Title: Interactive Healthy Eating Index Questionnaire.

OMB Number: Not yet assigned.

Expiration Date: Not applicable.

Type of Request: New collection of information.

Abstract: The Interactive Healthy Eating Index (IHEI) is an Internet based diet self-assessment tool. The IHEI translates scientifically based guidance into practical information and promotes nutrition education by increasing awareness of the quality of a person's diet. It allows users to input their daily food intakes and provides a quick summary measure of their overall diet quality in terms of current dietary guidance. Immediate feedback includes an overall Index score, 10 component scores, and nutrient intake information. Motivational nutrition messages tailored to user needs and a personalized graphical representation of the Food Guide Pyramid are generated based on user scores. The proposed questionnaire will collect information on the usability, clarity and quality of the IHEI Web site. The questionnaire will also obtain feedback on user interest and need for the addition of a personalized meal plan or suggested list of foods designed to improve a person's diet quality. Optional demographic, geographic location, income, and ethnicity information will also be obtained from survey respondents. The questionnaire will be available to IHEI users for a period of 30 days. The information collected will only be used by CNPP, USDA to enhance the usability of the IHEI, to make available pertinent and user-friendly information and personalized messages, and to ensure the continued quality service of the IHEI Web site.

Affected Public: The American Consumers.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 30,000 respondents (for a 30 day period based on average daily use by 2,000 individuals at a projected 50% response rate).

Estimated Time Per Response: 10 minutes.

Estimated Number of Responses Per Respondent: One.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 5,000 hours.

Methyl bromide is a broad spectrum pesticide used as a fumigant to control insect pests, nematodes, weeds, and pathogens. The production, consumption, and trade of methyl bromide are regulated under the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (the Montreal Protocol) and the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. ).

The Montreal Protocol is an international treaty designed to reduce and eventually eliminate the emissions of man-made, ozone-depleting substances such as methyl bromide. The Montreal Protocol provides for a phaseout of methyl bromide production and consumption in developed countries, including the United States, by the year 2005 and in developing countries by the year 2015. However, the Montreal Protocol exempts quarantine and pre-shipment (QPS) uses of methyl bromide from these phaseout requirements. The Clean Air Act provides the basic framework to regulate air quality through air pollution control, and it has been amended to reflect changes in U.S. obligations under the Montreal Protocol.

On July 14, 2000, a notice of availability and request for comments was published in the Federal Register (65 FR 43748) for a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) titled “Proposed Rule for the Importation of Unmanufactured Wood Articles From Mexico, With Consideration for Cumulative Impact of Methyl Bromide Use.” The draft EIS considered the potential cumulative impact on the environment of methyl bromide use that could result if the proposed rule was adopted and discussed alternatives to the proposed rule, the environmental consequences of methyl bromide on the environment, and the potential cumulative impact of methyl bromide use associated with the proposed rule.

It has been nearly 2 years since the draft EIS was completed and made available for public comment. Since then, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has posted on its website data on methyl bromide use through 1999.

The Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) provide, in part, that agencies shall prepare a supplement to a draft or final EIS if the agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns or if there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts (see 40 CFR 1502.9(c)). We have reviewed the EPA's data on methyl bromide use and found no significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns about methyl bromide. Therefore, we have determined that it is not necessary to supplement the draft EIS before a final EIS is issued. Indeed, our review indicates that the draft EIS's assessment of methyl bromide use patterns, now more fully documented, was realistic. A discussion of developments follows.

The draft EIS relied upon reviews completed in 1998 by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) of methyl bromide use data through 1996. The EPA provides information on methyl bromide use as it becomes available. The most recent data available from the EPA present methyl bromide use through 1999. However, the data provided by the EPA are more limited than the 1996 data presented in the UNEP report. The information presented in the EPA tables is derived from multiple sources and is not consistent in numerical presentation among all tables. The EPA tables, however, do provide a good snapshot of annual changes in methyl bromide use patterns through 1999. Furthermore, the EPA data basically confirm estimates contained in the draft EIS, which assumed that current figures for use (in 1999) are slightly higher than those reported for 1996. These data support the draft EIS's assessment of methyl bromide use patterns.

The United States, among other countries (see Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol), is subject to phaseout of methyl bromide by 2005, except for QPS uses and critical exemption uses. The United States and other Article 5 countries were required to reduce their non-QPS production of methyl bromide in 1999 by at least 25 percent from production levels in 1991, the base year for all calculations. Although the United States met its obligations, some other Article 5 countries exceeded their production allowances. The actual reduction in methyl bromide use since 1991 was about 23 percent overall for the Article 5 countries (39,918 metric tons in 1991 to 30,741 metric tons in 1999). This reduction appears to be substantially in keeping with the phaseout goals, but the 1991 data may be misleading. The most recent figures for non-QPS uses by Article 5 countries shows a 2 percent increase over 3 years (30,032 metric tons in 1996 to 30,741 metric tons in 1999).

It is anticipated that the methyl bromide production phaseout requirements will ultimately reduce methyl bromide use, but the current patterns suggest a lag between intent to reduce and full compliance with the provisions of the Montreal Protocol. By 2015, most non-QPS use will cease and QPS use should be reduced substantially as cost-effective alternatives are developed. It is less clear how the critical-use exemptions allowed under the Montreal Protocol will affect the overall use of methyl bromide in the future. While modest changes in cumulative methyl bromide use are likely to come in time, the draft EIS's predictions, confirmed in recent data, suggest that the overall trend toward reductions in use will continue.

There is no new or additional scientific information or data that require reassessment of cumulative methyl bromide use or the effects of such use on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, preparation of a supplemental draft EIS is not necessary at this time. We expect to issue a final EIS soon.

We welcome comments on our determination that it is not necessary to supplement the draft environmental impact statement before a final environmental impact statement is issued.

On January 8, 2002, the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) announced in the Federal Register (67 FR 859) that proposals were being accepted for participation in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 Quality Samples Program (QSP). Based on its review of the proposals, CCC allocated approximately $1.34 million in funding in June 2002. Because approximately $1.16 million of the funds CCC made available in FY 2002 remain unallocated, CCC announces that it is extending the time period for submission of proposals to participate in the Fiscal Year 2002 Quality Samples Program (QSP).

The QSP is designed to encourage the development and expansion of export markets for U.S. agricultural commodities by assisting U.S. entities in providing commodity samples to potential foreign importers to promote a better understanding and appreciation for the high quality of U.S. agricultural commodities. CCC will review all proposals it receives against the evaluation criteria contained herein and award unallocated FY 2002 QSP funds on a rolling basis. Financial assistance will be made available through grants on a reimbursement basis.

Under the QSP, CCC enters into agreements with those entities whose proposals have been accepted. The QSP agreement between CCC and the participant will include the maximum amount of CCC funds that are available to reimburse specific activity costs that have been approved by CCC. QSP participants will be responsible for procuring (or arranging for the procurement of) commodity samples, exporting the samples, and providing the technical assistance necessary to facilitate successful use of the samples by importers. A QSP participant will be reimbursed after CCC reviews its reimbursement claim and determines that the claim is complete. CCC will not reimburse the costs of providing technical assistance. QSP agreements are subject to review and verification by the Foreign Agricultural Service's (FAS) Compliance Review Staff. Upon request, a QSP participant shall provide to CCC the original documents which support the participant's reimbursement claims. CCC may deny a claim for reimbursement if the claim is not supported by adequate documentation. Cash advances will not be made available to any QSP participant.

The QSP is administered by FAS personnel. This notice supersedes any prior notices concerning the QSP.

The QSP is authorized under Section 5(f) of the CCC Charter Act, 15 U.S.C. 714c(f).

$1.16 million of cost-share assistance may be obligated under this announcement.

QSP projects are the activities undertaken by a QSP participant to provide an appropriate sample of a U.S. agricultural commodity to a foreign importers, in a given market. The purpose of the project is to provide information to an appropriate target audience regarding the attributes, characteristics, and proper use of the U.S. commodity. A QSP project addresses a single market/commodity combination. As a general matter, QSP projects should conform to the following guidelines:

• Projects should benefit the represented U.S. industry and not a specific company or brand;

• Projects should develop a new market for a U.S. product, promote a new U.S. product, or promote a new use for a U.S. product, rather than promote the substitution of one established U.S. product for another;

• Sample commodities provided under a QSP project must be in sufficient supply and available on a commercial basis;

• The QSP project must either subject the commodity sample to further processing or substantial transformation in the importing country, or the sample must be used in technical seminars designed to demonstrate to an appropriate target audience the proper preparation or use of the sample in the creation of an end product;

• Samples provided in a QSP project shall not be directly used as part of a retail promotion or supplied directly to consumers; and

• Samples shall be in quantities less than a typical commercial sale and limited to the amount sufficient to achieve the project goal ( e.g., not more than a full commercial mill run in the destination country).

QSP projects shall target foreign importers and target audiences who:

• Have not previously purchased the U.S. commodity which will be shipped under the QSP;

• Are unfamiliar with the variety, quality attribute, or end-use characteristic of the U.S. commodity which will be shipped under the QSP;

• Have been unsuccessful in previous attempts to import, process, and market the U.S. commodity which will be shipped under the QSP ( e.g., because of improper specification, blending, or formulation; or sanitary or phytosanitary (SPS) issues);

• Are interested in testing or demonstrating the benefits of the U.S. commodity which will be shipped under the QSP; or

• Need technical assistance in processing or using the U.S. commodity which will be shipped under the QSP.

Under this announcement, the number of projects per participant will not be limited; however, each specific project will be limited to $60,000 of QSP reimbursement. Projects comprised of technical preparation seminars; that is, projects that do not include further processing or substantial transformation; will remain limited to $10,000 of QSP reimbursement, as these projects require smaller samples. Under the QSP, participants may be reimbursed for certain costs of purchasing and transporting commodity samples. Although providing technical assistance is required for all projects, costs of providing the actual technical assistance will not be reimbursed under the QSP.

In order to be considered for participation in the QSP, interested parties should submit proposals to FAS as described in this notice. QSP proposals must contain complete information about the proposed projects. Applicants should follow the application procedures contained in this notice.

Entities interested in participating in the QSP are not required to submit proposals in any specific format; however, FAS recommends that proposals contain, at a minimum, the following: (a) Organizational information, including:

• Organization's name, address, Chief Executive Officer (or designee), and Federal Tax Identification Number (TIN);

• Type of organization;

• Name, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address of the primary contact person;

• A description of the organization and its membership;

• A description of the organization's prior export promotion experience; and

• A description of the organization's experience in implementing an appropriate trade/technical assistance component;

(b) Market information, including:

• An assessment of the market;

• A long-term strategy in the market; and

• U.S. export value/volume and market share (historic and goals) for 1998-2004;

(c) Project information, including:

• A brief project title;

• Amount of funding requested;

• A brief description of the specific market development trade constraint or opportunity to be addressed by the project, performance measures for the years 2002-2004 which will be used to measure the effectiveness of the project, a benchmark performance measure for 2001, the viability of long term sales to this market, the goals of the project, and the expected benefits to the represented industry;

• A description of the activities planned to address the constraint or opportunity, including how the sample will be used in the end-use performance trial, the attributes of the sample to be demonstrated and their end-use benefit, and details of the trade/technical servicing component (including who will provide and who will fund this component);

• A sample description ( i.e. , commodity, quantity, quality, type, and grade), including a justification for selecting a sample with such characteristics (this justification should explain in detail why the project could not be effective with a smaller sample);

• An itemized list of all estimated costs associated with the project for which reimbursement will be sought; and

• The importer's role in the project regarding handling and processing the commodity sample;

(d) Information indicating all funding sources and amounts to be contributed by each entity that will supplement implementation of the proposed project. This may include the organization that submitted the proposal, private industry entities, host governments, foreign third parties, CCC, FAS, or other Federal agencies. Contributed resources may include cash, goods, and services.

Proposals will be evaluated by the applicable FAS commodity division. The divisions will review each proposal against the factors described below. The purpose of this review is to identify meritorious proposals, recommend an appropriate funding level for each proposal based upon these factors, and submit the proposals and funding recommendations to the Deputy Administrator, Commodity and Marketing Programs.

