D of the Department's questionnaire. On March 22, 2002, the Department received a response to section D of the questionnaire from Rima.

The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Minasligas on March 29, 2002, April 12, 2002, and June 7, 2002, and received responses on April 24, 2002, and June 21, 2002. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to CBCC on March 29, 2002, and May 24, 2002, and received responses on April 19, 2002 and June 12, 2002. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Rima on April 12, 2002, May 15, 2002 and May 17, 2002 and received responses on May 3, 2002, and May 31, 2002.

On March 15, 2002, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department published in the Federal Register its notice extending the deadline for the preliminary results until July 31, 2002. See Silicon Metal from Brazil: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 67 FR 11674 (March 15, 2002). The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

The merchandise covered by this administrative review is silicon metal from Brazil containing at least 96.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon by weight. Also covered by this administrative review is silicon metal from Brazil containing between 89.00 and 96.00 percent silicon by weight but which contains more aluminum than the silicon metal containing at least 96.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon by weight. Silicon metal is currently provided for under subheadings 2804.69.10 and 2804.69.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) as a chemical product, but is commonly referred to as a metal. Semiconductor grade silicon (silicon metal containing by weight not less than 99.99 percent silicon and provided for in subheading 2804.61.00 of the HTS) is not subject to the order. Although the HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and for Customs purposes, the written description remains dispositive.

During the POR, Brazilian respondents made both EP and CEP sales to the United States. To determine whether EP sales of silicon metal by the Brazilian respondents to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared EP to the NV, as described in the Export Price and Normal Value sections of this notice. To determine whether CEP sales of silicon metal by the Brazilian respondents to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared CEP to the NV, as described 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 EP or CEP transactions, as appropriate.

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 Review ” section, above, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Further, as in the preceding segment of this proceeding, we have continued to treat all silicon metal meeting the description of the merchandise under the “ Scope of Review ” section, above (with the exception of slag and contaminated products) as identical products for purposes of model-matching. See Silicon Metal From Brazil: Preliminary Results, Intent To Revoke in Part, Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Extension of Time Limits , 64 FR 43161 (August 9, 1999). Therefore, where there were no contemporaneous sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the CV of the product sold in the U.S. market during the comparison period, consistent with section 351.405 of the Department's regulations.

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted verifications of the information provided by Rima and CBCC. We used standard verification procedures including examination of relevant sales and financial records, and selection of relevant source documentation as exhibits. Our verification findings are detailed and on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B099 of the Main Commerce building (CRU--Public File).

The Department “may revoke, in whole or in part” an antidumping duty order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Act. While Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department must follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a procedure for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222 (2001). This regulation requires, inter alia , that a company requesting revocation must submit the following: (1) a certification that the company has sold the subject merchandise at not less than NV in the current review period and that the company will not sell at less than NV in the future; (2) a certification that the company sold the subject merchandise in commercial quantities in each of the three years forming the basis of the revocation request; and (3) an agreement to reinstatement in the order or suspended investigation, as long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order (or suspended investigation), if the Secretary concludes that the exporter or producer, subsequent to the revocation, sold the subject merchandise at less than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). Upon receipt of such a request, the Department will consider the following in determining whether to revoke the order in part: (1) whether the producer or exporter requesting revocation has sold subject merchandise at not less than NV for a period of at least three consecutive years; (2) whether the continued application of the antidumping duty order is otherwise necessary to offset dumping; and (3) whether the producer or exporter requesting revocation in part has agreed in writing to the immediate reinstatement of the order, as long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the Department concludes that the exporter or producer, subsequent to revocation, sold the subject merchandise at less than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2); see also Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent to Revoke Antidumping Duty Order in Part: Certain Pasta From Italy , 66 FR 34414, 34420 (June 28, 2001).

On July 31, 2001, Rima submitted a request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222, that the Department partially revoke the order covering silicon metal from Brazil with respect to its sales of subject merchandise. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1), the request was accompanied by certifications from Rima that, for a consecutive three-year period, including this review period, it sold the subject merchandise in commercial quantities at not less than NV, and would continue to do so in the future. Rima also agreed to its immediate reinstatement in this antidumping order, as long as any firm is subject to the order, if the Department concludes that, subsequent to revocation, Rima sold the subject merchandise at less than NV. We received no comments from petitioners on Rima's request for revocation.

Based on the preliminary results in this review and the final results of the two preceding reviews, Rima has preliminarily demonstrated three consecutive years of sales at not less than NV. Further, in determining whether three years of no dumping establish a sufficient basis to make a revocation determination, the Department must be able to determine that the company continued to participate meaningfully in the U.S. market during each of the three years at issue. See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Determination To Revoke in Part , 64 FR 2173, 2175 (January 13, 1999); see also Pure Magnesium From Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part , 64 FR 12977, 12979 (March 16, 1999); and Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke the Antidumping Order: Brass Sheet and Strip from the Netherlands , 65 FR 742 (January 6, 2000). This practice has been codified in Sec. 351.222(d)(1) of the Department's regulations, which states that, “before revoking an order or terminating a suspended investigation, the Secretary must be satisfied that, during each of the three (or five) years, there were exports to the United States in commercial quantities of the subject merchandise to which a revocation or termination will apply.” 19 CFR 351.222(d)(1) (emphasis added); see also 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1)(ii). For purposes of revocation, the Department must be able to determine that past margins are reflective of a company's normal commercial activity. Sales during the POR which, in the aggregate, are of an abnormally small quantity do not provide a reasonable basis for determining that the discipline of the order is no longer necessary to offset dumping.

With respect to the threshold matter of whether Rima made sales of subject merchandise to the United States in commercial quantities, we find that Rima's aggregate sales to the United States were made in commercial quantities during the past three consecutive years. The quantity of Rima's shipments of subject merchandise to the United States has remained at a sufficiently high level to be considered as having been made in commercial quantities. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that the zero and de minimis margins calculated for Rima in each of the last three administrative reviews are reflective of the company's normal commercial experience. See Memorandum from Maisha Cryor to File, “Shipments of Silicon Metal to the United States by Rima,” dated July 31, 2002.

Rima also agreed in writing that it will not sell subject merchandise at less than NV in the future and to the immediate reinstatement of the antidumping order, as long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the Department concludes that, subsequent to the partial revocation, Rima has sold the subject merchandise at less than NV. Thus, in light of the above and pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222, we preliminarily find, for Rima, that the subject merchandise was sold at not less than NV for a period of at least three consecutive years and that dumping is not likely to resume in the future. Consequently, the continuing imposition of an antidumping duty is not necessary to offset dumping.

Therefore, if these preliminary results are affirmed in our final results, we intend to revoke the order in part with respect to merchandise produced and exported by Rima. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(3), we will terminate the suspension of liquidation for any such merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the first day after the period under review, and will instruct the Customs Service to refund any cash deposits.

On July 13, 2001, Minasligas submitted a request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222, that the Department partially revoke the order covering silicon metal from Brazil with respect to its sales of subject merchandise. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1), the request was accompanied by certifications from Minasligas that for a consecutive three-year period, including this review period, it sold the subject merchandise in commercial quantities at not less than NV, and would continue to do so in the future. Minasligas also agreed to its immediate reinstatement in this antidumping order, as long as any firm is subject to the order, if the Department concludes that, subsequent to revocation, Minasligas sold the subject merchandise at less than NV.

After a review of the record, the Department preliminarily determines that because Minasligas did not have a zero or de minimis dumping margin during the 1999-2000 POR, the preceding review period, it has failed to make sales of subject merchandise “at not less than NV for a period of at least three consecutive years,” as required by the Department's regulations. During the 1999-2000 review period, Minasligas' weighted-average dumping margin was determined to be 1.23 percent, i.e. , not a de minimis rate. See Silicon Metal from Brazil; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 67 FR 6488 (February 12, 2002) ( 1999-2000 Silicon Metal ). Therefore, we do not intend to revoke the antidumping duty order with respect to Minasligas. Additionally, because one of the requirements to qualify for revocation has not been met, the Department has not addressed the issues of commercial quantities and whether the continued application of the antidumping duty order is otherwise necessary to offset dumping with respect to Minasligas.

We have continued to employ the approach, adopted in the final results of the second review of this order, covering the 1992-1993 POR, in determining which U.S. sales to review for all companies. If a respondent sold subject merchandise, and the importer of that merchandise had at least one entry during the POR, we reviewed all sales to that importer during the POR. See Silicon Metal from Brazil, Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 61 FR 46763 (September 5, 1996).

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

To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated or affiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and the comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. 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 (November 19, 1997).

In determining whether separate LOTs actually existed in the home and U.S. markets for each respondent, we examined whether the respondent's sales involved different marketing stages (or their equivalent) based on the channel of distribution, customer categories, and selling functions (or services offered) to each customer or customer category, in both markets.

CBCC reported home market sales through one channel of distribution to three unaffiliated customer categories ( i.e. , direct sales to traders, original equipment manufacturers and silicon metal producers). CBCC reported both EP and CEP sales in the U.S. market. For EP sales, CBCC reported one customer category and one channel of distribution (i.e., direct sales to unaffiliated trading companies). For CEP sales, CBCC reported one customer category and one channel of distribution (i.e., direct sales to original equipment manufacturers). In its response, CBCC stated that it performs the same type of services for home market customers as it does for its foreign market customers. For this reason, CBCC has not requested a LOT adjustment to NV for comparison to its EP and CEP sales.

Because of the similarity of the selling functions involved in the EP and CEP sales, we found there is only one LOT in the U.S. market. Moreover, in analyzing CBCC's selling activities in both the home and U.S. markets, we determined that essentially the same services were provided for both markets. The selling functions in both markets were minimal in nature and limited to arranging for freight and delivery. Therefore, based upon this information, we have preliminarily determined that for CBCC, the LOT for all U.S. sales is the same as that in the home market. Consequently, because we find the U.S. and home market sales to be at the same LOT, no LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7) of the Act is warranted for CBCC.

Rima reported home market sales through one channel of distribution to one unaffiliated customer category ( i.e. , direct sales to original equipment manufacturers). In the U.S. market, Rima reported EP sales through one channel of distribution to one unaffiliated customer category (i.e., direct sales to original equipment manufacturers). In its response, Rima stated that it performs the same type of services for home market customers as it does for its foreign market customers. For this reason, Rima has not requested a LOT adjustment.

In analyzing Rima's selling activities for the home and U.S. markets, we determined that essentially the same services were provided for both markets. The selling functions in both markets were minimal in nature and limited to arranging for freight and delivery. Therefore, based upon this information, we have preliminarily determined that for Rima, the LOT for all EP sales is the same as that in the home market. Accordingly, because we find the U.S. sales and home market sales to be at the same LOT, no LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act is warranted for Rima.

Minasligas reported home market sales through one channel of distribution to two unaffiliated customer categories ( i.e. , direct sales to domestic retailers and original equipment manufacturers). In the U.S. market, Minasligas reported EP sales through one channel of distribution to one unaffiliated customer category ( i.e. , direct sales to trading companies). In its response, Minasligas stated that it performs the same type of services for home market customers as it does for its foreign market customers. For this reason, Minasligas has not requested a LOT adjustment.

In analyzing Minasligas' selling activities for the home and U.S. markets, we determined that essentially the same services were provided for both markets. The selling functions in both markets were minimal in nature and limited to arranging for freight and delivery. Therefore, based upon this information, we have preliminarily determined that for Minasligas, the LOT for all EP sales is the same as that in the home market. Accordingly, because we find the U.S. sales and home market sales to be at the same LOT, no LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act is warranted for Minasligas.

For Rima, Minasligas and CBCC (where appropriate) we used the Department's EP methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the respondents sold the subject merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States prior to importation and because the Department's CEP methodology was not otherwise warranted. CBCC reported sales to unaffiliated trading companies as EP sales in its November 25, 2001, response. However, in a subsequent May 2, 2002, submission, CBCC stated that all of its sales to unaffiliated trading companies were ultimately purchased by Dow Corning Corporation, an affiliate of CBCC. Nevertheless, we have determined that the record evidence in this POR does not establish that at the time of the sales by CBCC to the unaffiliated trading companies, CBCC had or should have had knowledge that this merchandise would ultimately be purchased by Dow. Therefore, for the purposes of these preliminary results, we have continued to treat CBCC's sales to unaffiliated trading companies as EP sales.

We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. Movement expenses included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight, brokerage and handling, international freight, insurance, U.S. duties and U.S. warehousing. For Minasligas, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we increased EP by duty drawback. We made company-specific adjustments to reported expenses as follows:

We recalculated Minasligas' imputed U.S. credit expense using the date of payment by the U.S. customer to the bank as the date of payment. This adjustment is consistent with our past practice concerning the calculation of imputed U.S. credit expense in this proceeding. See 1999-2000 Silicon Metal , 67 FR 6488 (February 12, 2002) and accompanying Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. We revised Minasligas' reported duty drawback adjustment. See Minasligas' Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum, dated July 31, 2002.

We recalculated Rima's U.S. credit expense using the date of shipment from the factory to the port as the date of shipment. See Rima's Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum, dated July 31, 2002.

In its November 5, 2001, response, CBCC reported sales to its U.S. affiliate, Dow as constructed export price (CEP) sales. CBCC also reported that Dow further manufactured the purchased silicon metal into a multitude of other products, mostly chemicals, and sold these products in the United States. Therefore, CBCC requested that the Department apply section 772(e) of the Act to the further manufactured sales.

Where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act, the Department deducts from CEP the cost of any further manufacture or assembly in the United States, except where the special rule, provided in section 772(e) of the Act, is applied. Section 772(e) of the Act provides that, where the subject merchandise is imported by an affiliated person and the value added in the United States by the affiliated person is likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject merchandise, the Department has the discretion to determine the CEP using alternative methods.

The alternative methods for establishing constructed export price are: (1) the price of identical subject merchandise sold by the exporter or producer to an unaffiliated person; or (2) the price of other subject merchandise sold by the exporter or producer to an unaffiliated person. The Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) notes the following with respect to these alternatives:

There is no hierarchy between these alternative methods of establishing the export price. If there is not a sufficient quantity of sales under either of these alternatives to provide a reasonable basis for comparison, or if the Department determines that neither of these alternatives is appropriate, it may use any other reasonable method to determine CEP, provided that it supplies the interested parties with a description of the method chosen and an explanation of the basis for its selection. Such a method may be based upon the price paid to the exporter or producer by the affiliated person for the subject merchandise, if the Department determines that such price is appropriate.

To determine whether the value added is likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject merchandise, we estimated the value added based on the difference between the averages of the prices charged to the first unaffiliated purchaser for one form of the merchandise sold in the United States and the averages of the prices paid for the subject merchandise by the affiliated person. See 19 C.F.R. 351.402(2). Based on this analysis, and the information on the record, we determined that the estimated value added in the United States by Dow accounted for at least 65 percent of the price charged to the first unaffiliated customer for the merchandise as sold in the United States. Therefore, we determined that the value added is likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject merchandise. As a consequence, the Department has relied upon an alternative methodology to calculate CBCC's margin for these sales. However, we found that there is not a sufficient quantity of sales to unaffiliated parties to use such sales as an alternative method of establishing export price. Therefore, as the alternative methodology, the Department used the price paid to CBCC by Dow. See Memorandum on Whether to Determine the Constructed Export Price for Certain Further-Manufactured Sales Sold by Companhia Brasileira Carbureto de Calcio in the United States During the Period of Review Under Section 772(e) of the Act (Special Rule Memo ), dated July 31, 2002.