FAS will use the following criteria in evaluating proposals:

• The ability of the organization to provide an experienced staff with the requisite technical and trade experience to execute the proposal;

• The extent to which the proposal is targeted to a market in which the United States is generally competitive;

• The potential for expanding commercial sales in the proposed market;

• The nature of the specific market constraint or opportunity involved and how well it is addressed by the proposal;

• The extent to which the importer's contribution in terms of handling and processing enhances the potential outcome of the project;

• The amount of reimbursement requested and the organization's willingness to contribute resources, including cash and goods and services of the U.S. industry and foreign third parties; and

• How well the proposed technical assistance component assures that performance trials will effectively demonstrate the intended end-use benefit.

Highest priority for funding under this announcement will be given to meritorious proposals which target countries which meet either of the following criteria:

• Per capita income less than $9,265 (the ceiling on upper middle income economies as determined by the World Bank [World Development Indicators 2001]); and population greater than 1 million. Proposals may address suitable regional groupings, for example, the islands of the Caribbean Basin; or

• U.S. market share of imports of the commodity identified in the proposal of 10 percent or less.

Following approval of a proposal, CCC will enter into an agreement with the organization that submitted the proposal. Agreements will incorporate the details of each project as approved by FAS. Each agreement will identify terms and conditions pursuant to which CCC will reimburse certain costs of each project. Agreements will also outline the responsibilities of the participant, including, but not limited to, procurement (or arranging for procurement) of the commodity sample at a fair market price, arranging for shipment of the commodity sample within the time limit specified in the agreement (organizations should endeavor to ship commodities within 6 months of effective date of agreement), compliance with cargo preference requirements (shipment on United States flag vessels, as required), compliance with the Fly American Act requirements (shipment on United States air carriers, as required), timely and effective implementation of technical assistance, and submission of a written evaluation report within 90 days of expiration of the agreement. Evaluation reports should address all performance measures that were presented in the proposal.

To be considered for participation in the QSP, interested parties should submit, via a commercial delivery service (including FedEx, DHL, etc.), proposals to: Director, Marketing Operations Staff, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 4932-S, Stop 1042, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-1042. All proposals must be received by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, September 16, 2002.

Title: Special Milk Program.

OMB Numbers: 0584-0005.

Expiration Date: 8/31/02.

Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: Section 3 of the Child Nutrition Act (CNA) of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-642, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 1772) authorizes the Special Milk Program (SMP). It provides for the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary to enable the Secretary of Agriculture, under such rules and regulations as she may deem in the public interest, to encourage the consumption of fluid milk by children in the United States in (1) nonprofit schools of high school grade and under, and (2) nonprofit nursery schools, child care centers, settlement houses, summer camps, and similar nonprofit institutions devoted to the care and training of children, which do not participate in a food service program authorized under the CNA or the National School Lunch Act.

Section 10 of the CNA requires the Secretary of Agriculture to “prescribe such regulations as she may deem necessary to carry out this Act and the National School Lunch Act. Pursuant to that provision, the Secretary has issued 7 CFR Part 215, which sets forth policies and procedures for the administration and operation of the SMP. State and local operators of the SMP are required to meet Federal reporting and accountability requirements. The vast majority of reporting relates to information regarding eligibility determinations of the children, the number of milk servings, and revenues received from milk sales. State and local operators are also required to maintain records regarding eligibility to operate the program, review results, and accounts of revenues and expenditures.

Respondents: The respondents are State agencies, school food authorities, schools, childcare institutions, and camps.

Number of Respondents: 58 State agencies, 6,762 School food authorities/Sponsors, 1,269 camps, and 6,695 Schools.

Total Respondents: 14,784.

Number of Responses per Respondent: The number of responses is estimated to be 4 responses per year.

Estimated Annual Responses: (4 × 14,784) = 59,136.

Estimated Hours per Response: 3.327 Hours.

Estimated Total Annual Reporting Burden: (59,136 × 3.327) = 196,745 Hours.

Number of Recordkeepers: 14,784.

Estimated Number of Recordkeeping: 59,136.

Estimated Time per Recordkeeping: 8.995 Hours.

Estimated Total Annual Recordkeeping Burden: (59,136 × 8.995) = 531,928 Hours.

Total Request Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden: 728,673 Hours.

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 requires that Federal agencies establish measurable goals and monitor their success at meeting those goals. Two items the Forest Service will measure are: (1) the views and satisfaction level of recreational visitors to National Forest System lands about the types and quality of recreation services the agency provides; and (2) the number of visitors who come to National Forest System lands for recreation. The agency is often asked for this kind of information from a variety of organizations that include Congressional staffs, newspapers, magazines, and recreational trade organizations.

The currently approved information collection is composed of two different survey forms that are designed to evaluate agency performance in meeting the needs of visitors to individual recreation sites. One form is used to describe the visitors, their level of satisfaction, and their evaluation of the agency's performance. The other form is required to estimate the number of visitors who use National Forests for recreation. The second collection form differs in both the sampling framework and the set of questions asked of visitors.

National Forest System land managers use the collected information to better understand their recreational visitors, to improve recreational opportunities and services, and to identify barriers that prevent the agency from meeting the recreational needs of its customers. Data from this information collection also will be considered in revisions of land and resource management plans for National Forest System lands, as required by the National Forest Management Act of 1976. The collected information will be shared with all National Forest System land managers and, upon request, with others. Results from this collection will be published in agency reports and various research journals.

Title: Customer and Use Survey Techniques for Operations, Management, Evaluation, and Research.

OMB Number: 0596-0110.

Expiration Date of Approval: February 28, 2002.

Type of Request: Extension of a previously approved collection.

Abstract: The data from this information collection will provide the agency with information about the characteristics, needs, and opinions of recreation visitors to selected recreation sites on Forest Service and other public agency lands.

Agency personnel, contract personnel, and volunteers, trained in conducting face-to-face interviews, will contact people who are visiting public lands for recreational purposes. Survey questions will focus on how well the agency meets visitors' expectations for recreational opportunities, their satisfaction with the recreational site of their choice, and if they have concerns regarding the agency's management of the site.

Agency land managers will use the collected information to better understand their recreational customers, to improve recreational opportunities and services, and to identify barriers that prevent the agency from meeting the recreational needs of its customers.

The collected information will be shared with agency land managers and upon request, with others.

Data gathered in this collection is not available from other sources.

Estimate of Burden: 10 minutes.

Type of Respondents: People who visit National Forest System land for recreational purposes.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 6,000.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 1,000 hours.

Title: National Forest Visitor Use Monitoring.

OMB Number: 0596-0110.

Expiration Date of Approval: February 28, 2002.

Type of Request: Extension of a previously approved collection.

Abstract: Data from this information collection is used to estimate the numbers of recreational visitors to National Forests and Grasslands, and associated Wilderness, as well as the types of activities in which these visitors participate. The data are used to identify recreational markets, defined customers served, evaluate visitor satisfaction, and estimate the economic values and impacts of recreational visits.

Respondents are asked questions about the activities in which they participate while visiting National Forest System lands, the duration of their visit, how often they visit, what types of items they have purchased during their visit, and their satisfaction with various aspects of their visit.

Forest Service personnel will interview visitors as they exit National Forest System recreational sites. Surveys will be conducted on about one-fourth of the National Forests each year, so that complete coverage of agency lands will occur over a four-year cycle. Each National Forest will retain a copy of data collected on its visitors. Results of this study will be published in agency reports and various research journals.

Data gathered in this collection is not available from other sources.

Estimate of Burden: 8 minutes.

Type of Respondents: People who visit the National Forest System lands for recreational purposes.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 60,000.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 8,000 hours.

The agency invites comments on the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All comments, including name and address when provided, will become a matter of public record. Comments received in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval.

The decision to be made is whether to: (1) Implement the proposed action; (2) meet the purpose and need for action through some other combination of activities; or (3) take no action at this time.

The USDA Forest Service is the lead agency for this proposal. Mt. Hough District Ranger Terri Simon-Jackson is the responsible official.

In October 2001, the Mt. Hough District Ranger solicited public comment for the Stream Fire Salvage and Reforestation proposed action. Comments that were received from that process will be considered in this analysis. Controversy and uncertainty regarding post fire treatments have prompted the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Other alternatives may be developed based on significant issues identified during the scoping process for this EIS. All alternatives will need to respond to the specific condition of providing benefits equal to or better than the current condition. Alternatives being considered at this time include: (1) The Proposed Action and (2) No Action.

Public participation is especially important at several points during the analysis. The Forest Service will be seeking information, comments, and assistance from Federal, State, and local agencies and other individuals or organizations that may be interested in or affected by the proposed action. To facilitate public participation, information about the proposed action is listed in the Plumas National Forest Quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions; will be mailed to all who have expressed interest in the proposed action; and notification of the public scoping period will be published in the Feather River Bulletin, Quincy, CA.

Comments received during the scoping process should be in writing and should be specific to the proposed action. The comments should describe as clearly and completely as possible any issues the commenter has with the proposal. The scoping process includes:

(a) Identifying potential issues;

(b) Identifying issues to be analyzed in depth;

(c) Eliminating non-significant issues or those previously covered by a relevant environmental analysis;

(d) Exploring additional alternatives;

(e) Identifying potential environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives.

Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received in writing on or before September 6, 2002.

An Air Pollution Permit and a Smoke Management Plan are required by local agencies.

The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency and available for public review in November 2002. The comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability of the draft EIS in the Federal Register . At that time, copies of the draft EIS will be distributed to interested and affected agencies, organizations, and members of the public for review and comment. It is very important that those interested in the management of the Plumas National Forest participate at that time.

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 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 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 EIS.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft EIS 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 EIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulation of implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Approve the Minutes from Last Meeting, (2) Proposed By-Laws—Action, (3) Draft Selection Criteria/Operating Guidelines—Action, (4) Willows Scramblers Presentation/Possible Action, (5) Update on RAC Projects, (6) Title III Projects for Review for Colusa, (7) Status of Absent Members & Replacement Members, (8) Public Comment, (9) Next Agenda. The meeting is open to the public. Public input opportunity will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the Committee at that time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.

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

On June 15, 2001, June 7, June 14, and June 21, 2002, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (66 FR 32598, 67 FR39337, 40909 and 42235) of proposed additions to and deletions from the Procurement List. After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and service and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and service listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4. I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the committee has determined that the products listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

Accordingly, the following products are hereby deleted from the Procurement List:

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 (2002).

On February 1, 2002, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice of opportunity to request administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate (CTL plate) from France, Italy, Indonesia, India, Japan, and the Republic of Korea covering the period February 1, 2001, through January 31, 2002 (67 FR 4945, 4946).

On March 20, 2002, pursuant to separate requests made by Bethlehem Steel Corporation and United States Steel Corporation (collectively “the petitioners”) and Nucor Corporation (Nucor), a domestic interested party, the Department initiated administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on CTL plate from the above-named countries (67 FR 14696, 14697)(March 27, 2002). On April 26, 2002, the petitioners withdrew their request for the administrative reviews of CTL plate from France, Italy, Indonesia, India, Japan, and Korea. However, Nucor did not withdraw its request for an administrative review of CTL plate from Korea. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), on May 20, 2002, the Department rescinded the administrative reviews initiated with respect to France, Italy, Indonesia, India and Japan. See Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from France, Italy, Indonesia, India, and Japan: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 67 FR 36855 (May, 28, 2002). Subsequently, on June 18, 2002, Nucor withdrew its request for the administrative review of CTL plate from Korea.

Section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations provides that a party that requests an administrative review may withdraw the request within 90 days after the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested administrative review. The Department is rescinding the administrative review of the order on CTL plate from Korea for the period February 1, 2001 through January 31, 2002 because the requesting parties have withdrawn their requests for this administrative review within the 90-day time limit and no other interested parties have requested a review of CTL plate from Korea for this time period.

This notice is in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

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 19 CFR Part 351 (April 2001).

On October 30, 2001, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the People's Republic of China (PRC). See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review , 66 FR 54750 (October 30, 2001). We received three requests for administrative review on November 30, 2001. Clipper Manufacturing Ltd. (Clipper) and Taian Fook Huat Tong Kee Foods Co. (FHTK) each requested a review of its own sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review (POR). The petitioner, the Fresh Garlic Producers Association and its individual members, requested reviews of the sales of sixteen companies with addresses in the PRC or Hong Kong, including Clipper and FHTK. In addition, it requested reviews of sales of subject merchandise of two companies with addresses in Thailand and two companies with addresses in the Philippines.

We published a notice of initiation of antidumping administrative reviews on December 19, 2001. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 66 FR 65470 (December 19, 2001).

On January 8, 2002, we issued a letter requesting quantity and value information to all of the companies listed in our notice of initiation. In the case of Rizhao Hanxi Fisheries& Comprehensive Development Co., Ltd. (Rizhao), we issued the letter to the Embassy of the PRC and the China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Foodstuffs, Native Produce, and Animal By-Products (China Chamber of Commerce) and requested that they forward the letter to the appropriate address. Details of our mailings and the responses that we received are set forth in a “Memorandum to Richard W. Moreland” regarding responses to quantity-and-value letters (May 16, 2002) (Q&V Response Memorandum). (All cited memoranda and decision memoranda are on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Main Commerce Building, Room B-099.) As a result of the responses to our letter, we issued complete questionnaires to Clipper and FHTK on February 28, 2002.

During the period April through July 2002, the Department received responses to sections A, C, and D of the original and supplemental questionnaires from FHTK and Clipper. On May 17, 2002, we requested that these companies and the petitioner provide comments on the surrogate-country selection and publicly available information for valuing the factors of production. We received comments and information from FHTK on June 13, 2002, and from the petitioner on June 14, 2002. Clipper did not provide comments or information. With respect to FHTK, we intend to verify its factors-of-production and sales information prior to issuing the final results of review.

The products covered by this antidumping duty order are all grades of garlic, whole or separated into constituent cloves, whether or not peeled, fresh, chilled, frozen, provisionally preserved, or packed in water or other neutral substance, but not prepared or preserved by the addition of other ingredients or heat processing. The differences between grades are based on color, size, sheathing, and level of decay.

The scope of this order does not include the following: (a) garlic that has been mechanically harvested and that is primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use; or (b) garlic that has been specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed.

The subject merchandise is used principally as a food product and for seasoning. The subject garlic is currently classifiable under subheadings 0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, and 2005.90.9700 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. In order to be excluded from the antidumping duty order, garlic entered under the HTSUS subheadings listed above that is (1) mechanically harvested and primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use or (2) specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed must be accompanied by declarations to the Customs Service to that effect.

The Department has treated the PRC as a non-market-economy (NME) country in all past antidumping investigations (see, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate from the People's Republic of China , 64 FR 71104 (December 20, 1999), and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China , 63 FR 72255 (December 31, 1998)) and in prior segments of this proceeding. A designation as an NME remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department. See section 771(18)(C) of the Act. Accordingly, there is a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the PRC are subject to government control and, thus, should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate.

It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of the merchandise subject to review in NME countries a single rate, unless an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law ( de jure ) and in fact ( de facto ), with respect to exports. To establish whether a company is sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate, company-specific rate, the Department analyzes each exporting entity in an NME country under the test established in the Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) ( Sparklers ), as amplified by the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China , 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994).

Several companies located within the PRC did not respond to our letter requesting quantity and value information. These companies are Foshan Foodstuffs Import & Export Company, Jinan Import & Export Corporation, Jinxiang Foreign Trade Corporation, Jinxiang Hong Chong Fruits & Vegetable Products Company, Ltd., Quingdao Rui Sheng Food Company, Ltd., Rizhao, Shandong Commercial Group Corporation, and Zhejiang Materials Industry International Co., Ltd. We have confirmed that all of these companies received our letter except for Rizhao, which, as noted above, we attempted to contact through the Embassy of the PRC and the China Chamber of Commerce. Because none of the eight companies responded to our request for information regarding separate rates, we preliminarily determine that these respondent-companies do not merit separate rates. See, e.g., Natural Bristle Paint Brushes and Brush Heads from the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 61 FR 57389 (November 6, 1996). Consequently, consistent with the statement in our notice of initiation, we find that, because these companies do not qualify for separate rates, they are deemed to be covered by the PRC-entity rate.

Hong Kong companies are treated as market-economy companies (see Application of U.S. Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws to Hong Kong , 62 FR 42965 (August 11, 1997)). Wo Hing (H.K.) Trading Co. (Wo Hing) has an address in Hong Kong and did not respond to our January 8, 2002, request for information. Without any information concerning its corporate ownership, we presume that it is a Hong Kong entity. Thus, we determine that it qualifies for a company-specific rate.

Similarly, two other non-responding companies have addresses outside the PRC. Golden Light Trading Company, Ltd. (Golden Light), has an address in Thailand and Phil-Sino International Trading Inc. (Phil-Sino) has an address located in the Philippines. We presume that these are market-economy companies. Thus, we determine that they both qualify for a company-specific rate.

FHTK's submissions establish that Taian Fook Huat Tong Kee Foods Co., Ltd., is a PRC-company that is wholly owned by Fook Huat Tong Kee Pte., Ltd., a Singaporean company. Fook Huat Tong Kee Pte., Ltd., is wholly owned by a Singaporean holding company that is publicly traded. Because there is no PRC ownership of Taian Fook Huat Tong Kee Foods Co., Ltd., we determine that a separate-rate analysis is not required for this company because its parent company is beyond the jurisdiction of the PRC government. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 64 FR 48581, 48582 (September 7, 1999) (unchanged in final). Consequently, FHTK qualifies for a company-specific rate.

In response to our January 8, 2002, letter requesting quantity and value information, five companies responded that they were neither producers nor exporters of the subject merchandise. These companies were Zen Continental Co., Inc., Rich Shipping Co., Ltd., United Shipping Agency Co., Ltd., Asia Pacific Express Company, Ltd., and C.I.F. Transportation (HK) Co., Ltd. Their individual responses are discussed in and attached to the Q&V Response Memorandum. Each of the companies responded that they are involved in the shipping or freight industry and that they are not producers or exporters of the subject merchandise. We confirmed with the Customs Service that none of them were listed as manufacturers or exporters of the subject merchandise during the POR. In addition, there is no information on the record to indicate that the companies had sales or exports of subject merchandise.

Thus, we find that Zen Continental Co., Inc., Rich Shipping Co., Ltd., United Shipping Agency Co., Ltd., Asia Pacific Express Company, Ltd., and C.I.F. Transportation (HK) Co., Ltd., made no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise during the POR that are subject to the administrative review. Consequently, we are rescinding the review with respect to each of them pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).

We were unable to contact two companies, Top Pearl Ltd. and Good Fate International that had addresses in Hong Kong and the Philippines, respectively. Despite our repeated attempts to contact these companies, the letters we sent to these companies were returned to us as not deliverable. For details of our attempts to contact the companies, see Q&V Response Memorandum. We confirmed through data from the Customs Service that neither Top Pearl nor Good Fate were listed as manufacturers or exporters of the subject merchandise during the POR. Thus, because we have been unable to locate these companies and because there is no evidence on the record that these companies had exports or sales of the subject merchandise subject to this review, we are rescinding the review with respect to each of them pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d). In the event there are any entries during the POR of subject merchandise exported by these companies during the POR, we will instruct the Customs Service to assess antidumping duties at the rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated duties required on that merchandise at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption. See 19 CFR 351.212(c). For future entries of subject merchandise from these companies, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of the merchandise.

Pursuant to section 772(a) of the Act, the Department reviews the sales of the subject merchandise by the seller who first had knowledge that the merchandise was destined for export to the United States. Clipper, a trading company located in Hong Kong, requested a review of its sales of fresh garlic to a reported U.S. customer. Clipper identified Chengwu Hechang Vegetable Co., Ltd. (Chengwu), and Anhui Weifu Foods Co., Ltd. (Anhui), as its suppliers in its questionnaire responses. Both companies are PRC-based processors of fresh garlic. Because Chengwu and Anhui did not have export licenses and were unable to maintain U.S.-dollar bank accounts, they used the services of PRC-based export agents to sell subject merchandise during the POR. The export agents shipped the subject merchandise directly from the PRC to the United States. Clipper paid the export agents in U.S. dollars. The export agents paid Chengwu and Anhui in Chinese renminbi.

Clipper acknowledges in its April 6, 2002, questionnaire response and June 13, 2002, supplemental questionnaire response that Chengwu and Anhui had knowledge of the U.S. destination of the subject merchandise at the time of sale. See the response to section A of the questionnaire, dated April 6, 2002, p. 16, and response to the supplemental questionnaire, dated June 13, 2002, p. 9. Furthermore, all of the shipping and export documentation that Clipper submitted to the Department established the U.S. destination of the merchandise. Thus, the export agents had knowledge of the U.S. destination of the subject merchandise. See response to section A of the questionnaire, dated April 6, 2002, exhibit A-11, and response to the supplemental questionnaire, dated June 13, 2002, exhibit SA-8.

Clipper asserts that the export agents never took title to the subject merchandise. The invoices and wire transfers between Clipper and the export agents establish, however, that sales transactions did occur between the two parties. By contrast, Clipper provided no documentation of a transaction between Clipper and Anhui or between Clipper and Chengwu despite repeated requests for such documentation. See response to section A of the questionnaire, dated April 6, 2002, exhibit A-11, and response to the supplemental questionnaire, dated June 13, 2002, exhibit SA-9.

Section 772(a) of the Act states in part:

The term “export price” means the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States...

Accordingly, we have interpreted section 772(a) of the Act to mean that we are to use the price at which the first party in the chain of distribution who has knowledge of the U.S. destination of the merchandise sells the subject merchandise, either directly to a U.S. purchaser or to an intermediary such as a trading company. The party making such a sale, with knowledge of destination, is the appropriate party to be reviewed. Our focus is on the first party in the chain of distribution with knowledge of the U.S. destination rather than on the first chronological sale of the merchandise. One restriction to this rule is that, in NME cases, we do not base export price on internal transactions between two companies located in the NME. See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Termination of Administrative Review, 62 FR 23758, 23759 (May 1, 1997).

Applying these principles, we do not intend to review Clipper's sales to its U.S. customer because the PRC export agents had knowledge of the U.S. destination when they made the sales to Clipper. Further, we know Chengwu and Anhui had knowledge of the ultimate destination of this merchandise. We also believe that the PRC export agents had knowledge, accordingly, of the destination of the goods as well. Because of their knowledge and the fact that the sales from the agents to Clipper were the first non-intra-NME sales in the chain of distribution, these sales are the appropriate basis for determining the export price. We therefore intend to rescind this review as it applies to Clipper.

The Department did not receive a request for review of the PRC export agents during the anniversary month of the publication of the antidumping duty order. See 19 CFR 351.213(b). Therefore, it is not appropriate to conduct a review of the sales at issue. Furthermore, because Clipper is not an appropriate respondent for review of the sales, it is our intent to rescind the administrative review with respect to this company.

For the eight companies located within the PRC which received our request for information but did not respond to that request, we find that they do not qualify for a separate rate for reasons discussed in the “Separate Rates” section above. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that they will be assigned the PRC-wide rate as part of the PRC-entity for the results of this review.

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

Where the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department “shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary to the determination but does not meet all the applicable requirements established by the administering authority” if the information is timely, can be verified, and is not so incomplete that it cannot be used, and if the interested party acted to the best of its ability in providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the statute requires the Department to use the information, if it can do so without undue difficulty.

According to section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department finds that an interested party “has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,” the Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of the party as facts otherwise available. Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” See Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the URAA, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 870 (1994). Furthermore, “an affirmative finding of bad faith on the part of the respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.” Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties: Final Rule , 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997).

An adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from the petition, the final determination in the investigation, any previous review, or any other information placed on the record. See section 776(b) of the Act. However, section 776(c) provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of a review, the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. The SAA states that the independent sources may include published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation or review. See SAA at 870. The SAA clarifies that “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. Id . As noted in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews , 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996) ( TRBs ), to corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information used. However, because there are no independent sources from which the Department can derive calculated dumping margins, unlike other types of information such as input costs or selling expenses, the only source for margins is previous administrative determinations.

Three companies that are not located within an NME country, Golden Light, Phil-Sino, and Wo Hing, did not respond to our request for information. We have confirmed that they received our letter but opted not to respond. For details of our mailing, see the Q&V Response Memorandum. Moreover, as discussed in the “Separate Rates” section above, we have determined that each of the companies qualify for a company-specific rate. Because the companies did not respond to our request for information, we find it necessary, under section 776(a)(2) of the Act, to use facts otherwise available as the basis for the preliminary results of review for these three companies.

In addition, we find that Golden Light, Phil-Sino, and Wo Hing each failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. Thus, we find it appropriate to use an inference that is adverse to the interests of each of these companies in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. By doing so, we ensure that the companies will not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than had they cooperated fully in the review.

Further, we find it necessary to use facts otherwise available as the basis for the rate for the PRC-entity, including the eight PRC companies who opted not to respond to our request for information, and that it is appropriate to use an inference that is adverse in the selection of these facts. In this way, we ensure that these exporters will not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than had they cooperated fully in the review.

The only rate that has ever been assigned in this proceeding is 376.67 percent, a rate that is currently the PRC-wide rate and that was calculated based on information contained in the petition. The rate was corroborated for the preliminary results of the first administrative review. See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Termination of Administrative Review , 61 FR 68229, 68230 (December 27, 1996). We corroborated the information in subsequent reviews to the extent that we noted the history of corroboration and found that we had not received any information that warranted revisiting the issue. See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review , 66 FR 44596 (August 24, 2001). Similarly, no information has been presented in the current review that calls into question the reliability of this rate. Thus, we find that the information is reliable.

With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department stated in TRBs that it will “consider information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin irrelevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin.” See TRBs at 61 FR 57392. See also Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (disregarding the highest margin in the case as best information available because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an extremely high margin). There is no information on the record that the application of this rate would be inappropriate in the administrative review or that the margin is not relevant; therefore, we have applied, as adverse facts available, the 376.67 percent margin from a prior administrative review of this order and have satisfied the corroboration requirements under section 776(c) of the Act. See Persulfates from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 66 FR 18439, 18441 (April 9, 2001) (employing a petition rate used as adverse facts available in a previous segment as the adverse facts available in the current review).

Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the rate of 376.67 percent should be used as the adverse facts available for the preliminary results of review for Golden Light, Phil-Sino, and Wo Hing. We also preliminarily determine that the rate of 376.67 percent should be used as the adverse facts available for the preliminary results of review for the PRC-entity and, accordingly, applies to Foshan Foodstuffs Import & Export Company, Jinan Import & Export Corporation, Jinxiang Foreign Trade Corporation, Jinxiang Hong Chong Fruits & Vegetable Products Company, Ltd., Quingdao Rui Sheng Food Company, Ltd., Rizhao, Shandong Commercial Group Corporation, and Zhejiang Materials Industry International Co., Ltd.

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

On July 24, 1996, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on pasta from Italy (61 FR 38547). On July 2, 2001, we published in the Federal Register the notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of this order, for the POR July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001 (66 FR 34910).

On July 30 and July 31, 2001, we received requests for review from: (1) COREX S.p.A. (“Corex”), (2) Ferrara, (3) Pagani, (4) Garofalo, (5) IAPC, (6) La Molisana Industrie Alimentari S.p.A. (“La Molisana”), and (7) N. Puglisi & F. Industria Paste Alimentari S.p.A. (“Puglisi”) in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2). In addition, on July 31, 2001, Pagani requested that the Department revoke the antidumping duty order with respect to it. See “ Intent Not to Revoke ” section of this notice.

On August 20, 2001, we published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review covering the period July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001, listing these seven companies as respondents. Notice of Initiation , 66 FR 43570 (August 20, 2001).

On August 28, 2001, we sent questionnaires to all seven companies.

On September 19, and November 2, 2001, La Molisana and Puglisi, respectively, withdrew their requests for administrative review of the antidumping duty order.

On January 3, 2002, the Department revoked the antidumping order with respect to Corex and Puglisi, based on three years of sales in commercial quantities at not less than NV. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order in Part: Certain Pasta From Italy , 67 FR 300 (January 3, 2002).

During the most recently completed segment in which Pagani  1 participated, the Department disregarded sales that failed the cost test. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, we have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales by Pagani of the foreign like product under consideration for the determination of NV were made at prices below the cost of production (“COP”). Therefore, we initiated a cost investigation of Pagani in the instant review.

After several extensions, the remaining respondents submitted their responses to sections A through C of the questionnaire by October 25, 2001, and to section D by November 1, 2001. IAPC, Ferrara, and Garofalo were not required to respond to section D.

As stated in its questionnaire response, IAPC filed a Section D response because some of its U.S. sales had no contemporaneous home market matches during the appropriate window period. See IAPC's response to the Section D questionnaire (November 1, 2002). Although IAPC had a viable home market, for those sales which did not have a home market match we used constructed value (“CV”).

On March 12, 2002, the Department published an extension of preliminary results of this review until July 30, 2002. 2   See Certain Pasta from Italy and Turkey: Extension of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews , 67 FR 11095 (March 12, 2002).

During March, April, May, June, and July of 2002, the Department issued supplemental and second supplemental questionnaires.

In their March 8, and April 11, 2002, submissions, the petitioners argued that the Department should collapse Pastaficio Antonio Amato & C. S.p.A. (“Amato”) and Garofalo because of alleged affiliation between the two companies. In its rebuttal submission on March, 26, 2002, Garofalo rejected the petitioners' claims, citing a previous court decision as precedence. The Department has determined not to collapse Amato and Garofalo. For a more detailed discussion, see Memorandum on “Whether To Collapse Garofalo and Amato in the Preliminary Results”, dated July 31, 2002, in the case file in the Central Records Unit, main Commerce building, room B-099 (“the CRU”).

On April 17, 2002, the Department extended the deadline for the submission of factual information regarding revocation of the antidumping duty order, in part. Submissions were received from the petitioners  3 and Pagani on May 1, 2002, and rebuttal comments were received from the parties on May 8, 2002.

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

In accordance with section 751(a) of the Act, on July 12, 2002, the Department published the final results of the 2000-2001 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the People's Republic of China (PRC), in which we determined that certain U.S. sales of the subject merchandise were made at less than normal value (67 FR 46173). On July 15, 2002, we received an allegation, timely filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(c)(2), from Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co., Ltd. (Gerber) that the Department made a ministerial error in its final results. The petitioners 1 did not comment on the alleged ministerial error.

After analyzing Gerber's submission, we have determined, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224, that a ministerial error was made in our final margin calculation for Gerber. Specifically, we incorrectly applied the surrogate value for cans and lids in the calculation of Gerber's factors of production-based normal value. For a detailed discussion of the ministerial error, as well as the Department's analysis, see the memorandum to Louis Apple from the Team, dated July 29, 2002.

Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending the final results of the 2000-2001 antidumping duty administrative review of the order on certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC. The revised dumping margins are as follows:

We will notify the Customs Service of the revised cash deposit rate for Gerber.

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

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

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

These amended final results of administrative review and notice are in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e).

National Marine Fisheries Service—Sea Grant Joint Graduate Fellowship Program in Population Dynamics and Marine Resource Economics.

The National Sea Grant Office (NSGO) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) established a new Graduate Fellowship Program in Population Dynamics and Marine Resource Economic (Program) in 1999. The intent of the Program is to award fellowships to about four new students each year who are interested in careers related to (1) the population dynamics of living marine resources and the development and implementation of quantitative methods for assessing their status, and (2) the economics of the conservation and management of living marine resources. At least two new fellowships are to be awarded each year in each of the Program's two disciplines resulting in about six students per discipline to be supported annually when the Program is at its maximum level.

For the FY 2003 competition now being announced, it is anticipated that funds will be available to award five new fellowships in the two disciplines combined.

The goals of the Program are to (1) encourage qualified applicants to pursue careers in (a) population dynamics and stock assessment methodology or (b) marine resource economics; (2) increase available expertise related to (a) the population dynamics and assessment of the status of the stocks of living marine resources or (b) economic analysis of living marine resource conservation and management decisions; (3) foster closer relationships between academic scientists and NMFS; and (4) provide real-world experience to graduate students and accelerate their career development.

The fellowships will provide support for up to three years for highly qualified graduate students working towards a PhD in population dynamics or related fields of study and for up to two years for highly qualified graduate students working towards a PhD in marine resource economics, natural resource economics, or environmental economics. Continued support after the first year will be contingent upon the availability of Federal funds and satisfactorily performance by the Fellow. In addition to his/her faculty adviser, each Fellow will be required to work closely with an expert (mentor) from NMFS who will provide data for the Fellow's thesis, serve on the Fellow's committee, and host an annual summer internship at the participating NMFS facility.

Mentors will be from participating NMFS Science Centers or Laboratories. Each Fellow will be required to work as a summer intern at the participating NMFS facility either on his/her thesis or on appropriate related problems. Remuneration for the summer internship will be part of the annual, award along with the support the Fellow receives during the academic year. Population Dynamics Fellows will also be expected to spend 10-20 days at sea per year learning, about sampling techniques and problems, commercial fishing, fishery biology, and local and regional issues of importance to fisheries management. Fellows may also work, as necessary, at the participating NMFS facility during some or all of the academic year at the mutual discretion of mentor, faculty adviser, and Fellow.

Newly-selected Fellows must submit a one-page description of their thesis research or assignment based on discussions involving mentor, faculty adviser, and Fellow to the Fellowship Program Manager by April 30, 2003. The thesis research or assignment description must reflect a clear mutual understanding of the substantive dimensions of the project and its expected results.

Fellows must, for each year of their fellowship, provide a written summary of their accomplishments and activities during the preceding year to the Fellowship Program Manager. This summary must accompany the request for each additional year's funding. Fellows will be expected to present a review of their research during the Annual Graduate Fellows Seminar held each spring at the NOAA facilities in Silver Spring, MD.

The award for each Fellowship, contingent upon the availability of Federal funds, will be in the form of a grant or cooperative agreement of $38,000 per year, 50 percent ($19,000) of which will be contributed by NMFS, 33 1/3 percent ($12,667) by the NSGO, and 16 2/3 percent ($6,333) by the academic institution as the required 50 percent match of NSGO funds; the involvement of NMFS in cooperative agreements is described above. The portion of the award provided to each Fellow for salary (stipend), living expenses (per diem), tuition (unless waived), health insurance and other institution fees, and travel necessary to carry out the proposed thesis research and to attend the Annual Graduate Fellows Seminar each spring in Silver Spring, MD will be determined and distributed by the institution in accordance with its guidelines.

Any student may apply who is a United States citizen. At the time of application, prospective Population Dynamics Fellows must be admitted to a PhD degree program in population dynamics or a related field such as applied mathematics, statistics, or quantitative ecology at an academic institution in the United States or its territories, or submit a signed letter from the institution indicating provisional acceptance to a PhD degree program conditional on obtaining financial support such as this fellowship. At the time of application, prospective Marine Resource Economics Fellows must be in the process of completing at least two years of course work in a PhD degree program in natural resource economics or a related field at an academic institution in the United States or its territories.

Evaluation criteria will include (1) relevant academic ability and achievement, particularly quantitative skills (35 percent); (2) demonstrated research ability in the discipline and appropriateness/importance of proposed thesis topic (30 percent); (3) expertise of major professor (20 percent); and (4) additional relevant experience (15 percent).

Applications will be ranked in accordance with the above criteria and their assigned weights by a single, independent, national review panel consisting of government and academic experts for each of the two disciplines. The panel members will provide individual evaluations of each applicant, but there will be no consensus advice. Their recommendations and evaluations will be considered by the NSGO in the final selection. Only those applications receiving a minimum score of 50 percent by the panel will be eligible for funding. For those applications, the NSGO will (1) ascertain which best meet the objectives of the Program; (2) give priority to NMFS Fisheries Science Centers which do not currently have Fellows; and (3) select the applications to be funded. Accordingly, awards may not necessarily be made to the highest-scoring applications in each discipline. Applicants may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets prior to final approval of the award. Subsequent grant administration procedures will be in accordance with current NOAA grants procedures. A summary statement of the review of the application by the review panel will be provided to each applicant.