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 ( i.e. , the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared each respondent's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Since each respondent's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market provides a viable basis for calculating NV for each respondent. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we based NV on home market sales.

In the review segment of this proceeding that was most recently completed prior to initiating this review, we disregarded home market sales found to be below the cost of production (COP) for CBCC. See Silicon Metal from Brazil; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent Not to Revoke Order in Part , 65 FR 47960, 47966 (August 4, 2000) aff'd Silicon Metal from Brazil; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not To Revoke in Part , 66 FR 11256 (February 23, 2001) ( 1998-1999 Silicon Metal ). Therefore, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product under consideration for the determination of NV in this review may have been made by CBCC at prices below the COP.

On November 13, 2001, petitioners in this proceeding filed a timely sales-below-cost allegation with respect to Rima. In the case of Rima, petitioners' allegation was based on Rima's antidumping duty questionnaire responses. Upon review of the allegation, we found that petitioners' methodology provided the Department with a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that sales in the home market had been made at prices below the COP by Rima. Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated an investigation to determine whether Rima's sales of silicon metal were made at prices below the COP during the POR. See Memorandum Regarding the Analysis of Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the COP for Rima, dated February 22, 2002.

We did not initiate a cost investigation with respect to Minasligas because its home market sales were not disregarded during the most recently completed segment of this proceeding prior to the initiation of this review (which was the 1998-1999 POR at the time this instant review was initiated) and petitioners did not file a sales-below-cost allegation. See 1998-1999 Silicon Metal .

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated company- and product-specific COPs based on the sum of the respondent's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for home market SG&A expenses, including interest expenses, and packing costs.

We relied on the COP information submitted by each respondent in its questionnaire responses, except for the following adjustments. For Rima and CBCC, we compared home market prices and COP exclusive of value added taxes (VAT); we did not allow Rima and CBCC to reduce its COP for the amount paid with VAT credits. See Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Silicon Metal from Brazil , 65 FR 7497, 7499 (February 15, 2000); see also Silicon Metal from Brazil: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent Not To Revoke Order in Part , 65 FR 47960, 47966 (August 4, 2000). In addition, for Rima, we corrected the calculation of its COP. In its section D questionnaire response, Rima mistakenly doubled the value of its total cost of manufacturing (TOTCOM) prior to including TOTCOM in the calculation of its COP. See Rima's Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum, dated July 31, 2002.

For CBCC and Rima, we compared the per-unit adjusted weighted-average COP figures for the POR to home market sale prices 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 to the home market prices, less any applicable movement charges, rebates, and discounts. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined whether: (1) within an extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities; and (2) such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices below 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 made at prices below 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)(2)(B) of the Act. In such cases, because we compared prices to POR-average costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which would permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.

We found that no respondent made comparison-market sales at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities. Therefore, we did not exclude any sales from our analysis in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

For those comparison products for which there were sales at prices above the COP, we based the respondents' NV on the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold to unaffiliated parties for consumption in Brazil, in the usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of trade in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. We based NV on sales at

the same LOT as the U.S. transactions. For LOT analysis, please see the Level of Trade section above. In accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we made adjustments to home market price, where appropriate for inland freight, brokerage and handling charges, and rebates. Where home market prices were reported exclusive of VAT we made no adjustment for this item. However, where home market prices were reported inclusive of VAT, we deducted the VAT from the gross home market price, consistent with past practice. See Silicon Metal from Brazil: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative Review and Notice of Intent Not to Revoke Order in Part , 66 FR 40980, 40986 (August 6, 2001; aff'd 1999-2000 Silicon Metal from Brazil .

Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(iii) of the Act, we deducted taxes imposed directly on sales of the foreign like product (VAT, PIS, and COFINS taxes), but not collected on the subject merchandise. We note that, in past cases involving Brazil, we have determined that since PIS and COFINS taxes are levied on total revenues, except for export revenues, the taxes are direct taxes (akin to taxes on profits or wages) and, as such, should not be deducted from NV. See Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 63 FR 12744, 12746 (March 16, 1998) ( Plate from Brazil ). In Plate from Brazil , the Department determined that since these taxes are not indirect taxes, there is no basis on which to deduct them in the calculation of NV, according to section 773(a)(6)(B)(iii) of the Act. Id. However, in a recent countervailing duty preliminary determination regarding Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Brazil , the Department preliminarily concluded that the PIS and COFINS taxes are indirect. See Notice of Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment with Final Antidumping Duty Determinations: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Brazil , 67 FR 9652, 9659 (March 4, 2002).

In reaching this decision, we note that in the Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Brazil (Steel Wire Rod from Brazil ), the Department examined the legislation underlying the PIS and COFINS in order to determine how Brazil assesses these taxes. 67 FR 18586, 18590 (April 16, 2002). In Steel Wire Rod from Brazil the Department found the following:

Article 2 of the COFINS legislation states that “corporate bodies” will contribute two percent, “charged against monthly billings, that is, gross revenue derived from the sale of goods and services of any nature.” Likewise, Article “Second” of the PIS tax law (also found in the PIS and COFINS legislation) provides similar language stating that this tax contribution will be calculated “on the basis of the invoicing.” The PIS legislation further defines invoicing under Article “Third” to be the gross revenue “originating from the sale of goods.” Id .

Section 351.102(b) of the Department's regulations defines an indirect tax as a “sales, excise, turnover, value added, franchise, stamp, transfer, inventory, or equipment tax, border tax, or any other tax other than a direct tax or an import charge.” As noted above in the discussion of the PIS and COFINS legislation, these taxes are derived from the “monthly invoicing” or “invoicing” originating from the sale of goods and services. Therefore, we preliminarily find that the manner in which these taxes are assessed is characteristic of an indirect tax, which is directly imposed on sales of the foreign like product and should be subtracted from NV.

To account for differences in circumstances of sale between the home market and the United States, where appropriate, we adjusted home market prices by deducting home market direct selling expenses (including credit) and adding an amount for late payment fees earned on home market sales, where appropriate. Specifically, for Minasligas, we recalculated Minasligas' home market imputed credit expense using a surrogate interest rate and the period of time between the date of shipment and the date of payment. Regarding Minasligas' reported interest rate, Minasligas did not demonstrate that it incurred short-term borrowings during the POR at the rate it reported in its questionnaire response. Therefore, as in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding, we have denied Minasligas reported credit expense and have used the Special Clearance and Custody System (SELIC), as the surrogate interest rate to calculate the expense. See 1999-2000 Silicon Metal from Brazil , 67 FR 6488 (February 12, 2002) and accompanying Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. See also Minasligas" Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum, dated July 31, 2002.

Specifically, for CBCC, we recalculated CBCC's home market imputed credit expense using a surrogate interest rate. We reviewed documentation at verification pertaining to CBCC's short-term borrowing activity during the POR and found the activity to be outside the “normal course of trade.” In particular, at the verification of CBCC, conducted June 13, 2002, through June 14, 2002, CBCC characterized its own short-term borrowing activity during this POR as rare. See CBCC's Verification Report, dated July 15, 2002. We therefore determine that CBCC's short-term borrowing during this POR, was not in the “normal course of trade.” Consequently, as in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding, we have denied CBCC's reported credit expense and have used the SELIC rate to calculate the expense. See Silicon Metal 1999-2000 , 67 FR 6488 (February 12, 2002) and accompanying Decision Memorandum at Comment 18.

In order to adjust for differences in packing between the two markets, we deducted HM packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, where appropriate, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.

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.

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001, and we preliminarily determine not to revoke the order covering silicon metal from Brazil with respect to sales of subject merchandise by Minasligas. However, we do preliminarily determine to revoke the order covering silicon metal from Brazil with respect to sales of subject merchandise by Rima.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within 5 days of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument: (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Further, we would appreciate it if parties submitting written comments would provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. All case briefs must be submitted within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which are limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than seven days after the case briefs are filed. A hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date the rebuttal briefs are filed or the first business day thereafter.

The Department will publish a notice of the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written comments or at the hearing, within 120 days from the publication of these preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion of this review, the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to Customs. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the determination and for future deposits of estimated duties. For duty assessment purposes, we calculated a per-unit customer or importer-specific assessment rate by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each customer/importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. Where the assessment rate is above de minimis , we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of silicon metal from Brazil 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 0.5 percent, and therefore, de minimis , 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; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior 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 manufacturers and/or exporters of this merchandise, the cash deposit rate will continue to be 91.06 percent, the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations 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 and 19 CFR 351.221.

As part of its responsibilities under Title 15 U.S.C. 290 to collect, evaluate and publish high quality Standard Reference Data (SRD), NIST creates and maintains evaluated SRD databases. NIST currently distributes a gas phase infrared library containing spectra for approximately 6,000 discrete chemical substances. The database is primarily used to aid in the application of infrared spectroscopy to chemical analysis and to assist in identification of chemical compounds by providing a source for reference spectra for comparison to spectra acquired by instruments. For each spectrum, auxiliary information for chemical identification is provided, including chemical names, formulas, chemical structures and related information. The planned update will add approximately 10,000 spectra for compounds primarily in the condensed phase which have been digitized (vectorized) from existing hard copy versions of the spectra. They will also contain the auxiliary information described above. These spectra, which have been published by the Coblentz Society, have been highly evaluated and have long been widely available in reference books. The new spectra add coverage of compounds in the condensed phase to current NIST collections and also enable the use of this spectral information by digital data systems. We invite comments concerning this update.

NIST may enter into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (“CRADA”) with the licensee to perform further research on the inventions for purposes of commercialization. The inventions available for licensing are:

Title: Method and apparatus for diffraction measurement using a scanning x-ray source.

Abstract: The invention is jointly owned by the U.S. Government, as represented by the Secretary of Commerce, and Digiray Corporation. This invention is available for non-exclusive licensing. The present invention relates to x-ray diffraction measurement by using moving x-ray source x-ray diffraction. The invention comprises a raster-scanned x-ray source, a specimen, a collimator, and a detector. The x-ray source is electronically scanned which allows a complete image of the x-ray diffraction characteristics of the specimen to be produced. The specimen is placed remote from the x-ray source and the detector. The collimator is located directly in front of the detector. The x-rays are diffracted by the specimen at certain angles, which cause them to travel through the collimator and to the detector. The detector may be placed in any radial location relative to the specimen in order to take the necessary measurements. The detector can detect the intensity and/or the wavelength of the diffracted x-rays. All information needed to solve the Bragg equation as well as the Laue equations is available. The x-ray source may be scanned electronically or mechanically. The present invention is used to perform texture analysis and phase identification.

Title: Apparatus and method for refreshable tactile display.

Abstract: The invention is owned by the U.S. government, as represented by the Secretary of Commerce. This invention is available for exclusive or non-exclusive licensing. The invention utilizes a rotating-wheel and is designed to be mechanically simpler than existing refreshable tactile display devices, while providing much of their functionality as well as additional features. It is believed that this design will allow for greatly lowered cost and improved reliability in comparison to existing systems.

The Puget Sound chinook Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) was listed as threatened under the ESA in March 1999 (64 FR 14308). The ESU encompasses all naturally spawned spring-, summer-, and fall-runs of chinook salmon in the Puget Sound region from the North Fork Nooksack River to the Elwha River on the Olympic Peninsula. This ESU is located in portions of Clallam, Island, King, Kitsap, Jefferson, Mason, Pierce, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, and Whatcom Counties in Washington state. Puget Sound chinook have a complex life history, migrating from their natal streams throughout Puget Sound to the Pacific Ocean where they generally spend 1 to 3 years before returning to their natal streams, primarily as 3 and 4 year old adults. In their ocean migration, they travel north along the west coast into Canadian, and at times as far north as Alaskan, waters. In doing so, they are caught in a broad range of fisheries which are managed by an array of agencies, bodies and governments including the U.S. Department of Commerce, States of Washington, Oregon, and Alaska, over 20 Native American tribal jurisdictions, the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council, and the Pacific Salmon Commission.

Since the listing, NMFS has evaluated the impact of some fisheries affecting listed Puget Sound chinook in compliance with section 7 of the ESA and also evaluated the 2001 RMP for Puget Sound chinook under the 4(d) Rule Limit 6. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the Puget Sound Treaty Tribes (co-managers) are jointly developing another RMP intended to take effect when the current RMP expires in April 2003. It will encompass commercial, recreational, ceremonial, and subsistence salmon fisheries potentially affecting the listed Puget Sound Chinook ESU within the marine and freshwater areas of Puget Sound, from the entrance of the Strait of Juan de Fuca inward, including fisheries under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fraser Panel. However, as with the current RMP, harvest objectives specified in the RMP will account for fisheries-related mortality of Puget Sound chinook throughout its migratory range from Oregon and Washington to Southeast Alaska. The RMP will also include implementation, monitoring, and evaluation procedures designed to ensure fisheries are consistent with the RMP’s objectives. Under the ESA 4(d) Rule Limit 6 NMFS must make a determination that the RMP, as proposed and implemented by the Puget Sound Treaty Tribes and State of Washington, does not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of Puget Sound chinook while providing for fishing opportunities and the exercise of federally protected treaty fishing rights, as implemented and enforced within the continuing jurisdiction of U.S. v. Washington .

NMFS will conduct an environmental review of the RMP and prepare an EIS. The environmental review will analyze the proposed action, the proposed RMP, as well as a full range of reasonable alternatives and the associated impacts of each. NMFS is currently developing alternatives for analysis. In addition to the No Action Alternative (no authorized take of listed Puget Sound chinook within the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound area), the alternatives could include at least the following: (1) a harvest regime based on escapement goal management and (2) an alternative that combines escapement goal management at the individual population level with terminal fisheries.

The environmental review of this project will be conducted in accordance with requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, National Environmental Policy Act Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), other appropriate Federal laws and regulations, and policies and procedures of NOAA for compliance with those regulations.

Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Susan Bishop (206/526-4587, or email: susan.bishop@noaa.gov ) at least 5 days before the meeting date.

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

Type of Review: New.

Title: Longitudinal Assessment of CSR Implementation and Outcomes (LACIO).

Frequency: Annually.

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

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

  Responses: 4,380.

  Burden Hours: 2,567.

Abstract: This evaluation assesses the accomplishments of the Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) program in implementing school reform and thereby improving student achievement. The evaluation also makes a preliminary assessment of the conditions influencing the sustainability of reforms once Federal support ends. The evaluation uses a variety of data sources to understand the complex interplay of state policies, school district, educational support, and CSR school conditions affecting CSR implementation and outcomes. The major evaluation questions are: (1) To what extent have CSR-supported schools made gains on state assessments in comparison to gains for schools in the same state with similar characteristics; (2) How effective is CSR support for reform; and (3) How have district policies and state policies affected CSR implementation and comprehensive school reform. A mixed method approach will be used to collect appropriate data for addressing each evaluation question. The methods include mail surveys of 400 CSR-program and 400 non-CSR program schools, telephone surveys of 50 districts and 20 states, and a case study inquiry of 30 “sites” to provide data on vertical slices of the CSR program (each “site” comprises a CSR school and comparison school, as well as the district, state, and support infrastructure in which the schools operate). Evaluators will be able to link information from these various sources in order to provide policymakers and other stakeholders with coherent findings.