December 3, 2002, 5 p.m. (local time)—Applications must be received by state Sea Grant Program or by NSGO (only if application is from an academic institution in a non-Sea Grant state).

December 10, 2002, 5 p.m. EST—Applications due at NSGO from state Sea Grant Programs.

June 1, 2003 (approximate)—Funds awarded.

Note that applications arriving after the above deadlines will be accepted for review only if the applicant can document that the application was provided to a delivery service that guaranteed delivery ( see ADDRESSES above) prior to the specified closing date and time; in any event, applications received by the NSGO or the state Sea Grant Programs later than two business days following the closing date will not be accepted. Facsimile transmissions and electronic mail submission of applications will not be accepted.

All printed pages in the application must be on either metric A4 (210 mm × 297 mm) or 8.5″ × 11″ paper with at least a 10-point font. Applications must include the items listed below.

1. Signed Title Page: The title page must identify the prospective Fellow, be signed by the Faculty Advisor and the institutional representative, and provide complete contact information. The program area being addressed should be clearly identified by starting the project title with “NMFS—Sea Grant Graduate Fellowship”. The total amount of Federal and matching funds being requested for each project year must be listed.

2. Project Summary: The project summary should concisely describe the activity being proposed and the impact that would result from its successful completion, in a form suitable for publication. Applicants are encouraged to use the Sea Grant Project Summary Form 90-2, but may use their own form as long as it provides the same information as the Sea Grant form. The project summary should include: a. Title: Use the exact title as it appears in the rest of the application. b. Investigators: List the names and affiliations of each investigator who will significantly contribute to the project, starting with the faculty advisor. c. Funding request for each year of the Fellowship, including matching funds. d. Project Period: Start and completion dates. Applications should request a start date of June 1, 2003, e. Project Abstract: This should include the rationale for the proposed activity, the scientific or technical objectives and/or hypotheses to be tested, and a brief summary of the work to be completed.

3. Budget and Budget Justification: There should be a separate budget for each year as well as a cumulative annual budget for the entire period of the proposed fellowship. The Sea Grant Budget Form 90-4 should preferably be used, but the institution may use its own form as long as it provides the same information as the Sea Grant form. Subrecipients or contractors, if any, should have a separate budget page. Indirect costs are not allowable for either the fellowship or for any costs associated with the fellowship (15 CFR 917.11(e), “Guidelines for Sea Grant Fellowships”).

Matching funds equivalent to 50 percent of the NSGO funds must be provided by the Fellow's institution. Allocation of matching funds must be specified in the budget and may consist of up to one/half month's salary for the faculty adviser, waived tuition, equipment and supplies, and any other costs typically used as matching funds. In addition to stipend and tuition for the applicant, the budget should include funds for equipment, supplies, and travel ( see “Description of Program ” above).

4. Curriculum vitae of the student, the faculty advisor, and the NMFS research mentor (2-page maximum per investigator).

5. Signed letter of commitment from the prospective NMFS mentor.

6. Official copies of all undergraduate and graduate student transcripts.

7. Education and career goal statement (not to exceed two pages) from the student indicating the number of years for which fellowship support is being sought and the student's interest in (a) marine population dynamics or the development and implementation of quantitative methods for assessing stock status of living marine resources, or (b) in marine resource economics (a summary of the proposed thesis or the general intended area of study should be included, if available).

8. Three signed letters of recommendation, including one from the student's faculty adviser.

9. Proof of application, acceptance, provisional acceptance, and enrollment (only for Population Dynamics applicants) in the case of students entering graduate school ( i.e., who have not yet completed one semester of graduate work) if they are selected for a fellowship.

Ten (10) copies of applications must be submitted to the state Sea Grant Programs or to the NSGO according to the schedule outlined above ( See ADDRESSES and “Timetable ”). The addresses of the state Sea Grant College Programs may be found at the following Internet Web site: ( http://www.nsgo.seagrant.org/SGDirectorws.html ). Applications sent to the NSGO should be addressed to: National Sea Grant Office, R/SG, Attn: Mrs. Geraldine Taylor, Applications Processing, Room 11732, NOAA, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (telephone number for express mail applications is 301-713-2445). Facsimile transmissions and electronic mail submission of applications will not be accepted.

The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the Federal Register notice of October 1, 2001 (66 FR 49917) are applicable to this solicitation. However, please note that the Department will not implement the requirements of Executive Order 13202 (66 FR 49921), pursuant to guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget in light of a court opinion which found that the Executive Order was not legally authorized. See Building and Construction Trades Department v. Allbaugh , 172 F. Supp. 2d 138 (D.D.C. 2001). This decision is currently on appeal. When the case has been finally resolved, the Department will provide further information on implementation of Executive Order 13202. The Federal Register notice also lists the forms required to complete the standard Department of Commerce grant application package, but those forms will be required only for those applicants who have been recommended for funding. For projects selected in Sea Grant states, the Sea Grant Program will prepare and submit these forms on behalf of all projects selected from that state.

Unsuccessful applications will be held in the National Sea Grant Office for a period of five (5) years and then destroyed. Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.”

Pursuant to Executive Orders 12876, 12900, and 13021, the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (DOC/NOAA) is strongly committed to broadening the participation of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), Hispanic Institutions (HSI), and Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCU) in its educational and research programs. The DOC/NOAA vision, mission, and goals are to achieve full participation by Minority Servicing Institutions (MSI) in order to advance the development of human potential, to strengthen the nation's capacity to provide high-quality education, and to increase opportunities for MSIs to participate in and benefit from Federal Financial Assistance programs. DOC/NOAA encourages all applicants to include meaningful participation of MSIs. Institutions eligible to be considered MSIs are listed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/minorityinst.html.

This notice contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The use of NOAA Forms 90-2 and 90-4, or equivalents, has been approved by OMB under the control number 0648-0362. Public reporting burden for these collections of information is estimated to average 20 minutes for a NOAA Form 90-2 and 15 minutes for a NOAA Form 90-4. These response times include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the National Sea Office ( see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.

It has been determined that this notice is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in EO 13132.

Invasions of nonindigenous species are increasing in frequency and causing substantial damage to the Nation's environment and economy. Although the most prominent of these has been the zebra mussel, many other nonindigenous species have been introduced and have truly become a nationwide problem that threatens many aquatic ecosystems. While some intentional introductions may have had beneficial effects, there are many other nonindigenous species already present in U.S. waters, or with the potential to invade, that may cause significant damage to coastal resources and the economies that depend upon them. In response, the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4701 et seq. ) established a framework for the Nation to address the problems of aquatic nuisance species (ANS) invasions of coastal and Great Lakes ecosystems.

Although problems such as the zebra mussel and the sea lamprey within the Great Lakes have received the most attention, invasions of nonindigenous species in coastal marine environments are an increasing and serious threat. The National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 4711-4714) recognized this by calling for Federal funding to support aquatic nuisance species prevention and control along the Nation's marine coast.

The National Sea Grant College Program encourages proposals for research and outreach to prevent and control ANS invasions that address one or more of the following program areas:

(1) Biology and Life History: Basic biological research into population dynamics, genetics, physiology, behavior, and parasites and diseases of nonindigenous species with the potential to lead to the development of ecologically safe, effective, and inexpensive control. Research on the ecological and environmental tolerances of nonindigenous species with the potential for prediction of eventual geographic and ecological impacts.

(2) Effects on Ecosystems: Research on the impacts of nonindigenous species at each stage of their life history with the potential for helping natural resource managers determine how to minimize the impacts on established biota and their habitats.

(3) Socioeconomic Analysis: Costs and Benefits: Research on the potential impacts of nonindigenous species on human health in terms of spread of disease, concentration of pollutants, and contamination or purification of drinking water sources. Economic impact on sport, commercial and tribal fisheries, the recreation and tourism industry, the shipping and navigation industry, and municipal and industrial water users. Use of research results to provide a scientific basis for developing sound policy and environmental law, and for public education and technology transfer.

(4) Control and Mitigation: Research into various types of control—engineering (redesigning water intakes, etc .), physical (scraping, filtering, etc .), chemical (biocides, antifoulants, etc .), biological (parasites, predators, etc .), and physicochemical (heat, salinity, pH, etc .)—to develop selective, effective controls that minimize adverse ecological/environmental impacts. Outreach activities that will transfer these technologies to the appropriate users.

(5) Preventing New Introductions: Research and outreach into identifying vectors of ANS introduction, developing cost-effective, realistic methods of prevention, and transferring the information to appropriate users. In particular, research to develop, or support the development of, workable and effective methods to reduce or eliminate nonindigenous species introductions by shipborne pathways such as ballast water or hull fouling, without imposing undue hardships on the shipping industry.

(6) Reducing the Spread of Established Populations: Research and outreach to identify mechanisms for further dispersal of individual established species that will lead to the development of safeguards and protocols to prevent and/or slow the spread of nonindigenous species to uninfested areas, and transfer of that information to appropriate users.

Potential investigators are encouraged to review the list of recent and currently funded Sea Grant projects related to Aquatic Nuisance Species that is available on Sea Grant's Aquatic Nuisance Species Web page ( www.nsgo.seagrant.org/research/nonindigenous ). In addition, regional priorities have been developed by some Regional Panels of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and in some State ANS Management Plans. Not all regions of the country have regional panels, however, and not all panels have published research and outreach priorities; and not all states have State ANS Management Plans, and not all State ANS Management Plans contain research and outreach priorities. Further information on Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force Committees, Regional Panel sand State ANS Management Plans can be found at the Internet Web site, http://www.ANSTaskForce.gov/.

About $5,600,000 will be available from the National Sea Grant College Program to support these projects in FY 2003 and FY 2004, depending on the overall funding appropriation for the National Sea Grant College Program. Of this amount, about 70% of the funds will go to support reach projects and about 30% for outreach activities. Projects can be for a maximum of two years' duration.

Sea Grant funding will be limited to $150,000 per year. Each proposal must include additional non-Federal matching funds equivalent to at least 50% of the Federal funds requested; for example, a proposal requesting a total of $200,000 in Federal support for two years would have to include at least an additional $100,000 in matching funds.

The Oyster Disease Research Program has been in operation for nearly 10 years and has made significant accomplishments in the areas of disease diagnosis, immune system function of oysters, range and virulence of existing diseases, modeling and prediction of oyster diseases in the natural environment, oyster disease resistance through genetic selection and a variety of other technologies. Even though significant scientific information has been obtained through this work and we now have an oyster that has improved performance and survivability under field conditions; disease episodes can still be severe enough to prevent the culture and natural recovery of oysters. More research is clearly needed to improve the survivability of oysters in US coastal waters and to improve technology for disease management and control.

Primary consideration for funding will be given to proposals which address the specific priorities listed below. These priorities, originally determined at a national workshop in January, 1995 and further refined at the Oyster Disease Research Program session during the International Shellfish Restoration Conferences in 1996 and 2000, and at other programmatic and scientific reviews in 2001 and 2002, are not listed in any implied order of importance:

(1) Design, apply and evaluate disease management strategies and their effectiveness for enhanced natural and aquaculture production. There are many issues related to establishment of oyster sanctuaries, configuration of commercial oyster beds, oyster aquaculture, use of non-native oyster species, remote setting, use of natural seed, bottom cleaning before setting, cultch type, etc., which should be addressed as related to the impacts and management of disease. Activities that involve private sector, state restoration programs and extension/outreach in the implementation of research results and field trials using diagnostic methods, and other disease related technology and information for improved oyster disease management or oyster culture are appropriate under this priority.

(2) Parasite life cycles and the dynamics and mechanisms of transmission: investigations of selected aspects of the life cycles of oyster pathogens, especially MSX and Perkinsus, and the dynamics/mechanisms of disease transmission among hose organisms.

(3) Host-parasite interactions: investigations which determine how pathogens avoid host defense mechanisms, biochemically characterize Perkinsus strains, determine factors which confer virulence to Perkinsus strains, determine mechanisms of infection/entry into the host, or compare disease processes in oyster species are being sought.

(4) Mechanisms of disease resistance: continued emphasis is placed on studies concerning cellular/molecular mechanisms of disease infection and resistance in Crassostrea spp. and studies which determine the mechanisms of immune response in oysters. In addition, analysis of host defense factors, the development of molecular markers of disease and stress resistance, the development of immuno-stimulants, the application of chemo-therapeutics, and the identification of pathogen virulence and resistance mechanisms are needed; as are studies comparing resistance among diploid and polyploid oysters.

(5) Development and application of diagnostic methods for all oyster diseases: this program has already developed many diagnostic techniques for several disease organisms and new proposals will be expected to show a significant improvement over the techniques already developed.

(6) Environmental influences on disease and oyster mortality: proposals which address the influence of biotic and abiotic factors upon host-parasite interactions are high priority. Also included are studies of the effects of eutrophication and other stresses upon disease dynamics, basic physiological and adaptation processes in both hosts and parasites, the mechanisms of the summer kill phenomenon, relationships between disease progression and climate, and the eco-physiology of Perkinsus.

(7) Taxonomy, phylogeny and population studies of both hosts and parasites: emphasis continues on studies of variations in populations susceptibility, host resistance and pathogen virulence. Also needed are investigations of the genetic structure of both hosts and parasites.

(8) Development and application of selective breeding strategies: we are seeking studies which develop molecular/biochemical markers for breeding resistance into oysters, as well as genome analysis and gene transfer techniques related to disease resistance. Evaluation of non-native oyster species genomes with regard to disease resistance under aquaculture conditions will also be considered.

(9) Development and testing of geographic and mathematical models to improve understanding of disease dynamics: a basic model now exists and new work in this area must clearly state how additional investment will take us to an even better level of prediction or disease management.

About $4,000,000 is available from the National Sea Grant College Program to support research projects in FY 2003 and FY 2004, depending on the overall funding appropriation for the National Sea Grant College Program.

Sea Grant funding will be limited to $200,000 per year. Each proposal must include additional non-Federal matching funds equivalent to at least 50% of the Federal funds requested; for example, a proposal requesting a total of $200,000 in Federal support for two years would have to include at least an additional $100,000 in matching funds.

The Gulf Oyster Industry Program was created as a result of information provided by Gulf oyster industry leaders, state resource managers, and academic researchers spanning the five-state Gulf region. Specific needs identified by these individuals were subsumed into 12 concise issue statements as a result of a workshop held in New Orleans, Louisiana in 1997 and reaffirmed in 2000. This list of research and extension needs and proposed responses was presented to a select Industry Advisory Panel at the Gulf Oyster Industry Program Workshop conducted in New Orleans, La., on February 28, 1998, and again in 2000 the group was asked to establish research priorities based on that framework. Through an ensuing discussion, the high-priorities were delineated as shown below:

(1) At-Risk Consumer Education and Evaluation: proposals that will develop, implement and/or evaluate a Vibrio vulnificus Education Program, including, but not limited to: at-risk consumer foundations and associations, pharmacies, alcohol treatment centers, wound infection issues, media relations, and public perceptions.

(2) Human Pathogenic Organisms: raw oysters have the potential to cause human illness due to the presence of naturally occurring opportunistic pathogens ( e.g., Vibrio vulnificus ), naturally occurring pathogens that become a concern only when present at elevated levels ( e.g., Vibrio cholera or Vibrio parahaemolyticus ), and pathogens which are related to contaminated growing areas ( e.g., Norwalk and Norwalk-like viruses, Salmonella sp. and Shiqella ). This potential has created a perception the consumption of raw oysters places a large number of people at risk of contracting illnesses from opportunistic bacteria, toxins, and viruses. This RFP also seeks proposals that will develop new means of treating shell stock to eliminate human pathogens, and, develop or investigate new technology, such as ionized water, for depurating oysters of human pathogens.

(3) Post-Harvest Treatment (PHT) Process Evaluation and Education: proposals that will develop and evaluate PHT demonstration projects, including, but not limited to, providing PHT product in demonstration projects to wholesalers & retailers, and, conducting economic analyses regarding the changes to current handling and processing practices.

(4) Consumer Attitudes and Preferences: the oyster industry and regulators lack knowledge concerning the attitudes, preferences, and other characteristics of potential oyster consumers. Learning about consumers' attitudes and preferences will help increase demand for new PHT and traditional oyster products. This RFP seeks proposals that will determine oyster consumer demographics, consumption patterns, attitudes and preferences, develop media-relations protocol for the oyster industry, conduct media-relations workshops for the Gulf oyster industry to improve communication skills, develop media-relations protocol or decision tree for researchers and state regulatory personnel, and, determine the characteristics of the market for Gulf oysters, including sales (region, size of establishment, average sales, etc. ), distribution, and product forms. Investigators should be aware that any surveys must be approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act before they are carried out, a process that may delay the start of those projects by up to six months.

(5) Harmful Algal Blooms (HAB)Red Tide: HAB cause lengthy public health closures of shellfish growing waters, halting production for weeks and causing severe economic hardship in the impacted area. This RFP seeks proposals to develop rapid detection methods for toxic marine algae, especially G. breve , conduct HAB research advisory and outreach activities in the Gulf states, and conduct a workshops for state and Federal shellfish managers. sanitation personnel and researchers to include new monitoring, diagnostic, and management protocols for use in the reopening of shellfish growing waters closed by HAB.

(6) Economic and Legal Impacts of Regulatory Action: the regulation of molluscan shellfish is unique from all other foods. Regulatory action either by state of Federal public health agencies, and subsequent news media responses can have severe economic and legal impacts on the harvesting, processing and marketing of shellfish, such as Gulf oysters. This RFP seeks proposals that analyze the effects of inaccurate media reports on sales, the delisting of a processor or state from the Interstate Certified Shellfish Shippers List, the ramifications from product disparagement, and/or, the impact of the oyster and support industries on demand for labor and the coastal economies of the Gulf region.

(7) Coastal Restoration/Freshwater Diversion: coastal land loss, deterioration of estuarine habitat, and coastal restoration programs, e.g., freshwater diversions and sedimentation projects, and causing widespread dislocations and conflicts with established oyster-producing operations. This RFP seeks proposals that educate oyster men, public officials, and citizens regarding the economic and environmental role of the oyster industry and the economic costs of displacing and relocation oyster bedding operations, and/or, conduct demonstration projects for oyster farmers to show them the best strategy to relocate their oyster farms that are damaged by coastal restoration projects.

(8) Labor and Mechanization: the traditional labor base that supports oyster growing, harvesting, and processing is shrinking rapidly, with consequently declining production and increased costs. This RFP seeks proposals that investigate and develop cost-effective mechanized approaches to oyster harvesting and processing, including, but not limited to, developing new means to package and handle oyster shell stock and shucked oysters, including large re-usable, low-cost containerization of shell stock for vessels to trucks, handling equipment to move large containers of shell stock; and, cheaper containers for shucked oysters.

(9) Oyster Diseases: oyster diseases are having a major impact on Gulf Coast oyster stocks and for the most part this topic will be covered under the Oyster Disease topic in this solicitation. However, oyster disease research specific to the Gulf Coast will be considered in this solicitation.

(10) Genetics and Oyster Hatchery technology: these technologies are needed to develop cost-effective hatchery/nursery operations to augment wild oyster production with specialized strains or help create oyster aquaculture operations. This RFP seeks proposals that develop polyploid broodstock for the Gulf Coast, disease resistant transgenic oysters, and/or, address practical problems which may be common to oyster production in general, but especially acute in a farming situation, e.g., biofouling, predation, disease, etc.

About $2,000,000 is available from the National Sea Grant College Program to support research projects in FY 2003 and FY 2004, depending on the overall funding appropriation for the National Sea Grant College Program.

Sea Grant funding will be limited to $200,000 per year. Each proposal must include additional non-Federal matching funds equivalent to at least 50% of the Federal funds requested; for example, a proposal requesting a total of $200,000 in Federal support for two years would have to include at least an additional $10,000 in matching funds.

Eligible applicants are individuals, institutions of higher education, other nonprofits, commercial organizations, international organizations, state, local and Indian tribal governments. Directors of the State Sea Grant Programs are not eligible to compete for funds under this announcement.

The evaluation criteria for proposals submitted for support under these three programs are:

Significance of the problem addressed; impacts/benefits expected to the nation as a consequence of the project; degree to which the activity will advance the state of the science or discipline; potential for technology transfer to user groups such as industry and/or for enhanced economic, scientific, educational, or management value.

Appropriateness of methodologies to be used; advanced synthesis of existing information; use or extension of state-of-the-art methods; qualifications of the investigators (education, training, and/or experience and record of achievement with previous funding); the degree to which multiple investigators, other Federal agencies, and potential users of the results of the proposed activity have been involved in planning the activity and/or will be involved in the execution of the activity, as appropriate; proposed project schedule (timeline).

Preliminary proposals will be reviewed at the NSGO by panels composed of government, industry, and academic experts. The panels will be asked to assess each preliminary proposal according to the evaluation criteria. The panels will make individual recommendations to the NSGO regarding which preliminary proposals may be suitable for further consideration. On the basis of the panels' recommendations, the Director of the NSGO will advise proposers whether or not the submission of full proposals is encouraged. Invitation to submit a full proposal does not constitute an indication that the proposal will be funded. Interested parties who submitted preliminary proposals in accordance with the procedure described in this notice may, if they wish, submit full proposals even if the Director of the NSGO does not encourage full proposal submission.

Individual state Sea Grant Programs receiving full proposals will conduct the mail peer review of the proposed projects in accordance with the Evaluation Criteria listed above. Complete proposals (12 copies) and copies of the mail reviews will then be sent by the state Sea Grant programs to the National Sea Grant Office. The NSGO will conduct mail reviews for proposals submitted directly to it by applicants not in Sea Grant states.

Each proposal will be scored in accordance with the assigned weights of the above evaluation criteria by an independent peer review panel consisting of government, academic, and industry experts. These panel members will provide individual evaluations on each proposal; thus there will be no consensus advice. Their recommendations and evaluations will be considered by the NSGO in the final selection. Only those proposals awarded an average score of 50% or greater by the panel will be eligible for funding. For those proposals, the NSGO will: (a) Ascertain which proposals best meet the program priorities (stated in Section II), and do not substantially duplicate other projects that are currently funded or are approved for funding by NOAA and other Federal agencies, hence, awards may not necessarily be made to the highest-scored proposals; (b) select the proposals to be funded; (c) determine which components of the selected projects will be funded; (d) determine the total duration of funding for each proposal; and (e) determine the amount of funds available for each proposal. Investigators may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets prior to final approval of the award. Subsequent grant administration procedures will be in accordance with current NOAA grants procedures. Note that only one award will normally be made for each project; if multiple institutions are involved, they should be handled through subawards and contracts. A summary statement of the scientific review by the peer panel will be provided to each applicant.

The ideal project attacks a well-defined problem that will be or is a significant societal, research, or technology development and transfer issue. The organization or people whose task it will be to make related decisions or who will be able to make specific use of project results will have been identified and contacted by the Principal Investigator(s). The proposal demonstrates an understanding of what constitutes necessary and sufficient information for responsible decision-making or for applied use, and shows how that information will be provided by the proposed activity or in concert with other planned activities.

Proposals are expected to have: a rigorous, hypothesis-based scientific work plan, or a well-defined, logical approach to address an engineering problem or outreach opportunity; a strong rationale for the proposed work; and a clear relationship with the ultimate users of the information. Projects undertaken jointly with industry, business, multiple investigators, or other agencies with interest in the problem are encouraged. Their contribution to the project may be in the form of collaboration, in-kind services, or dollar support. Projects that are solely monitoring efforts are not appropriate for funding. Proposals that incorporate educational, outreach, socioeconomic, and management components and applications will be viewed favorably.