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 2091. 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 Vivian.Reese@ed.gov . Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Jacqueline Montague at (202) 708-5359 or via her e-mail address Jackie.Montague@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.

Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).

On June 9, 1999, the Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) authorized Coral to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico using the international electric transmission facilities of San Diego Gas and Electric Company, El Paso Electric Company, Central Power and Light Company, and Comision Federal de Electricidad, the national utility of Mexico. That two-year authorization (Order EA-212) expired on August 13, 2001.

On June 27, 2001, Coral filed an application with FE for renewal of its authorization to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico. That two-year authorization (Order EA-212-A) will expire on August 13, 2003.

On July 8, 2002, Coral filed an application with FE to amend its authorization to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico in order to add the recently permitted Baja transmission facilities (Docket PP-234). Coral is an affiliate of Baja California Power, Inc., the owner of the transmission facilities built pursuant to PP-234. Coral also requested that its authorization be extended for a five-year period and that its application be given expedited treatment. On July 11, 2002, the applicant clarified the reason for requesting expedited treatment by stating that completion of the La Rosita plant in Mexico (the power plant that is connected to the permitted facilities, PP-234) is scheduled to be completed and ready to be energized in the first week in August 2002 for testing purposes. No other source of power is readily available for this purpose.

DOE notes that the circumstances described in this application are virtually identical to those for which export authority had previously been granted in FE Order EA-212. Consequently, DOE believes that it has adequately satisfied its responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 through the documentation of a categorical exclusion in the FE Docket EA-212 proceeding.

Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to become a party to this proceeding or to be heard by filing comments or protests to these applications should file a petition to intervene, comment or protest at the address provided above in accordance with §§ 385.211 or 385.214 of the FERC's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Fifteen copies of each petition and protest should be filed with the DOE on or before the date listed above.

Comments on the Coral application to export electric energy to Mexico should be clearly marked with Docket EA-212-B. Additional copies are to be filed directly with Andrea M. Settanni, Bracewell & Patterson, L.L.P., 2000 K Street, NW., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20006-1872 AND Robert Reilley, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Coral Power, L.L.P., 909 Fannin, Suite 700, Houston, TX 77010.

Copies of these applications will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above or by accessing the Fossil Energy Home Page at http://www.fe.doe.gov. Upon reaching the Fossil Energy Home page, select “Electricity Regulation”, then “Pending Procedures” from the options menus.

The nuclear science community has proposed the Rare Isotope Accelerator as a new accelerator facility to address emerging research opportunities in nuclear structure, nuclear astrophysics, and fundamental interactions and symmetries. [See the DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee's 2002 Long Range Plan.]

The Department of Energy is sponsoring pre-conceptual research and development for the Rare Isotope Accelerator. Community sponsored studies and workshops have identified a number of areas where focused R&D and prototyping could enhance performance, reduce costs, and impact the engineering and construction schedule. Among these areas are:

• Gas stopper for fast fragments. A key feature of the RIA concept is the use of intense high-energy heavy-ion beams with projectile fragmentation as the production mechanism. The gas stopper will slow the projectile fragments and deliver them for subsequent re-acceleration.

• Fragment momentum compression preceding the gas stopper. To stop fragments efficiently in a finite gas stopper volume, there must be compensation of the large fragment momentum spread.

• Fragment separators that handle beam spray and allow beam sharing. Development work on the front end of the fragment separator is required to minimize radiation damage to the magnetic elements.

• Electron cyclotron resonance (ECR) ion sources producing high intensity, high-charge-state uranium, and the low energy beam transport (LEBT). The driver linear accelerator requires ECR ion source performance for uranium greater than the current state of the art by a factor of 2 to 8.

• Driver technologies, especially superconducting radio-frequency (SRF) structures. The driver linear accelerator will require a number of distinct radio-frequency (RF) structures, likely superconducting, but possibly room temperature. Among the issues to be addressed are beam loss, SRF structure cavity cleanliness, and overall cost.

• Beam stripping. The high power of the heavy ion beams requires innovative solutions to beam strippers such as liquid lithium films, or rotating carbon foil strippers that do not degrade beam emittance.

• High-power targets including liquid lithium for fragmentation and isotope separator on-line (ISOL-type) sources with good diffusion and effusion properties. The development of ISOL-type targets with long lifetimes and fast extraction times at high beam powers are essential for the success of RIA. For in-flight fragmentation and fission, development of a liquid-lithium target, or other new high power fragmentation target concepts, is imperative.

• Other RIA accelerator and experimental facility components will also require focused effort. These include post-acceleration including radio frequency quadrupoles (RFQs) and very low velocity accelerating structures, charge-multiplying ECRs, radiation hardened magnetic equipment, innovative detector instrumentation, beam diagnostics optimized for a broad range of beam intensities, beam dumps, radio-frequency equipment, and controls.

The concept, elements and R&D issues of RIA are outlined in the Nuclear Science Advisory Committee (NSAC) ISOL Taskforce Report that can be found at: http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/henp/np/. Select the NSAC button.

Applications requesting support for research and development in the areas outlined above should indicate a separate task for each area. Applications may include more than one task. For each task the application should address the goal of the effort; the method or approach to be taken; the cost and schedule of the effort; the deliverable result of the work; and the performance, cost, or schedule benefit for RIA. Institutional contributions to the effort should be clearly indicated.

It is anticipated that up to $3,500,000 will be available for multiple awards to be made in early Fiscal Year 2003, in the areas described above, contingent on the availability of appropriated funds. Applications should be for one year, with a continuation of up to two additional years for those tasks requiring a multi-year effort. For continuation of multi-year effort, out-year support is contingent on the availability of funds, progress of the research and programmatic needs. For multi-year tasks, intermediate milestones should be indicated.

Applicants are encouraged to collaborate with researchers in other institutions, such as: Universities, industry, non-profit organizations, federal laboratories and Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), including the DOE National Laboratories, where appropriate, and to include cost sharing and/or consortia wherever feasible. Additional information on collaboration is available in the Application Guide for the Office of Science Financial Assistance Program that is available via the World Wide Web at: http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/grants/Colab.html.

Information about the development and submission of applications, eligibility, limitations, evaluation, selection process, and other policies and procedures are contained in 10 CFR Part 605, and in the Application Guide for the Office of Science Financial Assistance Program. Electronic access to the latest version of the Office of Science's Financial Assistance Guide and required forms is made available via the World Wide Web at: http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/grants/grants.html. DOE is under no obligation to pay for any costs associated with the preparation or submission of applications if an award is not made.

The research project description must be five pages per task or less, exclusive of attachments and must contain an abstract or summary of the proposed research. Projects reporting results or progress on work conducted with DOE funding under the previous RIA R&D program may include two additional pages per task. All collaborators should be listed with the abstract or summary. On the grant face page, form DOE F 4650.2, in block 15, also provide the Principal Investigator's phone number, fax number, and E-mail address. Attachments include curriculum vitae, a listing of all current and pending federal support and letters of intent when collaborations are part of the proposed research. Curriculum vitae should be limited to no more than two pages per individual.

Applications will be subjected to scientific merit review (peer review) and will be evaluated against the following evaluation criteria listed in descending order of importance as codified at 10 CFR part 605.10(d):

1. Scientific and/or Technical Merit of the Project,

2. Appropriateness of the Proposed Method or Approach,

3. Competency of Applicant's Personnel and Adequacy of Proposed Resources,

4. Reasonableness and Appropriateness of the Proposed Budget.

The evaluation will include program policy factors, such as the relevance of the proposed research to the terms of the announcement and agency's programmatic needs. Note, external peer reviewers are selected with regard to both their scientific expertise and the absence of conflict-of-interest issues. Non-federal reviewers may be used, and submission of an application constitutes agreement that this is acceptable to the investigator(s) and the submitting institution.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number for this program is 81.049, and the solicitation control number is ERFAP 10 CFR part 605.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) in Docket No. RM02-14-000, issued a proposed rule, to amend its Uniform System of Accounts for public utilities, natural gas companies and oil pipeline companies by establishing the documentation necessary to furnish readily full information concerning cash management agreements created by a Commission-regulated subsidiary and a non-regulated parent. Specifically, the Commission is requiring that all such cash management arrangements be in writing and specify the duties and responsibilities of participants in a cash management system (a system in which funds are transferred from multiple accounts to a single account in the parent company's name or a single account with interest earned or charged on the net cash balance position, or in which balances in affiliated companies' accounts are at the same bank as the parent company and transfers are made daily to the parent's account).

The Commission's staff has reviewed several cash management agreements between Commission-regulated companies and their non-regulated parent companies. With only one exception, there was no formal, written agreements at the gas pipelines, electric utilities and oil pipelines among the companies reviewed. There is potential for serious financial harm to Commission-regulated entities if non-regulated parent companies default on accounts payable owed to their regulated subsidiaries. Accordingly, the Commission is proposing to require written cash management agreements for the entities it regulates. Cash management agreements serve to define the rights and responsibilities of the parties to the agreements plus clarify how the funds will be advanced/transferred and whether interest will be paid and at what rate of interest to the companies providing the funds.

The Commission intends to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of all parties regarding transfers of cash, payment of bills, payment of interest, and the funds that can be taken from the regulated subsidiary. Cash management agreements should be reviewed and updated periodically to ensure that change in the corporate structure has not made the agreements obsolete. Additionally, cash management agreements must provide assurance for Commission-regulated entities and regulators that non-regulated parents aren't exposing their subsidiaries to severe financial harm for the benefit of non-regulated affiliated companies.

Under the statutes that it administers, the Commission has broad authority to act in the public interest and to ensure that adequate supplies of energy are available to the nation at a reasonable cost. Because of the Commission's concern that cash management accounts not be used improperly to impair the financial health of regulated entities, so as to cause harm to the rate paying public, it believes it is appropriate to put into place these requirements to protect the ratepayers.

The Commission has submitted this collection of information to OMB for approval. OMB's regulations describe the process that federal agencies must follow in order to obtain OMB approval for collections of information. See 5 CFR 1320. The standards for emergency processing of information collections appear at 5 CFR 1320.13. If OMB approves a reporting requirement, then it will assign an information control number to that requirement. OMB requires federal agencies seeking approval of information collections to allow the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed information collection. 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv). Therefore, the Commission is soliciting comment on:

(1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Commission's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility:

(2) The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the collection of this information, including the validity of methodology and assumptions used;

(3) The quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) How to minimize the burden of the collection of this information on respondents, including the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information technology.

OMB Control No. : (to be assigned).

Expiration Date : 01/31/2002.

Title : Regulation of Cash Management Practices.

IC No. : FERC-907.

Respondents : Businesses or other for -profit.

Estimated annual burden : 896 hours.

Estimated Annual Reporting and/or Recordkeeping cost : $50,418.

Frequency of Response : On occasion.

Obligation to Respond : Mandatory.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, by Order issued February 26, 1999, in Docket No. EF98-3011-000, confirmed and approved Wholesale Power Rate Schedules SOCO-1, SOCO-2, SOCO-3, SOCO-4, ALA-1-I, MISS-1-I, Duke-1, Duke-2, Duke-3, Duke-4, Santee-1, Santee-2, Santee-3, Santee-4, SCE&G-1, SCE&G-2, SCE&G-3, SCE&G-4, and Pump-1. On April 23, 1999, in Docket No. EF98-3011-001, the Commission issued an order granting rehearing for further consideration. On July 31, 2001, in the same docket number, the Commission issued an order denying rehearing. Rate schedules SOCO-1-A, SOCO-2-A, SOCO-3-A, SOCO-4-A, ALA-1-J, MISS-1-J, Duke-1-A, Duke-2-A, Duke-3-A, Duke-4-A, Santee-1-A, Santee-2-A, Santee-3-A, Santee-4-A, SCE&G-1-A, SCE&G-2-A, SCE&G-3-A, SCE&G-4-A, Regulation-1, Replacement-1, Pump-1-A, and Pump-2 replace these schedules.

Pursuant to Sections 302(a) and 301(b) of the Department of Energy Organization Act, Public Law 95-91, the functions of the Secretary of the Interior and the Federal Power Commission under section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944, 16 U.S.C. 825s, relating to the Southeastern Power Administration (Southeastern) were transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Energy. By Delegation Order No. 0204-108, effective May 30, 1986, 51 FR 19744 (May 30, 1986), the Secretary of Energy delegated to the Administrator the authority to develop power and transmission rates, and delegated to the Under Secretary the authority to confirm, approve, and place in effect such rates on an interim basis and delegated to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) the authority to confirm and approve on a final basis or to disapprove rates developed by the Administrator under the delegation. On December 6, 2001, the Secretary of Energy issued Delegation Order No. 00-001.00, granting the Deputy Secretary authority to confirm, approve, and place into effect Southeastern's rates on an interim basis. Because there is no Deputy Secretary at the present time, the Secretary of Energy has exercised his authority to confirm, approve, and place into effect on an interim basis the rate schedules in Southeastern Rate Order No. 41.

Power from the Georgia-Alabama-South Carolina System is presently sold under Wholesale Power Rate Schedules SOCO-1, SOCO-2, SOCO-3, SOCO-4, ALA-1-I, MISS-1-I, Duke-1, Duke-2, Duke-3, Duke-4, Santee-1, Santee-2, Santee-3, Santee-4, SCE&G-1, SCE&G-2, SCE&G-3, SCE&G-4, and Pump-1. These rate schedules were approved by the FERC on February 26, 1999, for a period ending September 30, 2003 (93 FERC 62100).

Notice of proposed rate adjustment was published in the Federal Register March 13, 2002 (67 FR 11325). In the notice, SEPA proposed four rate alternatives for public comment. SEPA proposed two rate alternatives that would continue the current rate design that included estimated purchases of replacement energy in the capacity and energy charges from SEPA. These were designated “Scenario 1A” and “Scenario 1B.” In addition, SEPA proposed two rate alternatives that included a direct pass through of replacement energy costs. These were designated “Scenario 2A” and “Scenario 2B.” Under version “A” of each of the two alternatives, 70 percent of the generation costs were recovered from capacity sales and 30 percent were recovered from energy sales. Under version “B” of each of the two alternatives, 85 percent of the generation costs were recovered from capacity sales and 15 percent were recovered from energy sales.

The notice advised interested parties of a public information and comment forum to be held in Atlanta, Georgia on April 18, 2002. Written comments were accepted on or before June 11, 2002. The following is a summary of the comments:

Written comments were received from nine sources pursuant to this notice. Eight of the sources specified a preference with regards to the distribution of generation costs between capacity and energy. There was no unanimity in preference for the either of the proposed versions (70/30 or 85/15). Most comments did support some movement towards recovering more costs from capacity sales. SEPA is therefore proposing a division of 75 percent to capacity and 25 percent.

The following are additional comments received on or before the June 11, 2002 deadline. SEPA's response follows each comment.

Comment 1: SEPA will establish a Apass-through@ charge for replacement energy. With this change in the rate structure, the Customers will pay for their ratable share of replacement energy in the billing month in which replacement energy is purchased by SEPA. The SeFPC supports this approach, cognizant that it follows the statutory mandate to set rate schedules to allow for the lowest possible costs consistent with sound business principles.

Response 1: SEPA will forward the proposed rate schedule for replacement energy, Replacement-1, to the Deputy Secretary with a request for interim approval.

Comment 2: The Southeastern Federal Power Customers (SeFPC) remains concerned regarding the increase in operation and maintenance (AO&M@) expenses for the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The repayment study assumes an increase from $32,836,000 in fiscal year 2002 to $35,177,000 for fiscal year 2005. The SeFPC believes that this number merits further investigation by SEPA. The SeFPC does not understand why there is an increase for the Corps O&M expense.

Response 2: Actual Corps O&M expenses were $31,735,000 in 1998, $29,090,000 in 1999, $36,692,000 in 2000, and $34,200,000 in 2001, which is an average compound increase of 1.9% per year. Estimated Corps O&M is $32,836,000 in 2002, $33,654,000 in 2003, $34,715,000 in 2004, and $35,177,000 in 2005 through the end of the study, which is an average compound increase of 1.7% per year for the 2002-2005 period. Should these estimates prove to be higher than the actual costs incurred, SEPA's repayment of investment will be greater than anticipated, which will reduce the impact on the next rate adjustment for the system. Should these estimates prove to be too low, SEPA may be required to adjust rates earlier than this filing anticipates. SEPA believes that the estimates provided by the Corps are reasonable. SEPA will work with the Corps and the customers in an effort to reduce O&M expenses charged to power in the Southeastern Federal Power Program.

Comment 3: The SeFPC reminds SEPA that the amount included in rates for renewals and replacements has exceeded the amount appropriated by Congress for renewals and replacements by $124 million.

Response 3: The amount listed represents all of SEPA's four repayment systems. The amount for the Georgia-Alabama-South Carolina System is $39 million. SEPA will work with the Corps to assure the accuracy of projected replacements.

Comment 4: The SeFPC supports the current decision by SEPA not to include costs for the Russell Pumped Storage Units in this rate increase.

Response 4: The Russell Pump Storage units have not been included in these proposed rates.

Comment 5: SEPA has proposed a pass-through mechanism to recover replacement energy costs. Removal of those costs from the charges that recover generation costs results in an effective shift of about two percentage points of generation costs from a capacity charge to an energy charge. Because both of these changes [pass-through recovery of replacement energy and an increase in the percentage of generation costs recovered from capacity] increase revenue stability, it would seem sufficient to implement only one change at this time to stabilize SEPA's revenue as it seeks to respond to the need to provide greater assurance that it will meet its repayment obligations on a more regular basis. Oglethorpe suggests that SEPA consider implementing only one change [in rate design] to provide an opportunity to determine whether that change is sufficient to provide the revenue stability to assure that [SEPA] will meet its repayment obligation.

Response 5: Replacement energy costs are estimated to average $3.2 million per year. Based on this estimate, the comment that this has shifted about two percentage points of generation costs from a capacity charge to an energy charge is accurate. However, there is considerable variation in the actual replacement energy costs associated with this estimate. In an average water year, SEPA will not purchase replacement energy. In a poor water year, replacement energy costs have been as high as $16 million. By recovering replacement energy costs from energy effectively shifts considerable risk of cost fluctuations to energy customers. SEPA believes that this justifies a shift of more than two percent of generation costs from energy to capacity to compensate.

Comment 6: Oglethorpe is concerned about the methodology used to calculate the generation services charge. SEPA has set rates for certain ancillary services based on Southern Company's Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT). Because SEPA pays Southern Company a flat fee for all ancillary services, SEPA has arbitrarily assumed that reductions in the OATT charges for certain ancillary services were offset by increases in the cost of all other ancillary services purchased by the flat fee. SEPA should reconsider the cost allocation of this flat fee to recognize that its costs were not reduced as a result of reductions in the OATT rate for ancillary services.

Response 6: The Generation Services charge is to recover the cost of ancillary services charged by the Southern Company. SEPA pays Southern Company $4,428,000 annually for ancillary services as part of a negotiated contract for services. SEPA charges affected customers for Scheduling, System Control and Dispatch Services, Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation Sources Services, and Regulation and Frequency Response Services at Southern Company's current OATT rate for these services. Any portion of Southern Company's annual charge for ancillary services not recovered through the above three charges is recovered through a Generation Services charge. The Generation Services charge is charged to all customers of the Georgia-Alabama-South Carolina System.

When Southern Company updates the OATT rates for the three ancillary services listed above, SEPA updates these rates for the affected customers. However, as a result of a negotiated ancillary services charge between SEPA and Southern Company, SEPA does not pay the filed OATT rates, this requires a change in the Generation Services charge.

SEPA established this process with rates that were proposed in 1998. SEPA is proposing to continue this process with these proposed rates. In 1998, SEPA anticipated that the $4,428,000 negotiated ancillary services charge would be replaced with an “unbundled” arrangement. SEPA established the design of the generation services charge in anticipation of this unbundling. As such, SEPA does not believe it is appropriate to refer to the rate design as arbitrary.

SEPA continues to anticipate that the negotiated ancillary services charge will be replaced with an unbundled arrangement. The timing of this change is uncertain. However, SEPA believes it is appropriate to continue to pass through any changes in Southern Company's ancillary services to the affected customers when Southern Company adjusts these rates.

Comment 7: SEPA has suggested that it might be able to convert some must run energy into energy that [South Mississippi Electric Power Association (SMEPA) and Alabama Electric Cooperative (AEC)] could schedule during peak hours through a pumping conversion factor. At this time, (SMEPA and AEC are) interested in pursuing this arrangement.

Response 7: SEPA can use must run energy for pumping operations at the Carters, and, if it comes on-line, the Richard B. Russell projects. This would replace pumping energy that SEPA would otherwise purchase. This energy would then become part of the customer's minimum energy. The total energy delivered to the customer would be reduced. SEPA will propose a new rate schedule, Pump-2, to allow customers who elect to allow SEPA to use their must run energy for pumping to receive this energy on-peak at a lower rate than other energy from pumping.

An examination of Southeastern's revised system power repayment study, prepared in July, 2002, for the Georgia-Alabama-South Carolina System, shows that with the proposed rates, all system power costs are paid within the 50-year repayment period required by existing law and DOE Procedure RA 6120.2. The Administrator of Southeastern has certified that the rates are consistent with applicable law and that they are the lowest possible rates to customers consistent with sound business principles.

Southeastern has reviewed the possible environmental impacts of the rate adjustment under consideration and has concluded that, because the adjusted rates would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the proposed action is not a major Federal action for which preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is required.

Information regarding these rates, including studies, and other supporting materials is available for public review in the offices of Southeastern Power Administration, 1166 Athens Tech Road, Elberton, Georgia 30635-6711.

The rates hereinafter confirmed and approved on an interim basis, together with supporting documents, will be submitted promptly to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for confirmation and approval on a final basis for a period beginning October 1, 2002, and ending no later than September 30, 2007.

In view of the foregoing and pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Secretary of Energy, I hereby confirm and approve on an interim basis, effective October 1, 2007, attached Wholesale Power Rate Schedules SOCO-1-A, SOCO-2-A, SOCO-3-A, SOCO-4-A, ALA-1-J, MISS-1-J, Duke-1-A, Duke-2-A, Duke-3-A, Duke-4-A, Santee-1-A, Santee-2-A, Santee-3-A, Santee-4-A, SCE&G-1-A, SCE&G-2-A, SCE&G-3-A, SCE&G-4-A, Regulation-1, Replacement-1, Pump-1-A, and Pump-2. The rate schedules shall remain in effect on an interim basis through September 30, 2007, unless such period is extended or until the FERC confirms and approves them or substitute rate schedules on a final basis.

This rate schedule shall be available to public bodies and cooperatives (any one of whom is hereinafter called the Customer) in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida to whom power may be transmitted and scheduled pursuant to contracts between the Government and Southern Company Services, Incorporated (hereinafter called the Company) and the Customer. Nothing in this rate schedule shall preclude modifications to the aforementioned contracts to allow an eligible customer to elect service under another rate schedule.

This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale at wholesale of power and accompanying energy generated at the Allatoona, Buford, J. Strom Thurmond, Walter F. George, Hartwell, Millers Ferry, West Point, Robert F. Henry, Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer. This rate schedule does not apply to energy from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects.

The electric capacity and energy supplied hereunder will be delivered at the delivery points of the Customer on the Company's transmission and distribution system.

The monthly rate for capacity, energy, and generation services provided under this rate schedule for the period specified shall be:

$3.09 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

6.39 Mills per kilowatt-hour.

$0.13 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

Additional rates for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services provided under this rate schedule shall be the rates charged Southeastern Power Administration by the Company. Future adjustments to these rates will become effective upon acceptance for filing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of the Company's rate.

$1.51 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month as of February 2002 is presented for illustrative purposes.

The initial transmission charge will be the Customer's ratable share of the Transmission and Distribution Charges paid by the Government. The initial monthly transmission demand charge shall be determined by multiplying the Government's Load Ratio Share time one twelfth ( 1/12 ) of Southern Companies' Annual Transmission Costs as specified in Schedule 1 of the Government-Company Contract. The transmission charges are governed by and subject to refund based upon the determination in proceedings before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) involving Southern Companies' Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT). The distribution charges may be modified by FERC pursuant to application by the Company under section 205 of the Federal Power Act or the Government under section 206 of the Federal Power Act.

Proceedings before FERC involving the OATT or the Distribution charge may result in the separation of charges currently included in the transmission rate. In this event, the Government may charge the Customer for any and all separate transmission and distribution charges paid by the Government in behalf of the Customer.

Scheduling, System Control and Dispatch Service: $0.0806 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation Sources Service: $0.11 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

Regulation and Frequency Response Service: $0.0483 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

The charges for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services shall be governed by and subject to refund based upon the determination in the proceeding involving Southern Companies' Open Access Transmission Tariff.

The contract demand is the amount of capacity in kilowatts stated in the contract which the Government is obligated to supply and the Customer is entitled to receive.

The Government will sell to the Customer and the Customer will purchase from the Government energy each billing month equivalent to a percentage specified by contract of the energy made available to the company (less applicable losses). The Customer's contract demand and accompanying energy will be allocated proportionately to its individual delivery points served from the Company's system. Applicable energy losses are as follows:

These losses shall be effective until modified by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, pursuant to application by Southern Companies under section 205 of the Federal Power Act or SEPA under section 206 of the Federal Power Act or otherwise.

The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.

This rate schedule shall be available to public bodies and cooperatives (any one of whom is hereinafter called the Customer) in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida to whom power may be transmitted pursuant to contracts between the Government and Southern Company Services, Incorporated (hereinafter called the Company) and the Customer. The Customer is responsible for providing a scheduling arrangement with the Government. Nothing in this rate schedule shall preclude modifications to the aforementioned contracts to allow an eligible customer to elect service under another rate schedule.

This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale at wholesale of power and accompanying energy generated at the Allatoona, Buford, J. Strom Thurmond, Walter F. George, Hartwell, Millers Ferry, West Point, Robert F. Henry, Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer. This rate schedule does not apply to energy from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects.

The electric capacity and energy supplied hereunder will be delivered at the delivery points of the Customer on the Company's transmission and distribution system.

The monthly rate for capacity, energy, and generation services provided under this rate schedule for the period specified shall be:

Capacity Charge: $3.09 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

Energy Charge: 6.39 Mills per kilowatt-hour.

Generation Services: $0.13 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

Additional rates for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services provided under this rate schedule shall be the rates charged Southeastern Power Administration by the Company. Future adjustments to these rates will become effective upon acceptance for filing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of the Company's rate.

Transmission: $1.51 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month as of February 2002 is presented for illustrative purposes.

The initial transmission charge will be the Customer's ratable share of the Transmission and Distribution Charges paid by the Government. The initial monthly transmission demand charge shall be determined by multiplying the Government's Load Ratio Share time one twelfth ( 1/12 ) of Southern Companies' Annual Transmission Costs as specified in Schedule 1 of the Government-Company Contract. The transmission charges are governed by and subject to refund based upon the determination in proceedings before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) involving Southern Companies' Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT). The distribution charges may be modified by FERC pursuant to application by the Company under section 205 of the Federal Power Act or the Government under section 206 of the Federal Power Act.

Proceedings before FERC involving the OATT or the Distribution charge may result in the separation of charges currently included in the transmission rate. In this event, the Government may charge the Customer for any and all separate transmission and distribution charges paid by the Government in behalf of the Customer.

Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation Sources Service: $0.11 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

The charges for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services shall be governed by and subject to refund based upon the determination in the proceeding involving Southern Companies' Open Access Transmission Tariff.

The contract demand is the amount of capacity in kilowatts stated in the contract which the Government is obligated to supply and the Customer is entitled to receive.

The Government will sell to the Customer and the Customer will purchase from the Government energy each billing month equivalent to a percentage specified by contract of the energy made available to the company (less applicable losses). The Customer's contract demand and accompanying energy will be allocated proportionately to its individual delivery points served from the Company's system. Applicable energy losses are as follows:

These losses shall be effective until modified by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, pursuant to application by Southern Companies under Section 205 of the Federal Power Act or EPA under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act or otherwise.

The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.

This rate schedule shall be available to public bodies and cooperatives (any one of whom is hereinafter called the Customer) in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida to whom power may be scheduled pursuant to contracts between the Government and Southern Company Services, Incorporated (hereinafter called the Company) and the Customer. The Customer is responsible for providing a transmission arrangement. Nothing in this rate schedule shall preclude modifications to the aforementioned contracts to allow an eligible customer to elect service under another rate schedule.

This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale at wholesale of power and accompanying energy generated at the Allatoona, Buford, J. Strom Thurmond, Walter F. George, Hartwell, Millers Ferry, West Point, Robert F. Henry, Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects (hereinafter referred to collectively as the Projects) and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer. This rate schedule does not apply to energy from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects.

The electric capacity and energy supplied hereunder will be delivered at the Projects.

The monthly rate for capacity, energy, and generation services provided under this rate schedule for the period specified shall be:

$3.09 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

Energy Charge: 6.39 Mills per kilowatt-hour.

Generation Services: $0.13 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

Additional rates for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services provided under this rate schedule shall be the rates charged Southeastern Power Administration by the Company. Future adjustments to these rates will become effective upon acceptance for filing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of the Company's rate.

Scheduling, System Control and Dispatch Service: $0.0806 Per Kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

Regulation and Frequency Response Service: $0.0483 Per Kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

The charges for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services shall be governed by and subject to refund based upon the determination in the proceeding involving Southern Companies' Open Access Transmission Tariff.

The contract demand is the amount of capacity in kilowatts stated in the contract which the Government is obligated to supply and the Customer is entitled to receive.

The Government will sell to the Customer and the Customer will purchase from the Government energy each billing month equivalent to a percentage specified by contract of the energy made available to the company (less applicable losses).

The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12:00 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.

This rate schedule shall be available to public bodies and cooperatives (any one of whom is hereinafter called the Customer) in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida served through the transmission facilities of Southern Company Service, Inc. (hereinafter called the Company) or the Georgia Integrated Transmission System. The Customer is responsible for providing a scheduling arrangement with the Government and for providing a transmission arrangement. Nothing in this rate schedule shall preclude modifications to the aforementioned contracts to allow an eligible customer to elect service under another rate schedule.

This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale at wholesale of power and accompanying energy generated at the Allatoona, Buford, J. Strom Thurmond, Walter F. George, Hartwell, Millers Ferry, West Point, Robert F. Henry, Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects (hereinafter referred to collectively as the Projects) and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer. This rate schedule does not apply to energy from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects.

The electric capacity and energy supplied hereunder will be delivered at the Projects.

The monthly rate for capacity, energy, and generation services provided under this rate schedule for the period specified shall be:

Capacity Charge: $3.09 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

Energy Charge: 6.39 Mills per kilowatt-hour.

Generation Services: $0.13 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

Additional rates for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services provided under this rate schedule shall be the rates charged Southeastern Power Administration by the Company. Future adjustments to these rates will become effective upon acceptance for filing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of the Company's rate.

The charges for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services shall be governed by and subject to refund based upon the determination in the proceeding involving Southern Companies' Open Access Transmission Tariff.

The contract demand is the amount of capacity in kilowatts stated in the contract that the Government is obligated to supply and the Customer is entitled to receive.

The Government will sell to the Customer and the Customer will purchase from the Government energy each billing month equivalent to a percentage specified by contract of the energy made available to the company (less applicable losses).

The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12:00 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.

This rate schedule shall be available to the Alabama Electric Cooperative, Incorporated (hereinafter called the Cooperative).

This rate schedule shall be applicable to power and accompanying energy generated at the Allatoona, Buford, J. Strom Thurmond, Walter F. George, Hartwell, Millers Ferry, West Point, Robert F. Henry, Carters, and Richard B. Russell Projects and sold under contract between the Cooperative and the Government. This rate schedule does not apply to energy from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects.

The electric capacity and energy supplied hereunder will be three-phase alternating current at a nominal frequency of 60 Hertz and shall be delivered at the Walter F. George, West Point, and Robert F. Henry Projects.

The monthly rate for capacity, energy, and generation services provided under this rate schedule for the period specified shall be:

Capacity Charge: $3.09 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

Energy Charge: 6.39 Mills per kilowatt-hour.

Generation Services: $0.13 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

Additional rates for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services provided under this rate schedule shall be the rates charged Southeastern Power Administration by the Southern Company. Future adjustments to these rates will become effective upon acceptance for filing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of the Company's rate.

The charges for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services shall be governed by and subject to refund based upon the determination in the proceeding involving Southern Companies' Open Access Transmission Tariff.

The Government will sell to the Cooperative and the Cooperative will purchase from the Government those quantities of energy specified by contract as available to the Cooperative for scheduling on a weekly basis.

The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.

This rate schedule shall be available to the South Mississippi Electric Power Association (hereinafter called the Customer) to whom power may be wheeled pursuant to contracts between the Government and Alabama Electric Cooperative, Inc. (hereinafter called AEC).

This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale at wholesale of power and accompanying energy generated at the Allatoona, Buford, J. Strom Thurmond, Walter F. George, Hartwell, Millers Ferry, West Point, Robert F. Henry, Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer. This rate schedule does not apply to energy from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects.

The electric capacity and energy supplied hereunder will be threephase alternating current at a nominal frequency of 60 Hertz delivered at the delivery points of the Customer on AEC's transmission and distribution system. The voltage of delivery will be maintained within the limits established by the state regulatory commission.

The monthly rate for capacity, energy, and generation services provided under this rate schedule for the period specified shall be:

Capacity Charge: $3.09 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

Energy Charge: 6.39 Mills per kilowatt-hour.

Generation Services: $0.13 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

Additional rates for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services provided under this rate schedule shall be the rates charged Southeastern Power Administration by the Company. Future adjustments to these rates will become effective upon acceptance for filing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of the Company's rate.

$1.854 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month as of February 2002 is presented for illustrative purposes. This rate is subject to annual adjustment on January 1, and will be computed subject to the Appendix A attached to the Government-AEC contract.

The charges for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services shall be governed by and subject to refund based upon the determination in the proceeding involving Southern Companies' Open Access Transmission Tariff.

The contract demand is the amount of capacity in kilowatts stated in the contract that the Government is obligated to supply and the Customer is entitled to receive.

The Government will sell to the Cooperative and the Cooperative will purchase from the Government those quantities of energy specified by contract as available to the Cooperative for scheduling on a weekly basis.

The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.

This rate schedule shall be available to public bodies and cooperatives (any one of whom is hereinafter called the Customer) in North Carolina and South Carolina to whom power may be transmitted and scheduled pursuant to contracts between the Government and Duke Power Company (hereinafter called the Company) and the Customer. Nothing in this rate schedule shall preclude modifications to the aforementioned contracts to allow an eligible customer to elect service under another rate schedule.

This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale at wholesale of power and accompanying energy generated at the Allatoona, Buford, J. Strom Thurmond, Walter F. George, Hartwell, Millers Ferry, West Point, Robert F. Henry, Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer. This rate schedule does not apply to energy from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects.

The electric capacity and energy supplied hereunder will be delivered at the delivery points of the Customer on the Company's transmission and distribution system.

The monthly rate for capacity, energy, and generation services provided under this rate schedule for the period specified shall be:

Capacity Charge: $3.09 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

Energy Charge: 6.39 Mills per kilowatt-hour.

Generation Services: $0.13 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

Additional rates for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services provided under this rate schedule shall be the rates charged Southeastern Power Administration by the Company. Future adjustments to these rates will become effective upon acceptance for filing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of the Company's rate.

Transmission: $0.93 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month as of February 2002 is presented for illustrative purposes.

The initial transmission charge will be the Customers' ratable share of the Transmission Distribution Charges paid by the Government. The initial monthly transmission demand charge shall reflect the Government's Load Ratio Share Responsibility. The Load Ratio Share shall be computed each month and shall be the ratio of the Network Load to the average of the Company's Transmission System load for each of the 12 preceding months. The Company's Transmission System Load shall be the load as determined in Section 34.3 of the Company's Pro Forma Open Access Transmission Tariff (the Tariff). The Government shall pay a monthly demand charge which shall be determined by multiplying its Load Ratio Share by 1/12 of the Annual Transmission Revenue Requirement set forth in Attachment H of the Company's Tariff.

Proceedings before FERC involving the Tariff may result in the separation of charges currently included in the transmission rate. In this event, the Government may charge the Customer for any and all separate transmission and distribution charges paid by the Government in behalf of the Customer.

The contract demand is the amount of capacity in kilowatts stated in the contract which the Government is obligated to supply and the Customer is entitled to receive.

The Government will sell to the Customer and the Customer will purchase from the Government energy each billing month equivalent to a percentage specified by contract of the energy made available to the company (less applicable losses of three per cent (3%)). The Customer's contract demand and accompanying energy will be allocated proportionately to its individual delivery points served from the Company's system. These losses shall be effective until modified by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, pursuant to application by the Company under section 205 of the Federal Power Act or SEPA under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act or otherwise.

The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.

This rate schedule shall be available to public bodies and cooperatives (any one of whom is hereinafter called the Customer) in North Carolina and South Carolina to whom power may be transmitted pursuant to contracts between the Government and Duke Power Company (hereinafter called the Company) and the Customer. The Customer is responsible for providing a scheduling arrangement with the Government. Nothing in this rate schedule shall preclude modifications to the aforementioned contracts to allow an eligible customer to elect service under another rate schedule.

This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale at wholesale of power and accompanying energy generated at the Allatoona, Buford, J. Strom Thurmond, Walter F. George, Hartwell, Millers Ferry, West Point, Robert F. Henry, Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer. This rate schedule does not apply to energy from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects.

The electric capacity and energy supplied hereunder will be delivered at the delivery points of the Customer on the Company's transmission and distribution system.

The monthly rate for capacity, energy, and generation services provided under this rate schedule for the period specified shall be:

Capacity Charge: $3.09 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

Energy Charge: 6.39 Mills per kilowatt-hour.

Generation Services: $0.13 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

Additional rates for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services provided under this rate schedule shall be the rates charged Southeastern Power Administration by the Company. Future adjustments to these rates will become effective upon acceptance for filing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of the Company's rate.

Transmission: $0.93 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month as of February 2002 is presented for illustrative purposes.

The initial transmission charge will be the Customers' ratable share of the Transmission Distribution Charges paid by the Government. The initial monthly transmission demand charge shall reflect the Government's Load Ratio Share Responsibility. The Load Ratio Share shall be computed each month and shall be the ratio of the Network Load to the average of the Company's Transmission System load for each of the 12 preceding months. The Company's Transmission System Load shall be the load as determined in Section 34.3 of the Company's Pro Forma Open Access Transmission Tariff (the Tariff). The Government shall pay a monthly demand charge which shall be determined by multiplying its Load Ratio Share by 1/12 of the Annual Transmission Revenue Requirement set forth in Attachment H of the Company's Tariff.

Proceedings before FERC involving the Tariff may result in the separation of charges currently included in the transmission rate. In this event, the Government may charge the Customer for any and all separate transmission and distribution charges paid by the Government in behalf of the Customer.

The contract demand is the amount of capacity in kilowatts stated in the contract which the Government is obligated to supply and the Customer is entitled to receive.

The Government will sell to the Customer and the Customer will purchase from the Government energy each billing month equivalent to a percentage specified by contract of the energy made available to the company (less applicable losses of three per cent (3%)). The Customer's contract demand and accompanying energy will be allocated proportionately to its individual delivery points served from the Company's system. These losses shall be effective until modified by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, pursuant to application by the Company under section 205 of the Federal Power Act or SEPA under section 206 of the Federal Power Act or otherwise.

The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.

This rate schedule shall be available to public bodies and cooperatives (any one of whom is hereinafter called the Customer) in North Carolina and South Carolina to whom power may be scheduled pursuant to contracts between the Government and Duke Power Company (hereinafter called the Company) and the Customer. The Customer is responsible for providing a transmission arrangement. Nothing in this rate schedule shall preclude modifications to the aforementioned contracts to allow an eligible customer to elect service under another rate schedule.

This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale at wholesale of power and accompanying energy generated at the Allatoona, Buford, J. Strom Thurmond, Walter F. George, Hartwell, Millers Ferry, West Point, Robert F. Henry, Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer. This rate schedule does not apply to energy from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects.

The electric capacity and energy supplied hereunder will be delivered at the Savannah River Projects.

The monthly rate for capacity, energy, and generation services provided under this rate schedule for the period specified shall be:

Capacity Charge: $3.09 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

Energy Charge: 6.39 Mills per kilowatt-hour.

Generation Services: $0.13 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

Additional rates for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services provided under this rate schedule shall be the rates charged Southeastern Power Administration by the Company. Future adjustments to these rates will become effective upon acceptance for filing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of the Company's rate.

The contract demand is the amount of capacity in kilowatts stated in the contract which the Government is obligated to supply and the Customer is entitled to receive.

The Government will sell to the Customer and the Customer will purchase from the Government energy each billing month equivalent to a percentage specified by contract of the energy made available to the company (less applicable losses).

The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.

This rate schedule shall be available to public bodies and cooperatives (any one of whom is hereinafter called the Customer) in North Carolina and South Carolina served through the transmission facilities of Duke Power Company (hereinafter called the Company) and the Customer. The Customer is responsible for providing a scheduling arrangement with the Government and for providing a transmission arrangement with the Company. Nothing in this rate schedule shall preclude modifications to the aforementioned contracts to allow an eligible customer to elect service under another rate schedule.

This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale at wholesale of power and accompanying energy generated at the Allatoona, Buford, J. Strom Thurmond, Walter F. George, Hartwell, Millers Ferry, West Point, Robert F. Henry, Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer. This rate schedule does not apply to energy from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects.

The electric capacity and energy supplied hereunder will be delivered at the Savannah River Projects.

The monthly rate for capacity, energy, and generation services provided under this rate schedule for the period specified shall be:

Capacity Charge: $3.09 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

Energy Charge: 6.39 Mills per kilowatt-hour.

Generation Services: $0.13 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

Additional rates for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services provided under this rate schedule shall be the rates charged Southeastern Power Administration by the Company. Future adjustments to these rates will become effective upon acceptance for filing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of the Company's rate.

The contract demand is the amount of capacity in kilowatts stated in the contract which the Government is obligated to supply and the Customer is entitled to receive.

The Government will sell to the Customer and the Customer will purchase from the Government energy each billing month equivalent to a percentage specified by contract of the energy made available to the company (less applicable losses).

The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.

This rate schedule shall be available to public bodies and cooperatives (any one of whom is hereinafter called the Customer) in South Carolina to whom power may be wheeled and scheduled pursuant to contracts between the Government and South Carolina Public Service Authority (hereinafter called the Authority). Nothing in this rate schedule shall preclude an eligible customer from electing service under another rate schedule.

This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale at wholesale of power and accompanying energy generated at the Allatoona, Buford, J. Strom Thurmond, Walter F. George, Hartwell, Millers Ferry, West Point, Robert F. Henry, Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer. This rate schedule does not apply to energy from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects.

The electric capacity and energy supplied hereunder will be delivered at the delivery points of the Customer on the Authority's transmission and distribution system.

The monthly rate for capacity, energy, and generation services provided under this rate schedule for the period specified shall be:

Capacity Charge: $3.09 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

Energy Charge: 6.39 Mills per kilowatt-hour.

Generation Services: $0.13 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

Additional rates for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services provided under this rate schedule shall be the rates charged Southeastern Power Administration by the Authority. Future adjustments to these rates will become effective upon acceptance for filing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of the Authority's rate.

Transmission: $1.59 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month as of February 2002 is presented for illustrative purposes.

The initial transmission rate is subject to annual adjustment on July 1 of each year, and will be computed subject to the formula contained in Appendix A to the Government-Authority Contract.

Proceedings before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission involving the Authority's Open Access Transmission Tariff may result in the separation of charges currently included in the transmission rate. In this event, the Government may charge the Customer for any and all separate transmission and distribution charges paid by the Government in behalf of the Customer.

The contract demand is the amount of capacity in kilowatts stated in the contract which the Government is obligated to supply and the Customer is entitled to receive.

The Government will sell to the Customer and the Customer will purchase from the Government energy each billing month equivalent to a percentage specified by contract of the energy made available to the Authority (less applicable losses of two per cent (2%)). The Customer's contract demand and accompanying energy will be allocated proportionately to its individual delivery points served from the Authority's system.

The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12:00 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.

When energy delivery to the Customer's system for the account of the Government is reduced or interrupted, and such reduction or interruption is not due to conditions on the Customer's system, the demand charge for the month shall be appropriately reduced as to kilowatts of such capacity which have been interrupted or reduced for each day in accordance with the following formula:

This rate schedule shall be available to public bodies and cooperatives (any one of whom is hereinafter called the Customer) in South Carolina to whom power may be wheeled pursuant to contracts between the Government and South Carolina Public Service Authority (hereinafter called the Authority). The customer is responsible for providing a scheduling arrangement with the Government. Nothing in this rate schedule shall preclude an eligible customer from electing service under another rate schedule.

This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale at wholesale of power and accompanying energy generated at the Allatoona, Buford, J. Strom Thurmond, Walter F. George, Hartwell, Millers Ferry, West Point, Robert F. Henry, Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer. This rate schedule does not apply to energy from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects.

The electric capacity and energy supplied hereunder will be delivered at the delivery points of the Customer on the Authority's transmission and distribution system.

The monthly rate for capacity, energy, and generation services provided under this rate schedule for the period specified shall be:

Capacity Charge: $3.09 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

Energy Charge: 6.39 Mills per kilowatt-hour.

Generation Services: $0.13 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

Additional rates for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services provided under this rate schedule shall be the rates charged Southeastern Power Administration by the Authority. Future adjustments to these rates will become effective upon acceptance for filing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of the Authority's rate.

Transmission: $1.59 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month as of February 2002 is presented for illustrative purposes.

The initial transmission rate is subject to annual adjustment on July 1 of each year, and will be computed subject to the formula contained in Appendix A to the Government-Authority Contract.

Proceedings before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission involving the Authority's Open Access Transmission Tariff may result in the separation of charges currently included in the transmission rate. In this event, the Government may charge the Customer for any and all separate transmission and distribution charges paid by the Government in behalf of the Customer.

The contract demand is the amount of capacity in kilowatts stated in the contract that the Government is obligated to supply and the Customer is entitled to receive.

The Government will sell to the Customer and the Customer will purchase from the Government energy each billing month equivalent to a percentage specified by contract of the energy made available to the Authority (less applicable losses of two per cent (2%)). The Customer's contract demand and accompanying energy will be allocated proportionately to its individual delivery points served from the Authority's system.

The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12:00 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.

When energy delivery to the Customer's system for the account of the Government is reduced or interrupted, and such reduction or interruption is not due to conditions on the Customer's system, the demand charge for the month shall be appropriately reduced as to kilowatts of such capacity which have been interrupted or reduced for each day in accordance with the following formula:

This rate schedule shall be available to public bodies and cooperatives (any one of whom is hereinafter called the Customer) in South Carolina to whom power may be scheduled pursuant to contracts between the Government and South Carolina Public Service Authority (hereinafter called the Authority). The customer is responsible for providing a transmission arrangement. Nothing in this rate schedule shall preclude an eligible customer from electing service under another rate schedule.

This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale at wholesale of power and accompanying energy generated at the Allatoona, Buford, J. Strom Thurmond, Walter F. George, Hartwell, Millers Ferry, West Point, Robert F. Henry, Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer. This rate schedule does not apply to energy from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects.

The electric capacity and energy supplied hereunder will be delivered at the Projects.

The monthly rate for capacity, energy, and generation services provided under this rate schedule for the period specified shall be:

Capacity Charge: $3.09 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

Energy Charge: 6.39 Mills per kilowatt-hour.

Generation Services: $0.13 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

Additional rates for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services provided under this rate schedule shall be the rates charged Southeastern Power Administration by the Authority. Future adjustments to these rates will become effective upon acceptance for filing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of the Authority's rate.

The contract demand is the amount of capacity in kilowatts stated in the contract which the Government is obligated to supply and the Customer is entitled to receive.

The Government will sell to the Customer and the Customer will purchase from the Government energy each billing month equivalent to a percentage specified by contract of the energy made available to the Authority (less applicable losses).

The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12:00 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.

When energy delivery to the Customer's system for the account of the Government is reduced or interrupted, and such reduction or interruption is not due to conditions on the Customer's system, the demand charge for the month shall be appropriately reduced as to kilowatts of such capacity which have been interrupted or reduced for each day in accordance with the following formula:

This rate schedule shall be available to public bodies and cooperatives (any one of whom is hereinafter called the Customer) in South Carolina served through the transmission facilities of South Carolina Public Service Authority (hereinafter called the Authority). The customer is responsible for providing a scheduling arrangement with the Government and for providing a transmission arrangement. Nothing in this rate schedule shall preclude an eligible customer from electing service under another rate schedule.

This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale at wholesale of power and accompanying energy generated at the Allatoona, Buford, J. Strom Thurmond, Walter F. George, Hartwell, Millers Ferry, West Point, Robert F. Henry, Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer. This rate schedule does not apply to energy from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects.

The electric capacity and energy supplied hereunder will be delivered at the Projects.

The monthly rate for capacity, energy, and generation services provided under this rate schedule for the period specified shall be:

Capacity Charge: $3.09 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

Energy Charge: 6.39 Mills per kilowatt-hour.

Generation Services: $0.13 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

Additional rates for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services provided under this rate schedule shall be the rates charged Southeastern Power Administration by the Authority. Future adjustments to these rates will become effective upon acceptance for filing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of the Authority's rate.

The contract demand is the amount of capacity in kilowatts stated in the contract that the Government is obligated to supply and the Customer is entitled to receive.

The Government will sell to the Customer and the Customer will purchase from the Government energy each billing month equivalent to a percentage specified by contract of the energy made available to the Authority (less applicable losses).

The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.

When energy delivery to the Customer's system for the account of the Government is reduced or interrupted, and such reduction or interruption is not due to conditions on the Customer's system, the demand charge for the month shall be appropriately reduced as to kilowatts of such capacity which have been interrupted or reduced for each day in accordance with the following formula:

This rate schedule shall be available public bodies and cooperatives (any one of which is hereinafter called the Customer) in South Carolina to whom power may be wheeled and scheduled pursuant to contracts between the Government and the South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (hereinafter called the Company). Nothing in this rate schedule shall preclude an eligible customer from electing service under another rate schedule.

This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale at wholesale of power and accompanying energy generated at the Allatoona, Buford, J. Strom Thurmond, Walter F. George, Hartwell, Millers Ferry, West Point, Robert F. Henry, Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer. This rate schedule does not apply to energy from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects.

The electric capacity and energy supplied hereunder will be delivered at the delivery points of the Customer on the Company's transmission and distribution system.

The monthly rate for capacity, energy, and generation services provided under this rate schedule for the period specified shall be:

Capacity Charge: $3.09 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

Energy Charge: 6.39 Mills per kilowatt-hour.

Generation Services: $0.13 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

Additional rates for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services provided under this rate schedule shall be the rates charged Southeastern Power Administration by the Company. Future adjustments to these rates will become effective upon acceptance for filing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of the Company's rate.

Transmission: $1.13 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month as of February 2002 is presented for illustrative purposes.

The initial rate will be subject to monthly adjustment and will be computed subject to Section 7 of the Government-Company contract.

Proceedings before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission involving the Company's Open Access Transmission Tariff may result in the separation of charges currently included in the transmission rate. In this event, the Government may charge the Customer for any and all separate transmission and distribution charges paid by the Government in behalf of the Customer.

The contract demand is the amount of capacity in kilowatts stated in the contract which the Government is obligated to supply and the Customer is entitled to receive.

The Government will sell to the Customer and the Customer will purchase from the Government energy each billing month equivalent to a percentage specified by contract of the energy made available to the company (less applicable losses). The Customer's contract demand and accompanying energy will be allocated proportionately to its individual delivery points served from the Company's system.

The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12:00 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.

The Customer shall at its own expense provide, install, and maintain on its side of each delivery point the equipment necessary to protect and control its own system. In so doing, the installation, adjustment, and setting of all such control and protective equipment at or near the point of delivery shall be coordinated with that which is installed by and at the expense of the Company on its side of the delivery point.

This rate schedule shall be available public bodies and cooperatives (any one of which is hereinafter called the Customer) in South Carolina to whom power may be wheeled pursuant to contracts between the Government and the South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (hereinafter called the Company). The customer is responsible for providing a scheduling arrangement with the Government. Nothing in this rate schedule shall preclude an eligible customer from electing service under another rate schedule.

This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale at wholesale of power and accompanying energy generated at the Allatoona, Buford, J. Strom Thurmond, Walter F. George, Hartwell, Millers Ferry, West Point, Robert F. Henry, Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer. This rate schedule does not apply to energy from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects.

The electric capacity and energy supplied hereunder will be delivered at the delivery points of the Customer on the Company's transmission and distribution system.

The monthly rate for capacity, energy, and generation services provided under this rate schedule for the period specified shall be:

Capacity Charge: $3.09 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

Energy Charge: 6.39 Mills per kilowatt-hour.

Generation Services: $0.13 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

Additional rates for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services provided under this rate schedule shall be the rates charged Southeastern Power Administration by the Company. Future adjustments to these rates will become effective upon acceptance for filing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of the Company's rate.

Transmission: $1.13 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month as of February 2002 is presented for illustrative purposes.

The initial rate will be subject to monthly adjustment and will be computed subject to Section 7 of the Government-Company contract.

Proceedings before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission involving the Company's Open Access Transmission Tariff may result in the separation of charges currently included in the transmission rate. In this event, the Government may charge the Customer for any and all separate transmission and distribution charges paid by the Government in behalf of the Customer.

The contract demand is the amount of capacity in kilowatts stated in the contract which the Government is obligated to supply and the Customer is entitled to receive.

The Government will sell to the Customer and the Customer will purchase from the Government energy each billing month equivalent to a percentage specified by contract of the energy made available to the company (less applicable losses). The Customer's contract demand and accompanying energy will be allocated proportionately to its individual delivery points served from the Company's system.

The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12:00 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.

The Customer shall at its own expense provide, install, and maintain on its side of each delivery point the equipment necessary to protect and control its own system. In so doing, the installation, adjustment, and setting of all such control and protective equipment at or near the point of delivery shall be coordinated with that which is installed by and at the expense of the Company on its side of the delivery point.

This rate schedule shall be available public bodies and cooperatives (any one of which is hereinafter called the Customer) in South Carolina to whom power may be scheduled pursuant to contracts between the Government and the South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (hereinafter called the Company). The customer is responsible for providing a transmission arrangement. Nothing in this rate schedule shall preclude an eligible customer from electing service under another rate schedule.

This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale at wholesale of power and accompanying energy generated at the Allatoona, Buford, J. Strom Thurmond, Walter F. George, Hartwell, Millers Ferry, West Point, Robert F. Henry, Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer. This rate schedule does not apply to energy from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects.

The electric capacity and energy supplied hereunder will be delivered at the Projects.

The monthly rate for capacity, energy, and generation services provided under this rate schedule for the period specified shall be:

Capacity Charge: $3.09 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

Energy Charge: 6.39 Mills per kilowatt-hour.

Generation Services: $0.13 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

Additional rates for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services provided under this rate schedule shall be the rates charged Southeastern Power Administration by the Company. Future adjustments to these rates will become effective upon acceptance for filing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of the Company's rate.

The contract demand is the amount of capacity in kilowatts stated in the contract that the Government is obligated to supply and the Customer is entitled to receive.

The Government will sell to the Customer and the Customer will purchase from the Government energy each billing month equivalent to a percentage specified by contract of the energy made available to the company (less applicable losses).

The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12:00 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.

The Customer shall at its own expense provide, install, and maintain on its side of each delivery point the equipment necessary to protect and control its own system. In so doing, the installation, adjustment, and setting of all such control and protective equipment at or near the point of delivery shall be coordinated with that which is installed by and at the expense of the Company on its side of the delivery point.

This rate schedule shall be available public bodies and cooperatives (any one of which is hereinafter called the Customer) in South Carolina served through the transmission facilities of South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (hereinafter called the Company). The customer is responsible for providing a scheduling arrangement with the Government and for providing a transmission arrangement. Nothing in this rate schedule shall preclude an eligible customer from electing service under another rate schedule.

This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale at wholesale of power and accompanying energy generated at the Allatoona, Buford, J. Strom Thurmond, Walter F. George, Hartwell, Millers Ferry, West Point, Robert F. Henry, Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer. This rate schedule does not apply to energy from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects.

The electric capacity and energy supplied hereunder will be delivered at the Projects.

The monthly rate for capacity, energy, and generation services provided under this rate schedule for the period specified shall be:

Capacity Charge: $3.09 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

Energy Charge: 6.39 Mills per kilowatt-hour.

Generation Services: $0.13 Per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

Additional rates for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services provided under this rate schedule shall be the rates charged Southeastern Power Administration by the Company. Future adjustments to these rates will become effective upon acceptance for filing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of the Company's rate.

The contract demand is the amount of capacity in kilowatts stated in the contract that the Government is obligated to supply and the Customer is entitled to receive.

The Government will sell to the Customer and the Customer will purchase from the Government energy each billing month equivalent to a percentage specified by contract of the energy made available to the company (less applicable losses).

The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.

The Customer shall at its own expense provide, install, and maintain on its side of each delivery point the equipment necessary to protect and control its own system. In so doing, the installation, adjustment, and setting of all such control and protective equipment at or near the point of delivery shall be coordinated with that which is installed by and at the expense of the Company on its side of the delivery point.

This rate schedule shall be available to public bodies and cooperatives (any one of whom is hereinafter called the Customer) in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, South Carolina, or North Carolina to whom service is provided pursuant to contracts between the government and the customer.

This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale of regulation services provided from the Allatoona, Buford, J. Strom Thurmond, Walter F. George, Hartwell, Millers Ferry, West Point, Robert F. Henry, Carters, and Richard B. Russell Projects (hereinafter called the Projects) and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer.

The service supplied hereunder will be delivered at the Projects.

The rate for service supplied under this rate schedule for the period specified shall be: $0.05 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.

The contract demand is the amount of capacity in kilowatts stated in the contract to which the Government is obligated to supply and the Customer is entitled to receive regulation service.

The billing month for services provided under this schedule shall end at 12 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.

This rate schedule shall be available to public bodies and cooperatives (any one of whom is hereinafter called the Customer) in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, South Carolina, or North Carolina to whom power is provided pursuant to contracts between the Government and the customer.

This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale at wholesale energy purchased to meet contract minimum energy and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer.

The energy supplied hereunder will be delivered at the delivery points provided for under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer.

The rate for energy sold under this rate schedule for the months specified shall be: [computed to the nearest $.00001 ( 1/100 mill) per kwh]; (The weighted average cost of energy for replacement energy divided by one minus losses for delivery.)

Where: The weighted average cost of energy for replacement energy is equal to the cost of replacement energy purchased divided by the replacement energy purchased, net losses.

The Government will sell to the Customer and the Customer will purchase from the Government energy each billing month equivalent to a percentage specified by contract of the energy made available to the Facilitator (less any losses required by the Facilitator). The Customer's contract demand and accompanying energy will be allocated proportionately to its individual delivery points served from the Facilitator's system.

The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12:00 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.

This rate schedule shall be available to public bodies and cooperatives (any one of whom is hereinafter called the Customer) in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, South Carolina, or North Carolina to whom power is provided pursuant to contracts between the Government and the customer.

This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale at wholesale energy generated from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer. The energy will be segregated from energy from other pumping operations.

The energy supplied hereunder will be delivered at the delivery points provided for under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer.

The rate for energy sold under this rate schedule for the months specified shall be:

Where:

The Government will sell to the Customer and the Customer will purchase from the Government energy each billing month equivalent to a percentage specified by contract of the energy made available to the Facilitator (less any losses required by the Facilitator). The Customer's contract demand and accompanying energy will be allocated proportionately to its individual delivery points served from the Facilitator's system.

The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12:00 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.

This rate schedule shall be available to public bodies and cooperatives who provide their own scheduling arrangement and elect to allow Southeastern to use a portion of their allocation for pumping (any one of whom is hereinafter called the Customer) in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, South Carolina, or North Carolina to whom power is provided pursuant to contracts between the Government and the customer.

This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale at wholesale energy generated from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer. This energy will be segregated from energy from other pumping operations.

The energy supplied hereunder will be delivered at the delivery points provided for under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer.

The rate for energy sold under this rate schedule for the months specified shall be:

Where:

The Government will sell to the Customer and the Customer will purchase from the Government energy each billing month equivalent to a percentage specified by contract of the energy made available to the Facilitator (less any losses required by the Facilitator). The Customer's contract demand and accompanying energy will be allocated proportionately to its individual delivery points served from the Facilitator's system.

The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12:00 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, by Order issued November 9, 2000, in Docket No. EF00-3031-000, confirmed and approved Wholesale Power Rate Schedules JW-1-F and JW-2-C. Rate schedules JW-1-G and JW-2-D replace these schedules.

In 1987, Western marketed the long-term, firm power resources of the Parker and Davis dams and entered into 20-year term FES contracts with the current P-DP customers. These FES contracts will expire on September 30, 2008. Western must determine if the PMI, as outlined in the Energy Planning and Management Program (Program), will be applied to the P-DP for FES commitments beyond that date.

Western first proposed the Program on April 19, 1991 (56 FR 16093). The goals of the Program were to encourage efficient energy use by Western's long-term, firm power customers by requiring Integrated Resource Planning and to extend Western's firm power resource commitments. In the final rule of the Program, Western stated that application of the PMI, including the amount of resources extended, would initially apply only to the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program-Eastern Division (P-S) and the Loveland Area Projects (LAP). Applicability to other projects would be determined through future, project-specific public processes. Specific to the P-DP, the rule stated that Western would evaluate application of the PMI to the Parker-Davis Project no more than 10 years before existing contracts expire.

The PMI calls for extending a major portion of existing firm power sales commitments for 20 years beyond the existing termination date. With respect to P-S and LAP, a commitment of not less than 96 percent of the hydroelectric power resource determined to be available to the customers was to be extended, and a power resource pool of up to 4 percent of the power from these customers would be created. In addition, the PMI states that “at two 5-year intervals after the effective date of the extension to existing customers, Western will create a project-specific resource pool increment of up to an additional 1 percent of the long-term marketable resource under contract at the time.” The resource pool would be used for allocations to new customers. The rule stated that a more precise decision on how resource pools would be used, as well as the percentage of existing commitments extended, would be determined through future, project-specific public processes.

Consistent with the application of the PMI to other recent Western marketing efforts, Western proposes to apply the PMI (10 CFR parts 905.31 through 905.37), to the P-DP. This includes a proposal to extend 94 percent of the P-DP customers' entitlement of long-term, firm P-DP resources as of September 30, 2008, for an additional 20 years. Given the direction contained within the PMI for a “reservation of a modest percentage of resources to create a resource pool,” Western proposes that a resource pool of 6 percent of available P-DP resources be established for new customers. Western proposes creation of a single, one-time resource pool of a definite size, due to the costs and effort associated with incremental resource pools as experienced by the P-S and LAP projects, and given the small size of the proposed P-DP resource pool relative to those of other Western projects. During the most recent marketing effort of the Salt Lake City Area Integrated Projects, which shares many of the same P-DP customers, a single resource pool was created in response to public comments.

The existing P-DP marketing plan defines the marketing area as generally consisting of southern California, southern Nevada, most of Arizona, and a small part of New Mexico; and is more specifically defined in the Conformed General Consolidated Power Marketing Criteria or Regulations for Boulder City Area Projects (49 FR 50582, December 28, 1984). New customers meeting the requirements established in the P-DP Marketing Criteria and qualifying Native American tribes within the P-DP marketing area will be eligible to request an allocation of capacity and energy from the P-DP resource pool. Native American tribes need not have utility status to qualify for an allocation. Adjustments may be made to resource allocations at any time to reflect changes in dam operations and/or water conditions upon 5 years notification.

As provided in the current P-DP Advancement of Funds contract, new customers will be required to reimburse existing customers for undepreciated replacement advances, to the extent existing customers' allocations are reduced as a result of creating the resource pool. New customers who receive an allocation will also be required to participate in advance funding of Western's and the Bureau of Reclamation's operation and maintenance expenses.

Western is seeking comments regarding the applicability of the PMI to the P-DP, the percentage of resources to be extended to existing customers, and the size of the proposed resource pool. Following the public comment period, Western will analyze the comments received and publish its policy regarding extension of resource commitments in the Federal Register .

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-621, requires Federal agencies to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis if a final rule is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and there is a legal requirement to issue a general notice of proposed rulemaking. Western has determined this action does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis since it is a rulemaking of particular applicability involving rates or services applicable to public property.

Western determined this rule is exempt from congressional notification requirements under 5 U.S.C. 801 because the action is a rulemaking of particular applicability relating to rates or services and involves matters of procedure.

DOE has determined that this is not a significant regulatory action because it does not meet the criteria of Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735. Western has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; accordingly, this notice requires no clearance by the Office of Management and Budget.

Western has completed an environmental impact statement on the Program, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The Record of Decision was published in 60 FR 53181, October 12, 1995. Western's NEPA review assured all environmental effects related to these actions have been analyzed.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0572.

Title: Filing Manual for Annual International Circuit Status Reports.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 138.

Estimated Time Per Response: 11 hours.

Frequency of Response: Annual reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 1,540 hours.

Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: N/A.

Needs and Uses: The information will enable the Commission to discharge its obligation to authorize the construction and use of international common carrier transmission facilities. The information will be used by the Commission and the industry as to whether an international common carrier is providing direct or indirect service to countries and to assess industry trends in the use of international transmission facilities. The information is extremely valuable because it not available from any other source.

On May 9, 2002, Sprint Corporation (Sprint), on behalf of its wireless division, filed a petition for declaratory ruling seeking confirmation that: (1) An incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) may not refuse to load telephone numbering resources of an interconnecting carrier, and (2) an ILEC may not refuse to honor the routing and rating points designated by that interconnecting carrier. Sprint's concern is its contention that, in certain circumstances, BellSouth has signaled its intention to refuse to program its LATA tandem switches with Sprint's NPA-NXXs. In particular, where Sprint wishes to associate an NPA-NXX with a rate center of an ILEC other than BellSouth, and the rating and routing points are different ( e.g., the routing point could be Sprint's MSC, but the rating point would be an independent ILEC's rate center), Sprint contends that BellSouth's position is to refuse to load its LATA tandem switch with Sprint's call routing and rating information. On May 22, 2002, BellSouth filed an opposition to the Sprint Petition stating that it is currently loading NPA-NXXs that Sprint acquires and that it is not currently adversely affecting the routing of any Sprint traffic. In its opposition, BellSouth states that it believes that the rating and routing arrangements described above result in inappropriate intercarrier compensation, claiming that “[v]arious forms of intercarrier compensation, including reciprocal compensation, access charges, and inter-company settlements could apply to this traffic.” We seek comment on the practices and issues raised in Sprint's petition and BellSouth's opposition, including the appropriate intercarrier compensation applicable to the traffic described above, both under our existing rules and prospectively.

Sprint's Petition and BellSouth's Opposition raise interconnection and intercarrier compensation issues under consideration in CC Docket No. 01-92, Developing a Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime , 66 FR 28410, May 23, 2001. Accordingly, we ask that parties file their pleadings in CC Docket No. 01-92. The petition and other pleadings will be incorporated into CC Docket No. 01-92.

Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, interested parties may file comments on or before August 8, 2002, and reply comments on or before August 19, 2002. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the filing to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic copy by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov , and should include the following words in the body of the message: “get form <your email address>.” A sample form and directions will be sent in reply. Commenters also may obtain a copy of the ASCII Electronic Transmittal Form (FORM-ET) at http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/email.html. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). The Commission's contractor, Vistronix, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Regardless of whether parties choose to file electronically or by paper, parties should also file one copy of any documents filed in this docket with the Commission's copy contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554 (telephone 202-863-2893; facsimile 202-863-2898) or via e-mail at qualexint@aol.com. In addition, one copy of each submission must be filed with the Chief, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, and Chief, Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Documents filed in this proceeding will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the Commission's Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, and will be placed on the Commission's Internet site.

This proceeding will be governed by “permit-but-disclose” ex parte procedures that are applicable to non-restricted proceedings under section 1.1206 of the Commission's rules. Parties making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must contain a summary of the substance of the presentation and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one-or two-sentence description of the views and arguments presented generally is required. Other rules pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in section 1.1206(b) as well. In addition, interested parties are to file any written ex parte presentations in this proceeding with the Commission's Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, 445 12th Street, SW., TW-B204, Washington, DC 20554, and serve with three copies each: Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Attn: Victoria Schlesinger, and Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Attn: Gregory Vadas, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Parties shall also serve with one copy: Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 863-2893.

The goals of NHANES are (1) to estimate the number and percentage of people in the U.S. population and designated subgroups with selected diseases and risk factors for those diseases; (2) to monitor trends in the prevalence, awareness, treatment and control of selected diseases; (3) to monitor trends in risk behaviors and environmental exposures; (4) to analyze risk factors for selected diseases; (5) to study the relation among diet, nutrition and health; (6) to explore emerging public health issues and new technologies; (7) to establish and maintain a national probability sample of baseline information on health and nutrition status.

The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) began in the Fall of 1988 and ended in the Fall of 1994. Survey data were collected and can be analyzed from two phases: Phase I was conducted from October 1988 to October 1991, and Phase II was conducted from October 1991 to October 1994. Both phases are nationally representative samples. For details of the sampling design see the Plan and Operation of NHANES III (1). This information can be obtained by contacting the Data Dissemination Branch, NCHS, at 301-458-4636 or from the Internet at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhanes/nh3data.htm.

Blood specimens were collected from participants as a part of NHANES III. Lymphocytes were isolated from the blood collected from participants aged 12 years and older and stored frozen in liquid nitrogen or as cell cultures immortalized with Epstein-Barr virus and frozen at the Molecular Biology Branch of DLS, NCEH, CDC, Atlanta, GA. DNA is available from cell lines of Phase II (1991-1994) participants.

Health information collected in the NHANES III is kept in strictest confidence. During the informed consent process, survey participants are assured that data collected will be used only for stated purposes and will not be disclosed or released to others without the consent of the individual or the establishment in accordance with section 308(d) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 242m). Although the consent form was signed by participants in the survey, and participants consented to storing specimens of their blood for future research, specific mention of genetic research was not included. Nevertheless, given the scientific importance of this resource, the CDC/NCHS Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved making anonymized samples of DNA available to the genetic research community.

The anonymization requirements proved to be restrictive and difficult to implement, therefore, in August, 2001 the CDC/NCHS IRB approved a revised plan for using these specimens based on the guidelines in the August, 1999 National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) report on the use of stored biological materials for research. This revised plan includes a process that gives researchers the ability to obtain more information associated with specimens for protocols that are determined by the IRB to have minimal risk for harm to the participant. For those protocols that cannot be conducted under unlinked (or anonymous) conditions, but have been determined to involve minimal risk, the revised plan allows for linking the genetic laboratory results to the NHANES data through the NCHS Research Data Center. This process would ensure that confidentiality of the subjects' identity is maintained, and would reduce the possibility that linking genetic information to the NHANES III data files might identify an individual or cause group harm.

Category (A): Special studies using the NCHS Research Data Center: Complete set of samples in deep-well format (96 specimens/per plate) ~7,300 samples. Studies which request DNA samples linked to previously collected NHANES III public use data without the restriction of anonymization. Data analyses must be done within the NCHS Research Data Center.

Category (B): Age-race-sex studies using anonymized samples: A limited number of subsets may be distributed in 50uL cryovials. Subsets based on the selection criteria proposed by investigators. Studies of allele frequencies which require only basic demographic information (age, race/ethnicity, and sex) to be linked to the samples.

Category (C): Special anonymized studies: A limited number of subsets may be distributed in 50uL cryovials. Subsets based on the selection criteria proposed by investigators. Studies in which additional co-variates from the NHANES III public use database are required, but the re-coding maintains anonymization (minimum of 5 individuals in each statistical cell) of the samples.

These latter two research designs do not differ from the previous Plan for distributing NHANES III DNA samples to researchers.

Category (A): Special studies using the NCHS Research Data Center —Distribution of the complete set of samples in deep-well format (96 specimens/per plate) ~7,300 samples. The investigator will specify the genetic analyses to be conducted on the samples. The investigator will also include in the research protocol application a list of demographic and clinical variables that would be used for the data analyses. Data analyses that combine the genetic analyses with NHANES III data must be conducted in the NCHS Research Data Center (RDC). The researcher will conduct the genetic laboratory analyses on the samples that are labeled with a unique random ID and are, therefore, anonymous to the researcher. To perform the data analyses, the researcher will then provide the results of the genetic laboratory tests with the random identification numbers to the Division of Health Examination Statistics (DHES). The random identification numbers are also anonymous to all staff, except the one person who has the crosswalk file. These results will be matched to the NHANES III data by that person. The resulting data file will be provided to the RDC. These analyses will be subject to all the confidentiality restrictions of the RDC (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/r&d/rdc.htm). Because all the data analyses will be completed in the NCHS RDC, which charges for computer time and for RDC support time, it is recommended that the investigator develop the project proposal in conjunction with the NHANES Staff and Research Data Center staff. The investigator should perform preliminary analyses using NHANES public use data to determine whether the proposed research is feasible. Approval of these protocols by the RDC is required after approval by the Genetics Technical Panel. The RDC uses the following criteria for approval: risk of disclosure, consistency with the mission of NCHS, availability of RDC resources, and the feasibility of the project.

Although researchers sign confidentiality agreements to use the RDC, strict confidentiality protocols require that researchers with approved projects must complete their work using the facilities located within the Research Data Centers (currently only the Hyattsville, MD, facility is in operation). Two access methods are available for researchers to accomplish their tasks: onsite and remote. The costs and restrictions are different for each method. Onsite researchers have the ability to use the full capabilities of the SAS system with the only additional requirement being a disclosure review. Individual cells are suppressed if the minimum requirements for disclosure are not met. Additional restrictions limit the analysis capabilities of the remote access system. Under these situations, the printed output is scanned and screened prior to transmittal to the investigator. Strict minimal disclosure limits are adhered to and data items are suppressed if the minimums are not met. For remote access, all statistical cells with fewer than five observations are suppressed. Under the RDC option (protocol category A), the researcher may obtain aggregate statistics from statistical calculations which effectively use smaller statistical cell sizes for intermediate steps, such as performing regression analyses on detailed data, as long as the intermediate steps are never made available separately.

Category (B) Age-race-gender Studies: A limited number of subsets may be distributed in 50uL cryovials. Subsets based on the selection criteria proposed by investigators. To facilitate the research proposal preparation of allele frequency, NCHS will make the following data available with the DNA sample: age in 10-year age groups, race-ethnicity (white, black, Mexican-American), gender, mean sample weights for each demographic group and the average design effect. Thus, investigators wishing to submit proposals under this research design type do not need to provide an analysis of NHANES III data to support the unlinked (anonymization) scheme proposed. These data have sufficient sample sizes in each category (the smallest age, race/ethnicity, gender statistical cell contains 62 persons) to preserve anonymity. To further preserve anonymity, only 80 percent of the subjects in each statistical cell will be used.

Proposals submitted for this category of review are limited to those requesting samples from within these age, gender, race/ethnicity cells for identifying the frequency of the alleles in the population. These proposals must address all criteria except for the verification that anonymization can be achieved.

Category (C): Special Anonymized Studies (Requests for Additional Variables) —A limited number of subsets may be distributed in 50uL aliquots in cryovials. Subsets are based on the selection criteria proposed by the investigator(s). The investigator will include a list of demographic and clinical variables and specify recoding schemes, if appropriate, that the principal investigator would like to have linked to the samples to meet the objectives of the study. The combined information on all variables provided to the investigator by CDC must not constitute a unique set of values that could link the samples with participant data on the NHANES III public use data set. Investigators should obtain the NHANES III Public Use Data and should verify that anonymity can be achieved before submitting the proposal with the requested set of variables.

A cross tabulation of all requested variables must be provided and must demonstrate that there are at least five individuals in each statistical cell of that cross tabulation. Recoding is required for continuous variables and may be required for integral variables to ensure anonymity. Because the samples are primarily available from phase II subjects, these analyses should be run using phase II subjects only (SDPPHASE=2). (Household codes are confidential data. Therefore, if only one individual per household is to be included in the protocol, the investigator can estimate the sample size per statistical cell by halving the cross tabulation results. For instance, if only one individual per household is requested, the minimum statistical cell size of the cross tabulation should be ten subjects.) From each statistical cell, either 2 or 20 percent of the subjects of the cell, whichever is larger, will be deleted from the pool of samples sent to the investigator. In all three proposal designs, the investigators will receive samples that are coded with a random identifier that is unique to that proposal.

For proposals falling into category A, the laboratory will dilute the stock specimens that are currently in deep-well plates 1:2 and distribute 50 ul aliquots of diluted lysate. The amount of DNA in each aliquot will be approximately 180-1,500 nanograms (ng). Aliquots will be dispensed into deep-well plates for distribution to investigators. Each well will be bar-coded and labeled with a readable identifier. Approximately 20-22 sample sets of specimens from 7,300 participants will be available for proposals. An investigator must purchase the samples in full sets. For proposals falling into category B or C, specimens will be distributed in 50 μL aliquots in cryovials rather than deep-well plates. The amount of DNA in each aliquot will be 75 to 650 nanograms. Only a limited number of smaller specialized sets for category B or C are available. There are only 3 complete sets of cryovials, so the number of projects that can be filled with these samples depends on the types of projects proposed.

A nominal processing fee of $5.00 is charged for each sample received from the NHANES III DNA Specimen Bank if the full set of specimens (category A) are requested. If the more limited set of cryovials is requested, a cost of $38.00/vial is assessed to cover the manual selection of these samples. Costs are determined both for NCEH and NCHS and include the physical materials needed to process the samples at the NCEH laboratory, as well as the materials to process the requests for samples at NCHS. These costs include salaries of the staff needed to conduct these activities at each Center. The fee is estimated to cover the costs of processing, handling, and preparing the samples in accordance with the detailed requirements of the investigators. These costs were based on an assumption that NCEH and NCHS will receive and process 20 proposals in a year, each requesting 7,300 samples as shown in the table below or 5 subsets of 1000 samples in cryovials.

The materials listed are for the recurring laboratory costs to dispense and prepare the samples for shipping. Labor costs are based on the need for microbiologists, a proposal administrator, and computer programmers for NCHS and NCEH to maintain the data bases and verify anonymity. Technical panel travel and expenses are based on the panel meeting twice a year. The space estimate is based on acquiring storage and sample aliquoting space in the laboratory.

Shipping costs are not included in the processing fee. These costs must also be paid by the investigator.

NCHS will post information about letters of intent on the NHANES Web site www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhanes/nhanes.htm, by September 9, 2002. The letter of intent is required to enable CDC to plan the review more efficiently, evaluate the number of requests, and to assess the capacity of the DNA Bank to fulfill requests. Only 20-22 full sets of samples (7,300 specimens) are available for this round of proposals. A limited set of individual cryovials will be available for less than the full set of samples. All letters of intent will be reviewed by Division of Health Examination Statistics staff for potential major problems related to the feasibility of the project. If a problem is identified, the Division staff will inform the investigator so it can be addressed in the proposal.

All potential investigators must submit letters of intent. The letter should be no more than two pages and include (1) a descriptive title of the overall proposed research; (2) the name, address and telephone number of the Principal Investigator (PI); (3) a list of key investigators and their institution(s); (4) one paragraph on the background for the proposal and a paragraph briefly addressing each criterion for technical evaluation of letters of intent and proposals; (5) the genetic assessments proposed; (6) a list of proposed variables; and (7) an estimate of the number of samples that would be requested. The background paragraph should state concisely the importance of the research in terms of the broad, long-term objectives and public health relevance and consistency of NCHS's mission to monitor the nations's health.

Letters of intent should be submitted by September 9, 2002.

Ms. Kika Oraegbu, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 6525 Belcrest Road, Room 1000, Hyattsville, MD 20782, Phone: 301-458-4367, FAX: 301-458-4028, E-Mail: KDO1@cdc.gov.

The investigator should follow these instructions for preparation of proposals: Prepare proposals with a maximum of five single-spaced typed pages, excluding figures and tables, using ten cpi type density. If a proposal is approved, the title, specific aims, name, and phone number of the author will be maintained by NCHS and released if requested by the public. Unapproved proposals will be returned to the investigator and will not be maintained by NCHS. The cover of the proposal should include the name, address, phone number, and E-mail address, if available, of the PI, and the name of the institution where the DNA analysis will be done, and the category of proposal (A, B, C) that would be submitted. The cover page should be signed by the responsible institution representative. Proposals will be ranked by the technical panel on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the highest rank for each category.

As there are only 20-22 full sets of samples (7,300 specimens) and only a limited set of individual cryovials for proposals requiring less than the full set of samples available for this round of proposals, proposals will be ranked by the technical panel on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the highest rank for each category.

The proposal should contain, and will be evaluated according to, the following elements:

(1) Specific Aims —List the broad objectives; describe concisely and realistically what the research is intended to accomplish, and state the specific hypotheses to be tested. Category A proposals which request using the full set of specimens will receive priority consideration. Category B and C proposals will be evaluated together since they will be competing for the limited set of cryovials.

(2) Background and Public Health Significance: Describe the public health significance, scientific merit, and practical utility of the assay. Scientific merit will be judged on the basis of the scientific, technical, or medical significance of the research; the appropriateness and adequacy of the experimental approach; and the methodology proposed to reach the research goals. Convey how the results will be used and the relation of the results to the data already collected in NHANES III. Analyses should be consistent with the NHANES mission to assess the health of the nation. Because NHANES is a complex, multistage probability sample of the national population, the appropriateness of using the NHANES sample to address the goals of the proposal will be an important aspect of determining scientific merit. The Panel will ensure that the proposed project does not go beyond either the general purpose for collecting the samples in the survey, i.e., to determine allele frequencies in subgroups of the population, or, the specific stated goals of the proposal

(3) Research Design and Methods: Describe the sampling scheme and number of samples requested if submitting a category C proposal. Include power calculations for the subsample and a list of variables requested; provide a cross-tabulation of requested variables for category C proposals. For all proposal categories, include a detailed description of the laboratory methods. If a non-standard laboratory method is to be used, discuss its advantages over using existing methods. The characteristics of the laboratory assay, such as reliability, validity, and “state-of-the-art,” should be included with appropriate references. The potential difficulties and limitations of the proposed procedures should also be discussed. Address adequate methods for handling and storage of samples. NCHS will verify the anonymity for category B and C proposals.

(4) Discussion regarding the race/ethnicity variables: If the sample request is limited to specific race or ethnic groups or if information about the race or ethnicity of the subjects is requested, indicate the reason for analyzing race/ethnicity and how the results will be interpreted. Discuss the potential for group harm.

(5) Clinical relevance of research findings: The specimens under this Plan are available for genetic research, not genetic testing. Therefore, it is the intent of the program to approve only those proposals that would yield meaningful research, but not clinically relevant information for the participants. Researchers should address whether or not findings from the proposed research merit disclosure.

(6) Qualifications: Provide a brief description of the requestor's expertise in the proposed area, including publications in this area within the last three years.

(7) Anonymity: Final approval is based upon NCHS confirmation that anonymity can be maintained by the categorization of variables for category C proposals (proposals requiring anonymity).

(8) Period of performance: Specify the project period. The period may be up to three years. At the end of the project period, any unused samples must be returned to the NHANES DNA Specimen Bank in accordance with instructions from the Division of Environmental Laboratory Science. Extensions to the period of performance may be requested.

(9) Funding: Include the source and status of the funding to perform the requested laboratory analysis. Investigators will be responsible for the cost of processing and shipping the samples. Currently the cost per DNA specimen is $5.00 for proposals that use the full set of samples (~7,300) and $38.00 for subsets. Reimbursement for the samples will be collected before the samples are released.

Proposals will be evaluated by a Genetics Technical Panel and, if approved, by the CDC/NCHS IRB for human subject concerns. The IRB review will be conducted, even though investigators' proposals may have received review by their home institution. The Panel will also review an NCHS evaluation of whether anonymity can be assured for the proposed project for proposals in categories B and C. The samples that are sent to the investigator will be selected randomly from the domains by NCHS staff. The Director of NCHS will verify that projects have received appropriate reviews.

In NHANES III, race/ethnicity was defined by self-report as non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, or Mexican American. Individuals who did not self-select into these categories were classified as “other.” If the proposal excludes one or more race/ethnic groups or a gender, this exclusion must be justified.

CDC is also sensitive to the stigmatization of racial/ethnic specific populations through inappropriate reporting and interpretation of findings. For all proposals that request information on race/ethnicity for the samples selected, the investigator should indicate the reason for analyzing race/ethnicity and how the results will be interpreted.

Proposals should be submitted by October 7, 2002. All investigators who submitted letters of intent may submit proposals.

Electronic submission of proposals is encouraged. Please submit proposals to: Ms. Kika Oraegbu, National Center for Health Statistics, 6525 Belcrest Rd., Rm 1000, Hyattsville MD 20782, Phone: (301) 458-4367, FAX: (301) 458-4028, E-Mail: KDO1@cdc.gov, Attention: NHANES III Genetic Testing Program.

NCHS/NCEH will provide a data file with the requested recoded variables (for category B and C proposals) and a randomly assigned unique identification number that is linked to the DNA specimen. No record connecting the new number with the original identification number will be kept after the samples have been sent. These samples cannot be traced to any files maintained by NCHS. For proposals in category A, the genetic results will be sent back to NCHS so they can be linked to the NHANES III public use data in the Research Data Center for analysis.

A formal signed agreement in the form of a Materials Transfer Agreement (MTA) with individuals who have projects approved will be completed before the release of the samples. This agreement will contain the conditions for use of the DNA as stated in this document and as agreed upon by the investigators and CDC. A key component of this agreement is that no attempt will be made to link the results of the proposed research to any other data, including, but not limited to, the NHANES III public use data set. Also, the investigator agrees that the samples cannot be used for commercial purposes.

A progress report will be submitted annually. CDC/NCHS IRB continuation reports are also required annually.

No DNA samples provided can be used for any purpose other than those specifically requested in the proposal and approved by the Genetics Technical Panel and the NHANES IRB. No sample can be shared with others, including other investigators, unless specified in the proposal and so approved. Any unused samples must be destroyed upon completion of the approved project. Researchers requesting DNA samples for age-race-gender studies and special studies will be required to provide NCHS with the results of all DNA tests performed for each anonymized sample. These results, once returned to NCHS, will be part of the public domain. Therefore, ample time will be given to the investigator to publish results prior to reporting the results to NCHS.

Send Request for Information: Ms. Kika Oraegbu, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 6525 Belcrest Road, Room 1000, Hyattsville, MD 20782, Phone: 301-458-4367, FAX: 301-458-4028, E-Mail: KDO1@cdc.gov.

1. Plan and Operation of the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988-94. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat (32) 1994.

2. Clayton EW, Steinberg KK, Khoury MJ, et al. Informed consent for genetic research on stored tissue samples. JAMA 1995;274:1786-1792.

The International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for the Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use was established in 1990 as a joint regulatory/industry project to improve, through harmonization, the efficiency of the process for developing and registering new medicinal products in Europe, Japan, and the United States without compromising the regulatory obligations of safety and effectiveness.

In recent years, many important initiatives have been undertaken by regulatory authorities and industry associations to promote international harmonization of regulatory requirements. FDA has participated in many meetings designed to enhance harmonization and is committed to seeking scientifically based harmonized technical procedures for pharmaceutical development. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify and then reduce differences in technical requirements for medical product development among regulatory agencies. The ICH was organized to provide an opportunity for harmonization initiatives to be developed with input from both regulatory and industry representatives. The ICH is concerned with harmonization among three regions: The European Union, Japan, and the United States. The six ICH sponsors are the European Commission; the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Associations; the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare; the Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association; the Centers for Drug Evaluation and Research and Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA; and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The ICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, is provided by the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations. The ICH Steering Committee includes representatives from each of the ICH sponsors and Canadian Therapeutics Programme, and the European Free Trade Area. The ICH process has achieved significant harmonization of the technical requirements for the approval of pharmaceuticals for human use in the three ICH regions. The current ICH process and structure can be found on the Internet at http://www.ifpma.org/ich1.html

Interested persons may present data, information, or views orally or in writing, on issues pending at the public meeting. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 11:30 a.m. and 1 p.m. Time allotted for oral presentations may be limited to 10 minutes. Those desiring to make oral presentations should notify the contact person by August 29, 2002, and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they which to present, the names and addresses, phone number, fax, and e-mail of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation.

The agenda for the public meeting will be made available on August 29, 2002, under Docket No. 02N-0332, at the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

Transcripts : Transcripts of the meeting may be requested in writing from the Freedom of Information Office (HFI-35), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, rm. 12A-16, Rockville, MD 20857, approximately 15 working days after the meeting at a cost of 10 cents per page.