To prevent the expenditure of effort that may not be successful, proposers must first submit preliminary proposals; following review by the NSGO, these proposers may subsequently submit full proposals. Full proposals submitted by applicants who do not first submit a preliminary proposal will be returned without review. Applications may be made for Federal funds to support up to two-thirds of the total budget. Allocation of matching funds, equal to at least one-third of the total budget (in other words, at least 50% of the Federal request), must be specified. No more than $150,000 of Federal Sea Grant funds per year will be awarded to an Aquatic Nuisance Species project. No more than $200,000 of Federal Sea Grant funds per year will be awarded to an Oyster Disease or Gulf of Mexico Oyster Industry project. The maximum duration for funded projects will be two years. Awards may be made either as grants or, if there is substantial involvement by one or more Federal agencies, as cooperative agreements. Examples of substantial involvement may include collaboration in research, participation in selection of key personnel, or approval of key stages in the project before subsequent steps are undertaken. Investigators are encouraged to review the budgeting and grant-making policies of their state's Sea Grant Program, if any, before finalizing their proposal submissions.

Interested parties must submit applications (preliminary and full proposals) as follows. Applications originating in one of the Sea Grant states must be submitted to the state's Sea Grant College Program, which will submit the final grant application to the NSGO. Applications originating in a state with no Sea Grant College Program may be submitted to the nearest state Sea Grant College Program which will then submit the final grant application to the NSGO, or the application may be submitted directly to the NSGO. Twenty (20) copies of preliminary proposals and proposals must be submitted to the state Sea Grant Programs or to the NSGO according to the schedule outlined below (See “Timetable”). The addresses of the Sea Grant College Program directors may be found on Sea Grant's World Wide Web home page ( http://www.nsgo.seagrant.org/SGDirectors.html ) or may also be obtained by contacting Mr. Joseph Brown at the NSGO (phone: 301-713-2438 x135 or e-mail: joe.brown@noaa.gov ). Preproposals and proposals sent to the NSGO should be addressed to: National Sea Grant Office, R/SG, Attn: Ms. Geri Taylor, Proposal Processing, NOAA, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (phone 301-713-2435 for express mail applications). Facsimile transmissions and electronic mail submission of applications will not be accepted.

September 17, 2002, 5 p.m. (local time)—Preliminary proposals (20 copies) must be received by state Sea Grant Program, or by NSGO if application is being submitted by an institution in a non-Sea Grant state.

September 24, 2002, 5 p.m. EDT—Preliminary proposals (18 copies) due at NSGO from state Sea Grant Programs.

December 3, 2002, 5 p.m. (local time)—Full proposals (20 copies) must be received by state Sea Grant Program, or by NSGO if application is being submitted by an institution in a non-Sea Grant state.

December 10, 2002, 5 p.m. EST—Full proposals (12 copies) due at NSGO from state Sea Grant Programs.

February 15, 2003, 5 p.m. EST—State Sea Grant Programs forward reviews received to NSGO.

June 1, 2003 (approximate)—Funds awarded to selected recipients; projects begin.

Note that applications arriving after the closing dates given above will be accepted for review only if the applicant can document that the application was provided to a delivery service that guaranteed delivery to the appropriate address ( see ADDRESSES ) prior to the specified closing date and time; in any event, applications received by the NSGO or the state Sea Grant programs later than two business days following the closing date will not be accepted.

Preliminary proposals must be printed on metric A4 (210 mm x 297 mm) or 8.5″ x 11″ paper with at least a 10-point font. The following information should be included:

1. Signed Title Page: The title page must be signed by the Principal Investigator and should clearly identify the program to which the proposal is submitted by starting the project title with “Sea Grant Aquatic Nuisance Species Research Program,” “Sea Grant Aquatic Nuisance Species Outreach Program,” “Sea Grant Oyster Disease Program” or “Sea Grant Gulf of Mexico Oyster Industry Program” (as appropriate). Principal Investigators and collaborators should be identified by affiliation and contact information. The total project costs (Federal funds being requested and matching funds) should be listed as well as the source of the matching funds. Preliminary proposals must include matching funds equivalent to at least 50% of the Federal funds requested.

2. A concise (2-page limit) description of the project, its experimental design, its expected output or products, the anticipated users of the products, and its anticipated impact. Proposers should consult the Evaluation Criteria for additional guidance in preparing the preliminary proposals.

3. Resumes (1-page limit) of the Principal Investigators.

4. Proposers are encouraged (but not required) to include a separate page suggesting reviewers that the proposers believe are especially well-qualified to review the proposal. Proposers may also designate persons they would prefer not review the proposal, indicating why. These suggestions will be considered during the review process.

No institutional signatures or Federal government forms are needed while submitting preliminary proposals.

All pages must be printed on metric A4 (210 mm x 297 mm) or 8.5″ x 11″ paper with at least a 10-point font. Each full proposal should include the items listed below. Brevity will assist reviewers and program staff in dealing effectively with proposals. Therefore, the Project Description may not exceed 15 pages. Tables and visual materials, including charts, graphs, maps, photographs and other pictorial presentations are included in the 15-page limitation; literature citations and letters of support are not included in the 15-page limitation. No appendices are permitted. Applicants may obtain all required application forms through the World Wide Web at http://www.nsgo.seagrant.org/research/index.html and http://www.ofa.noaa.gov/-grants/pdf/, from the state Sea Grant Programs, or from Mr. Joseph Brown at the National Sea Grant Office (phone: 301-713-2438 x135 or e-mail: joe.brown@noaa.gov ).

1. Signed Title Page: The title page must be signed by the Principal Investigator and should clearly identify the program to which the proposal is submitted by starting the project title with “Sea Grant Aquatic Nuisance Species Research Program,” “Sea Grant Aquatic Nuisance Species Outreach Program,” “Sea Grant Oyster Disease Program” or “Sea Grant Gulf of Mexico Oyster Industry Program” (as appropriate). The total amount of Federal and matching funds being requested for each project year must be listed.

2. Project Summary: The project summary should concisely describe the activity being proposed and the impact that would result from its successful completion, in a form suitable for publication. Applicants are encouraged to use the Sea Grant Project Summary Form 90-2, but may use their own form as long as it provides the same information as the Sea Grant form. The project summary should include: A. Title: Use the exact title as it appears in the rest of the application. B. Investigators: List the names and affiliations of each investigator who will significantly contribute to the project, starting with the Principal Investigator. For graduate fellowships, the faculty advisor or the state Sea Grant Director may be used. C. Funding request for each year of the project, including matching funds if appropriate. D. Project Period: Start and completion dates. Proposals should request a start date of June 1, 2003. E. Project Abstract: This should include the rationale for the proposed activity, the scientific or technical objectives and/or hypotheses to be tested, and a brief summary of the work to be completed.

3. Project Description (15-page limit):

a. Introduction/Background/Justification: Subjects that the investigator(s) may wish to include in this section are: (1) Previous fundamental research, including relevant work funded by Sea Grant, and a description of what additional work is needed to enhance the value of that work; and (ii) impacts of the study to the particular discipline or subject area.

b. Research or Technical Plan: (i) Objectives to be achieved, hypotheses to be tested; (ii) Experimental design and statistical analysis to be used; (iii) Plan of work, detailed methodology, collaboration with industry or other user groups (if appropriate), and a timetable for project activities; and (iv) Role of project personnel.

c. Output/Anticipated Economic Benefits: These may be measured in many ways. To the extent possible, proposers are urged to devise appropriate metrics to quantify the benefits. Examples of metrics may include patents or licenses; commercializable new products ( e.g. products or equipment used to remove aquatic nuisance species from ballast water or to harvest and process oyster products), oyster disease diagnostics and control technologies, improved oyster survivals, creation of successful oyster restoration programs, process improvements, corporate investments in oyster technologies or academic research efforts; private sector job opportunities; number of end users or persons affected by the projects long-term goals, etc.

d. Coordination with other Program Elements: Describe any coordination with other agency programs or ongoing research efforts. Describe any other proposals that are essential to the success of this proposal.

e. References and Literature Citations: Should be included but will not be counted in the 15-page project description limit.

4. Budget and Budget Justification: There should be a separate budget for each year and one cumulative budget for the entire project. Applicants are encouraged to use the Sea Grant Budget Form 90-4, but may also use their own form as long as it provides the same information as the Sea Grant form. Subawards and contracts should have a separate budget page. Matching funds must be indicated. The budget should include a separate budget justification page that itemizes all budget items in sufficient detail to enable reviewers to evaluate the appropriateness of the funding requested, and indicates the source for all matching funds. Please pay special attention to any travel, supply or equipment budgets and provide details. Note that only one award will normally be made for each project; if multiple institutions are involved, they should be handled through subawards and contracts with all necessary indirects costs included in the original budget submission.

Investigators are strongly advised to consult with and follow any budgeting guidelines available through their state's Sea Grant Program. Local institutional policies may affect how a project budget should be submitted, and what may be included ( i.e., application of indirect costs, availability of fellowships, and other restrictions or cost-saving opportunities). Proposals generated from Sea Grant states must follow local guidelines, if any. In no case will proposals be funded at a level which exceeds the funding limitations as set in this announcement.

5. Current and Pending Support: Applicants must provide information on all current and pending Federal support for ongoing projects and proposals, including subsequent funding in the case of continuing grants. The relationship between the proposed project and these other projects should be described, and the number of person-months per year to be devoted to the projects must be stated.

6. Vitae (2 pages maximum per investigator).

7. Research Protocol (if appropriate): Research activities funded under this program must not accelerate the spread of nonindigenous species to non-infested watersheds. Therefore, investigators studying any nonindigenous species whose laboratories or research study sites are in currently uninfested areas must develop protocols for handling the particular nonindigenous species that will prevent its release into the environment. As part of the plan of action, the investigator must detail these protocols and explain how the proposed work will be accomplished while safeguarding the environment. The research protocol will be reviewed by an interagency committee created under the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4701 et seq. ). Guidelines for developing suitable protocols are available through the internet Web site http://www.ANST askForce.gov/resprot.htm#, or from Dorn Carlson (listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , above). Proposals lacking a suitable protocol will not be eligible for funding.

8. Letters of commitment and letter of support from any industry or other partner, if appropriate.

The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification of Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the Federal Register Notice of October 1, 2001 (66 FR 49917) are applicable to this solicitation. However, please note that the Department will not implement the requirements of Executive Order 13202 (66 FR 49921), pursuant to guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget in light of a court opinion which found that the Executive Order was not legally authorized. See Building and Construction Trades Department v. Allbauth, 172 F. Supp. 2d 138 (D.D.C. 2001). This decision is currently on appeal. When the case has been finally resolved, the Department will provide further information on implementation of Executive Order 13202. The Federal Register notice also lists the forms required to complete the standard Department of Commerce grant application package, but those forms will be required only for those applicants who have been recommended for funding. For projects selected in Sea Grant states, the Sea Grant Program will prepare and submit these forms on behalf of all projects selected from that state.

Unsuccessful applications will be held in the National Sea Grant Office for a period of five (5) years and then destroyed. Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.”

Pursuant to Executive Orders 12876, 12900, and 13021, the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (DOC/NOAA) is strongly committed to broadening the participation of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI), and Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCU) in its educational and research programs. The DOC/NOAA vision, mission, and goals are to achieve full participation by Minority Serving Institutions (MSI) in order to advance the development of human potential, to strengthen the nation's capacity to provide high-quality education, and to increase opportunities for MSIs to participate in and benefit from Federal Financial Assistance programs. DOC/NOAA encourages all applicants to include meaningful participation of MSIs. Institutions eligible to be considered MSIs are listed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/minorityinst.html.

This notice contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The use of NOAA Forms 90-2 and 90-4, or equivalents, has been approved by OMB under the control number 0648-0362. Public reporting burden for these collections of information is estimated to average 20 minutes for a NOAA Form 90-2 and 15 minutes for a NOAA Form 90-4. These response times include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the National Sea Grant Office ( see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.

It has been determined that this notice is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

Because notice and comment are not required under 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, for notices relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits or contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)), a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required and has not been prepared for this notice, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

The initial notification of this meeting was published in the Federal Register on August 5, 2002, (67 FR 50632). In the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of the original notice, it stated that the meeting dates were August 22 through August 24, 2002. This notice corrects those dates to read August 21 through August 23, 2002.

All other information previously published remains the same.

Issuing a directive to the Commissioner of Customs adjusting the limit for Cetegories 347/348 for carryover and the cancellation of carryforward.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States ( see Federal Register notice 66 FR 65178, published on December 18, 2001). Also see 66 FR 63030, published on December 4, 2001.

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

Type of Review: Revision.

Title: Application for Grants Under English Language Acquisition and Language Enhancement: Native American and Alaska Native Children in School.

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

  Responses: 100.

  Burden Hours: 8,200.

Abstract: The Department of Education needs and uses this information to make grants. The respondents are eligible entities required to provide this information in applying for grants.

This information collection is being submitted under the Streamlined Clearance Process for Discretionary Grant Information Collections (1890-0001). Therefore, the 30-day public comment period notice will be the only public comment notice published for this information collection.

Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2109. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail address vivan.reese@ed.gov. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Sheila Carey at her e-mail address Sheila.Carey@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.

Wolf Creek Dam and Lake Cumberland constitute a significant portion of the Cumberland River Reservoir System. The Project, authorized by the Flood Control Acts of 1938 and 1946, is operated to serve flood control, hydropower, recreation, fish and wildlife, and water quality needs. Located at river mile 460.9, the power plant contains six units brought online between 1951 and 1952, and has a total nameplate capacity of 270 megawatts (310 maximum peaking capacity). Average annual generation is 906 gigawatt hours, produced at a plant factor of 38 percent. Federal policy, set forth in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-662) with regard to water resource projects, is to encourage each agency to negotiate reasonable private financing for the development of approved project purposes. A Notice of Intent to solicit non-Federal sponsors was published in the Federal Register on September 30, 1992, 57 FR 45052.

Southeastern has been unable to identify a group of sponsors willing to undertake the financial responsibility of rehabilitating and upgrading the Wolf Creek Project and has subsequently issued this Notice of Withdrawal.

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may be of particular interest to anyone who may be affected if the AEGL values are adopted by government agencies for emergency planning, prevention, or response programs, such as EPA's Risk Management Program under the Clean Air Act and Amendments Section 112r. It is possible that other Federal agencies besides EPA, as well as State agencies and private organizations, may adopt the AEGL values for their programs. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Electronically . You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select “Laws and Regulations,” “Regulations and Proposed Rules,” and then look up the entry for this document under the “ Federal Register —Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket ID number OPPT-2002-0045. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the TSCA Non confidential Information Center, North East Mall Rm. B-607, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC. The Center is open from noon to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number of the Center is (202) 260-7099.

For additional information on the scheduled meeting, the agenda of the NAC/AEGL Committee, or the submission of information on chemicals to be discussed at the meeting, contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

The meeting of the NAC/AEGL Committee is open to the public. Oral presentations or statements by interested parties are limited to 10 minutes. Interested parties are encouraged to contact the DFO to schedule presentations before the NAC/AEGL Committee. Since seating for outside observers may be limited, those wishing to attend the meeting as observers are also encouraged to contact the DFO at the earliest possible date to ensure adequate seating arrangements. Inquiries regarding oral presentations or submission of written statements or chemical-specific information should be directed to the DFO.

Another meeting of the NAC/AEGL Committee is tentatively scheduled for December 2002.

44 CFR part 75 establishes standards with respect to the Federal Insurance Administrator's (FIA) determinations, that a State's plan of self-insurance is adequate and satisfactory for the purposes of the Act, from the requirement of purchasing flood insurance coverage for State-owned structures and their contents in areas identified by the Administrator as A, AO, AH, A1-A30, AE, A99, M, V, VO, V1-V30 and E zones, in which the sale of insurance has been made available. It also establishes the procedures by which a State may request exemption under section 102 C of the Act.

Collection of Information:

Title: Exemption of State-Owned Properties Under Self-Insurance Plan.

Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.

OMB Number: 3067-0127.

Abstract: The application for exemption is made to the Federal Insurance Administration by the Governor or other duly authorized official of the State accompanied by sufficient supporting documentation which certifies that the plan of self-insurance upon which the application for exemption is based meets or exceed the standards set forth in 44 CFR section 75.11. Upon determining that the State's plan of self-insurance equals or exceeds the standards, the Administrator then certifies that the State is exempt from the requirements for the purchase of flood insurance for State-owned structures and their contents.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents: 20.

Hours Per Response: 5.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 100 hours.

Estimated Cost: $3,000.

Comments: Written comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Comments should be received within 60 days of the date of this notice.

The WYO was established in response to the increase in losses and escalating costs of natural disasters to American taxpayers. The Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration (FIMA) has obtained the participation of private insurance companies in a joint venture to market and service flood insurance under their own names. FIMA may enter into an agreement with private insurance companies, whereby these companies may offer flood insurance coverage to eligible property owners. FIMA requires a one-time submission of information to determine a company's qualification, as set forth in 44 CFR part 62, subpart 62.24. FIMA requires the information to determine whether an applicant for entry or reentry has the ability to process flood insurance and meet the reporting requirements of the WYO Financial Control Plan.

Collection of Information:

Title: Write Your Own Program (WYO) Company Participation Criteria; New Applicants.

Type of Information Collection: New Collection.

Form Numbers: 3067-0259.

Abstract: Under the Write Your Own Program, private sector insurance companies may offer flood insurance to eligible property owners. The Federal Government is a guarantor of flood insurance coverage for WYO Companies, issued under the WYO arrangement. To determine eligibility for participation in the WYO, the NFIP is requiring a one-time submission demonstrating their qualification for participation from each new company seeking entry into the Program.

Affected Public: Business or other for profit.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 25.

Estimated Cost: None

Comments: Written comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Comments should be received within 60 days of the date of this notice.

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Colorado is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 19, 2002: Larimer, Jackson, and Weld Counties for Individual Assistance.

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of July 4, 2002: Calhoun County for Individual Assistance and direct Federal Assistance under section 408 of the Stafford Act, 42 USC 5174.

GSA published a notice in the Federal Register on June 21, 2002 (67 FR 42259) soliciting comments on our proposal to convert the CHAMP IFF from a $145 flat fee to a comparable fee of 2.75 percent of a shipment's total net transportation charge (excluding storage in transit (SIT) fees). We received comments, categorized as follows, from 3 federal agencies, 4 transportation service providers, and 2 industry associations:

• Moyer & Sons Moving and Storage, Inc., Department of Interior, and Bureau of Prisons recommended an IFF of less than 2.75 percent.

• American Moving and Storage Association (AMSA) recommended a 3.0 percent IFF.

• Atlas Van Lines International, RBI Global Relocation Services, Department of State, and Department of Interior recommended an IFF of less than 2.75 percent.

• Bureau of Prisons recommended an IFF of no more than 2 percent.

• AMSA recommended a 1.75 percent IFF.

• Arpin International Group and the Household Goods Forwarders Association of America, Inc. recommended a 1.5 percent IFF.

Following publication of the request for comments, GSA met with the household goods carrier and forwarder associations and with GSA customer agencies. We analyzed agencies' shipment data (volume, net shipment charges, and IFF's submitted), and carefully considered all comments received. Based on the comments, our data analysis, and careful deliberation, we have established the new percentage IFF at 2.5 percent for shipments that move between points wholly within the continental United States, and 1.5 percent for all other shipments. These percentage levels, reflecting the concerns of our customers expressed in their comments, will generate an IFF charge per shipment generally equivalent to the current $145 flat fee. The percentage will be applied as reflected in the Request for Offers; i.e. on a multiple component shipment (household goods, privately owned vehicle (POV), and/or unaccompanied baggage) it will be applied to the highest weighted component shipped within a 6-month period; it will be separately applied to any component shipped more than 6 months after shipment of the initial component.

This change aligns the CHAMP IFF with the Federal Supply Service's funding mechanism for most of its other programs and automatically will adjust to the level of inflation. The method of collection will remain the same. That is, transportation service providers will continue to incorporate the IFF in the discounted rates they file with GSA and will pay the IFF to GSA, albeit based on the applicable percentage of a shipment's net transportation charge (absent SIT) instead of a flat fee.

GSA will monitor agencies' shipment volumes, net transportation charges, and IFF's calculated under the new percentages to determine the need for any future adjustments. We value our customers and want to ensure CHAMP funding is commensurate with providing quality service while covering our costs and no higher.

The conversion to a percentage IFF requires certain revisions to the HTOS which are reflected in the attachment to this notice. The currently effective percentage IFF will be specified in each GSA Request for Offers.

The Industrial Funding Fee (IFF) amount must equal the sum of all shipment net charges reported in HTOS Section 9-3.1.2, multiplied by the applicable IFF percentage identified in the Request for Offers. Any deficiencies identified will be handled as specified in HTOS Sections 9-3.1.4.1. and 9-3.1.4.2.

Entry format is text entry ( i.e., left aligned). Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are numeric and must, if necessary, be zero filled from the left ( i.e., 00250 for 250) depending on the field size. Save the file as a comma-separated file (.CSV) then rename as necessary (.SHP or .ERS).

In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, AoA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

The collection consists of complaint, case, major long-term care issue and program operations information for the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Report (NORS), which State Offices of the Long-Term Care Ombudsman are required to submit annually to the Assistant Secretary for Aging. The collection includes the format and instructions for the report and a form for certifying state compliance with Older Americans Act ombudsman program funding requirements.

AoA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows: 7620 hours.

In the Federal Register of February 28, 2002 (Vol 67; page 9279), the agency requested comments on the proposed collection of information. No comments were received.

In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

Section 310(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 337(b)) authorizes States to enforce certain sections of the act in their own names, but provides that States must notify FDA before doing so. Section 100.2(d) (21 CFR 100.2 (d)) sets forth the information that a State must provide to FDA in a letter of notification when it intends to take enforcement action under the act against a particular food located in the State. The information required under § 100.2(d) will enable FDA to identify the food against which the State intends to take action and advise the State whether Federal action has been taken against it. With certain narrow exceptions, Federal enforcement action precludes State action under the act.

FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

Section 402 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 342) authorizes FDA to regulate foods so that they are not adulterated. FDA's research in food safety seeks to reduce the incidence of foodborne illness by improving the ability to find new ways to detect, enumerate, and control pathogens in the food supply. FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition awarded two grants of research funds in September 2001 to support research into consumer refrigeration practices and shelf life for ready-to-eat (RTE) foods entitled “Consumer Storage Length Practices for Ready-to-Eat Foods” and “Consumer Handling of Ready-to-Eat Foods After Purchase.”

The information that will be collected concerns consumer handling of RTE food products. The research will provide data on the storage of RTE foods in unopened and opened packages in home refrigerators; consumer understanding of expiration dates; and consumer use of this information in making decisions regarding purchases, consumption, and home storage conditions. The data from these surveys will be used to refine the Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Listeria monocytogenes (LM) risk assessment, issued in draft for public comment on January 19, 2001 (66 FR 5515). The values used for home storage of foods in the draft LM risk assessment were largely based on expert opinion, not statistically supportable data. Thus, the consumer storage data from these two grants will improve FDA's confidence in the predicted risks by reducing the uncertainty in consumer practices.

For the “Consumer Storage Length Practices for Ready-to-Eat Foods,” approximately 2,400 respondents will be selected from an already existing nationally representative Web-enabled panel. For “Consumer Handling of Ready-to-Eat Foods After Purchase,” a more traditional survey approach will be used and will be conducted in three parts. In part 1, approximately 400 in-person interviews will be conducted in Tennessee, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Florida, and New York. Participants will be selected to represent both sexes, different income groups, and education levels, and a wide range of adults from different ethnic groups. In part 2, 100 respondents from part 1 will complete food diaries of specific foods from the day the food dairy is initiated until those foods are consumed or discarded. In part 3, two mass mailings of questionnaires will be conducted one in fall-winter and the second in spring-summer for a total of 2,000 respondents.

FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows: