Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “to develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade and packaging and recommend and demonstrate such standards to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices. * * *” AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities and makes copies of official standards available upon request. The United States Standards for Grades of Fruits and Vegetables do not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations but are maintained by USDA.

AMS is revising the U.S. Standards for Grades of Frozen Field Peas and Frozen Black-Eye Peas using the procedures that appear in part 36 of Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR part 36).

The petitioner, the American Frozen Food Institute (AFFI), petitioned the USDA to revise the U.S. Grade Standards for Frozen Field Peas and Frozen Black-Eye Peas. It was specifically requested that the “individual attributes” system of grading, be incorporated into the revision. “Individual attributes” provide statistically derived acceptable quality levels (AQL's) based on the tolerances in the grade standards.

The current standards are based on an older “attributes” model. It is proposed that the standards be modified to convert them to the improved “individual attributes” grading system, similar to the U.S. grade standards for canned green and wax beans (58 FR 4295, January 14, 1993).

AMS prepared a discussion draft of the frozen field peas, frozen black-eye peas standard, and distributed copies for input to AFFI and the National Food Processors Association (NFPA). Input from the above groups was used to develop the proposed standards.

Based on the results of the information gathered, AMS prepared and published a notice proposing to revise the U.S. Grade Standards for Frozen Field Peas and Frozen Black-Eye Peas in the Federal Register February 9, 2000, with a 60-day comment period, proposing changes to the United States Standards for Grades of Frozen Field Peas and Frozen Black-Eye Peas in the Federal Register (65 FR 7486).

AMS received comments on the Notice from AFFI. AFFI recommended changing part of the product description to include a provision that “Frozen peas may contain succulent, unshelled pods of the field pea plant or small sieve round type succulent pods of the green bean plant as an optional ingredient used as a garnish.” The purpose of the recommendation is to make the standards consistent with current industry practices. Changes in mechanical harvesting have lowered the supply of “snaps” (immature pods) from the field pea plant. Snaps were customarily used as a garnish. In order to maintain the custom, the industry wants to use the succulent pod of the green pea plant, which are readily available, using current harvesting practices. This recommendation has merit. Accordingly, we are incorporating this change into the standard.

AFFI also recommended that the second category for “Color Defectives” in Table Ii, “AQL's and Tolerances for Defects in White Acre Frozen Peas”, of the proposed draft of the grade standards be eliminated along with the corresponding footnotes. We are dropping the footnote and the second category, as AFFI recommends, because both were left in the table inadvertently. Since Table II refers to White acre peas only, footnote 2/ “For Crowder Peas Only” and the second category “Color Defectives” (for crowder peas), do not apply.

Based on these changes, the revisions would modify the standards to present them in a simplified easy-to-use format. Consistent with recent revisions of other U.S. grade standards, definitions of terms and easy-to-read tables would replace the textual descriptions. These changes are intended to facilitate better understanding and more uniform application of the grade standards.

This revision becomes effective 30 days after date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register .

Section 320 of the 2001 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (Pub L. 106-389) authorizes the payments to States and counties from monies derived from receipts collected on Federal lands. These payments are to be used for the benefit of public education and other public purposes. The Act also created a Forest Counties Payments Committee to gather input from the public and elected officials to help develop recommendations to Congress on a long-term solution for making payments to eligible States and counties in which Federal lands are situated. The Committee will evaluate the methods and use of these payments. The Committee will also consider the impact on eligible States and counties of revenues from the historic multiple use of Federal lands; evaluate the economic, environmental, and social benefits which accrue to counties containing Federal lands; evaluate the expenditures by counties on activities occurring on Federal lands which are Federal responsibilities; and monitor payments and implementation of the Act.

At the November 14 meeting in Boise, the Committee asks that respondents provide information that is responsive to the following questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. What has been your experience regarding implementation of Pub L. 106-291, The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act?

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

The project purpose is to reduce sediment and nutrient damage. The planned works of improvement include 378 acres of Sod Rotation, 208 acres of Grassed Waterways/Field Borders, 520 acres of Cropland Conversion to Grass, 680 acres of Grassland Management and Improvement, 23 acres of Stream Protection Systems for cropland, 46 Stream Protection Systems for livestock operations, 9 Animal Waste Management Systems for dairies and 3 Animal Feed Waste Management Systems for beef operations. The project will treat 2,600 acres of cropland, improve 680 acres of grassland, stabilize 6,900 linear feet of stream bank and install 12 animal waste treatment systems.

The Notice of a Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency and to various federal, state and local agencies and interested parties. A limited number of copies of the FONSI are available to fill single copy requests at the above address. Basic data developed during the environmental assessment are on file and may be reviewed by contacting Jacob Crandall, Assistant State Conservationist for Water Resources at 4405 Bland Road, Suite 205, Raleigh, North Carolina 27609.

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

Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that revisions made after enactment of the law to NRCS State technical guides used to carry out highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law shall be made available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days, the NRCS in Virginia will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. Following that period, a determination will be made by the NRCS in Virginia regarding disposition of those comments and a final determination of change will be made to the subject standards.

On September 24, 2001, Koenig & Bauer AG and KBA North America, Inc. Web Press Division (KBA NA; collectively, K&B) requested that the Department revoke the antidumping duty order on large newspaper printing presses (LNPP) and components thereof, whether assembled or unassembled, from Germany through initiation of a changed circumstances review. K&B provided information that the petitioner in this proceeding, Goss Graphics System, Inc. (Goss), closed its sole U.S. production facility on August 31, 2001, and is no longer a producer of the merchandise subject to the antidumping duty order. On November 2, 2001, KBA NA stated that it accounts for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product and no longer has an interest in the continuation of the antidumping order. In addition, prior to K&B's request, on September 19, 2001, MAN Roland Druckmaschinen AG and MAN Roland Inc. (collectively, MAN Roland) requested that the Department revoke the antidumping duty order on LNPP and components thereof, whether assembled or unassembled, from Germany through a changed circumstances review. MAN Roland provided information similar to K&B's regarding the status of Goss's U.S. production facility. Both K&B and MAN Roland submitted additional material regarding Goss on October 19, 2001, and MAN Roland provided further information on October 29, 2001. Accordingly, both K&B and MAN Roland believe that the order should be revoked with respect to any entries of LNPPs that have not yet been the subject of a completed administrative review.

On October 3, 2001, the Department requested Goss to state for the record whether it is a domestic producer of LNPPs. Goss responded on October 19, 2001, stating that it continues to perform certain manufacturing functions at a U.S. facility and thus continues to be a manufacturer, producer, or wholesaler in the United States within the meaning of section 771(9) of the Act. On that basis, Goss contends that the requests for a changed circumstances review should be rejected.

The products covered by the order are large newspaper printing presses, including press systems, press additions and press components, whether assembled or unassembled, whether complete or incomplete, that are capable of printing or otherwise manipulating a roll of paper more than two pages across. A page is defined as a newspaper broadsheet page in which the lines of type are printed perpendicular to the running of the direction of the paper or a newspaper tabloid page with lines of type parallel to the running of the direction of the paper.

In addition to press systems, the scope of the order includes the five press system components. They are: (1) A printing unit, which is any component that prints in monocolor, spot color and/or process (full) color; (2) a reel tension paster (RTP), which is any component that feeds a roll of paper more than two newspaper broadsheet pages in width into a subject printing unit; (3) a folder, which is a module or combination of modules capable of cutting, folding, and/or delivering the paper from a roll or rolls of newspaper broadsheet paper more than two pages in width into a newspaper format; (4) conveyance and access apparatus capable of manipulating a roll of paper more than two newspaper broadsheet pages across through the production process and which provides structural support and access; and (5) a computerized control system, which is any computer equipment and/or software designed specifically to control, monitor, adjust, and coordinate the functions and operations of large newspaper printing presses or press components.

A press addition is comprised of a union of one or more of the press components defined above and the equipment necessary to integrate such components into an existing press system.

Because of their size, large newspaper printing press systems, press additions, and press components are typically shipped either partially assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, and are assembled and/or completed prior to and/or during the installation process in the United States. Any of the five components, or collection of components, the use of which is to fulfill a contract for large newspaper printing press systems, press additions, or press components, regardless of degree of assembly and/or degree of combination with non-subject elements before or after importation, is included in the scope of this order. Also included in the scope are elements of a LNPP system, addition or component, which taken altogether, constitute at least 50 percent of the cost of manufacture of any of the five major LNPP components of which they are a part.

For purposes of the order, the following definitions apply irrespective of any different definition that may be found in Customs rulings, U.S. Customs law or the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS): the term “unassembled” means fully or partially unassembled or disassembled; and (2) the term “incomplete” means lacking one or more elements with which the LNPP is intended to be equipped in order to fulfill a contract for a LNPP system, addition or component.

This scope does not cover spare or replacement parts. Spare or replacement parts imported pursuant to a LNPP contract, which are not integral to the original start-up and operation of the LNPP, and are separately identified and valued in a LNPP contract, whether or not shipped in combination with covered merchandise, are excluded from the scope of this order. Used presses are also not subject to this order. Used presses are those that have been previously sold in an arm's-length transaction to a purchaser that used them to produce newspapers in the ordinary course of business.

Further, this order covers all current and future printing technologies capable of printing newspapers, including, but not limited to, lithographic (offset or direct), flexographic, and letterpress systems. The products covered by this order are imported into the United States under subheadings 8443.11.10, 8443.11.50, 8443.30.00, 8443.59.50, 8443.60.00, and 8443.90.50 of the HTSUS. Large newspaper printing presses may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 8443.21.00 and 8443.40.00. Large newspaper printing press computerized control systems may enter under HTSUS subheadings 8471.49.10, 8471.49.21, 8471.49.26, 8471.50.40, 8471.50.80, and 8537.10.90. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

Pursuant to section 782(h)(2) of the Act, the Department may revoke an antidumping or countervailing duty order based on a review under section 751(b) of the Act ( i.e., a changed circumstances review). Section 751(b)(1) of the Act requires a changed circumstances review to be conducted upon receipt of a request which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review. 19 CFR 351.222(g) provides that the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review under 19 CFR 351.216, and may revoke an order (in whole or in part), if it determines that producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product to which the order (or the part of the order to be revoked) pertains have expressed a lack of interest in the relief provided by the order, in whole or in part, or if changed circumstances exist sufficient to warrant revocation.

In this case, the Department finds that the information submitted provides sufficient evidence of changed circumstances to warrant a review. Given KBA NA's assertions, we will consider whether there is interest in continuing the order on the part of the U.S. industry.

The Department will publish in the Federal Register a notice of preliminary results of changed circumstances review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(i), which will set forth the factual and legal conclusions upon which our preliminary results are based, and a description of any action proposed based on those results. Interested parties may submit comments for consideration in the Department's preliminary results not later than 20 days after publication of this notice. Responses to those comments may be submitted not later than 10 days following submission of the comments. All written comments must be submitted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303, and must be served on all interested parties on the Department's service list in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303. The Department will also issue its final results of review within 270 days after the date on which the changed circumstances review is initiated, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e), and will publish these results in the Federal Register .

While the changed circumstances review is underway, the current requirement for a cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties on all subject merchandise will continue unless and until it is modified pursuant to the final results of this changed circumstances review.

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

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 2000).

On October 10, 1986, the Department published in the Federal Register , 51 FR 36435, the final affirmative antidumping duty determination on certain porcelain-on-steel (POS) cookware from Mexico. We published an antidumping duty order on December 2, 1986, 51 FR 43415.

On December 20, 2000, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice advising of the opportunity to request an administrative review of this order for the period December 1, 1999, through November 30, 2000 (the POR), 65 FR 79802. The Department received a request for an administrative review of Cinsa, S.A. de C.V. (Cinsa) and Esmaltaciones de Norte America, S.A. de C.V. (ENASA) from Columbian Home Products, LLC (CHP), formerly General Housewares Corporation (GHC) (hereinafter, the petitioner), and from the respondents, Cinsa and ENASA. We published a notice of initiation of the review on January 31, 2001, 66 FR 8368.

On February 2, 2001, the Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to Cinsa and ENASA. We issued supplemental questionnaires on May 17, and July 26, 2001. On April 2, June 7, and August 9, 2001, we received responses to the original questionnaire and to our two supplemental questionnaires. The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act.

The products covered by this order are porcelain-on-steel cookware, including tea kettles, which do not have self-contained electric heating elements. All of the foregoing are constructed of steel and are enameled or glazed with vitreous glasses. This merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 7323.94.00. Kitchenware currently classifiable under HTSUS subheading 7323.94.00.30 is not subject to the order. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

To determine whether sales of POS cookware by Cinsa and ENASA to the United States were made at less than normal value, we compared constructed export price (CEP) to the normal value, as described in the “Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice.

Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the CEPs of individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average normal value of the foreign like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade at prices above the cost of production (COP), as discussed in the “Cost of Production Analysis” section, below.

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced by Cinsa and ENASA covered by the description in the “Scope of the Order” section, above, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We compared U.S. sales to sales made in the home market within the contemporaneous window period, which extends from three months prior to the U.S. sale until two months after the sale. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. In making the product comparisons, we compared individual cookware pieces with identical or similar pieces, and cookware sets to identical or similar sets. Within these groupings, we matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by the respondents in the following order: quality, gauge, cookware category, model, shape, wall shape, diameter, width, capacity, weight, interior coating, exterior coating, grade of frit (a material component of enamel), color, decoration, and cover, if any.

We calculated CEP in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act because the subject merchandise was first sold by Cinsa's and ENASA's affiliated reseller, Cinsa International Co. (CIC), after importation into the United States. We based CEP on packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for billing adjustments, rebates, U.S. and foreign inland freight, U.S. and Mexican brokerage and handling expenses, and U.S. duty in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(a). We set certain rebates to zero, as explained in our Preliminary Results Calculation Memo, on file in Room B-099 of the Commerce Department. We made further deductions, where appropriate, for credit, commissions, advertising, and indirect selling expenses that were associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, pursuant to section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b). For those sales for which the payment date was not reported, we calculated credit based on the average number of days between shipment and payment using the sales for which payment information was reported. We calculated inventory carrying costs for those sales for which no values were reported, using data reported in the questionnaire response. We made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.

Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market and U.S. sales, we determined that the quantity of the foreign like product sold in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. Therefore, we based normal value on the price (exclusive of value-added tax) at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the home market, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act.

The Department disregarded certain sales made by Cinsa and ENASA for the period December 1, 1998, through November 30, 1999 (the most recently completed review of Cinsa and ENASA), pursuant to a finding in that review that sales failed the cost test ( see Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 12926 (March 1, 2001)). Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that respondents Cinsa and ENASA made sales in the home market at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise in the current review period. As a result, the Department initiated investigations to determine whether the respondents made home-market sales during the POR at prices below their COP within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act.

We calculated the COP on a product-specific basis, based on the respective sums of Cinsa's and ENASA's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for home-market SG&A and packing costs in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. Because Cinsa's and ENASA's fiscal year is different from the POR by only one month, we allowed the respondents to report costs based on their fiscal year 2000 costs.

We relied on COP information submitted by Cinsa and ENASA, except in the following instance where it was not appropriately quantified or valued: enamel frit prices from an affiliated supplier did not approximate fair market value prices; therefore, we increased Cinsa's and ENASA's enamel frit prices to account for the portion of the reported cost savings to affiliated parties which was not due to market-based savings. See the Preliminary Results Calculation Memo for further details.

We compared the adjusted weighted-average COP figures for the POR to home market sales of the foreign like product, as required by section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales were made at prices below the COP. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether such sales were made: (1) In substantial quantities within an extended period of time, and (2) at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP (net of selling expenses) to the home market prices, less any applicable movement charges, rebates, discounts, and direct and indirect selling expenses.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of the respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where twenty percent or more of the respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales where such sales were found to be made at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time (in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act).

The results of our cost tests for Cinsa and ENASA indicated for certain home market models, less than twenty percent of the sales of the model were at prices below COP. We therefore retained all sales of these models in our analysis and used them as the basis for determining normal value. Our cost tests also indicated that for certain other home market models, more than twenty percent of home market sales within an extended period of time were at prices below COP and would not permit the full recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we therefore excluded the below-cost sales of these models from our analysis and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining normal value.

For both respondents, we calculated normal value based on the value-added tax-exclusive, home market gross unit price and deducted, where appropriate, inland freight and rebates in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.401. We made a deduction for credit expenses, where appropriate, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We also deducted commissions and the lesser of comparison-market indirect selling expenses and the indirect selling expenses deducted from CEP (the CEP offset) pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412(f). For those comparison-market sales for which the payment date was not reported, we calculated credit based on the average number of days between shipment and payment using the sales for which payment information was reported. For those sales for which no inventory carrying costs were reported, we calculated inventory carrying costs based on information contained in the questionnaire response. We made no adjustment for packing expenses, because respondents reported that these expenses are identical in both markets, and the databases did not contain values in the packing data fields for all sales. We made adjustments to normal value, where appropriate, for differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. See the Preliminary Results Calculation Memo for further details of our calculations.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine normal value based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the export price or CEP transaction. The normal value LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when normal value is based on constructed value, that of the sales from which we derive selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit. For export price, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from the exporter to an unaffiliated U.S. customer. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to an affiliated importer, after the deductions required under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001). To determine whether normal value sales are at a LOT different from export price or CEP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which normal value is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the normal value level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level, and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels between normal value and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust normal value under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).

In this review, Cinsa and ENASA had only CEP sales. They reported that comparison-market and CEP sales were made at different LOTs, and that comparison-market sales were made at a more advanced LOT than were sales to CIC in the United States. The respondents requested that the Department make a CEP offset in lieu of a LOT adjustment, as they were unable to quantify the price differences related to sales made at the different LOTs.

Cinsa and ENASA reported four channels of distribution in the home market: (1) Direct sales to customers from the Saltillo plant; (2) sales shipped from their Mexico City warehouse; (3) sales to Pacific zone customers; and (4) sales shipped to supermarkets and discount stores. In analyzing the data in the home market sales listing by distribution channel and sales function, we found that the four home market channels are all handled by Cinsa's and ENASA's affiliated distributer, COMESCO, and did not differ significantly with respect to selling functions. Similar services were offered to all or some portion of customers in each channel. Based on this analysis, we find that the four home market channels of distribution comprise a single LOT.

All CEP sales were made through the same distribution channel: by the Mexican exporter to CIC, the U.S. affiliated reseller, which then sold the merchandise directly to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. The same selling functions/services were provided by Cinsa and ENASA to all customers in this distribution channel. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that all CEP sales constitute a single LOT in the United States.

To determine whether sales in the comparison market were at a different LOT than CEP sales, we examined the selling functions performed at the CEP level, after making the appropriate deductions under section 772(d) of the Act, and compared those selling functions to the selling functions performed in the home-market LOT.

In the comparison market, Cinsa and ENASA sold subject merchandise to their affiliated distributor, COMESCO, which then resold the POS product to unaffiliated customers. In the United States, Cinsa sold its and ENASA's subject merchandise to its affiliate, CIC, which then resold the subject merchandise directly to unaffiliated purchasers. Therefore, we compared the selling functions and the level of activity associated with Cinsa's sales to CIC with the sales by COMESCO to unaffiliated purchasers in the Mexican market. We found that several of the functions performed in making the starting-price sale in the comparison market either were not performed in connection with sales to CIC ( e.g., market research, order solicitation, after sale services/warranties, and advertising), or were only performed to a small degree in connection with sales to CIC ( e.g., inventory maintenance), thus supporting respondents' contention that different LOTs exist between comparison-market and CEP sales.

These differences also support the respondents' assertion that the comparison-market merchandise is sold at a more advanced LOT ( see the Preamble to the Department's Regulations, 62 FR 27295, 27371 (May 19, 1997) (“Each more remote level must be characterized by an additional layer of selling activities, amounting in the aggregate to a substantially different selling function.”) Furthermore, many of the same selling functions that are performed at the comparison-market LOT are performed, not at the CEP LOT, but by the respondents' U.S. affiliate. Based on this analysis, we preliminarily conclude that the comparison-market and CEP channels of distribution are sufficiently different to determine that two different LOTs exist, and that the comparison-market sales are made at a more advanced LOT than are the CEP sales.

Because there is only one LOT in the home market, it is not possible to determine if there is a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which normal value is based and comparison market ( i.e., home market) sales at the LOT of the export transaction. Accordingly, because the data available do not form an appropriate basis for making a level of trade adjustment, but the level of trade in the home market is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the level of trade of the CEP, we have made a CEP offset to normal value in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. The CEP offset is calculated as the lesser of:

1. The indirect selling expenses on the comparison-market sale, or

2. The indirect selling expenses deducted from the starting price in calculating CEP.

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

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the weighted-average dumping margins for the period December 1, 1999, through November 30, 2000, are as follows:

We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If requested, a hearing will be held 44 days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter.

Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested parties and rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the respective case briefs, may be submitted not later than 30 days and 37 days, respectively, from the date of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.309(c) and (d). Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties are also encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited.

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

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

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service upon completion of this review. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties. We will instruct the Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis. For assessment purposes, we intend to calculate importer-specific assessment rates for the subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales examined and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales examined.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be those established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 29.52 percent, the “All Others” rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

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

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

Under Executive Order 11625, MBDA provides business development services to persons who are members of groups determined by the U. S. Department of Commerce to be socially or economically disadvantaged, and to business concerns owned and controlled by such individuals. The MBOC program is one vehicle MBDA utilizes to accomplish this mission. The MBOC program creates conditions in the public and private sector marketplace that foster significant minority business and economic success. The MBOC is a locally based organization dedicated to the planning, coordination, creation, and delivery of resources to facilitate effective participation of the minority business sector in the community and globally. The principal functions of the MBOC are to serve as a focal point for the development of mutually beneficial approaches to insure minority business participation in the community; to identify and facilitate economic and business opportunities; to identify barriers to economic growth and to develop strategies for overcoming these barriers; to serve as community advocate for minority businesses; and to serve as a mentoring entity for ready to grow businesses.

To ensure that the program objectives stated above are carried out more effectively, MBDA shall revise the work requirements to require the use of state-of-the-art technology to verify and validate performance and to collect and disseminate information for and about minority business and markets. MBDA intends to implement the new work requirements for the MBOC Program through competition to be published in the Federal Register and on MBDA's website (www.mbda.gov) in the summer/fall of 2002. The anticipated start date for new awards is January 1, 2003. Consequently, there will be no new competition for MBOCs during 2001.

As part of the transition, MBDA intends to provide an additional year of funding, on a non-competitive basis, to current, eligible MBOCs that will be completing the third year of operation on 12/31/01. Such additional funding will be at the total discretion of MBDA, based on such factors as the MBOC's performance, the availability of funds and Agency priorities. Normally MBOCs would undergo a new competition after three years of operation. The additional year of funding, as announced in this Notice, will allow MBDA the necessary time to develop its revised program and to apply the new work requirements to all MBOCs effective 1/1/03. Therefore, MBDA's prior Federal Register notice (63 FR 47480) is hereby amended to allow for the extension of the total project award period of cooperative agreements under the MBOC program to four (4) years. The following MBOCs are affected by this notice and will be eligible for an additional year (1/1/2002 through 12/31/2002) of funding on a non-competitive basis: Puerto Rico MBOC (Economic Bank of Puerto Rico); Brooklyn/Queens MBOC (Brooklyn Economic Development Corporation); Los Angeles MBOC (City of Los Angeles); South Texas MBOC (Rio Grande Valley Empowerment Zone Corporation); Kansas City MBOC (The City of Kansas City, Missouri); Birmingham MBOC (City of Birmingham, Alabama); and Austin MBOC (Texas Association of Minority Business Enterprises).

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 notice.

This notice was determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.

The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public participation, and a delay in effective date, are inapplicable because this notice is a matter relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2),

Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunities for public comment are not required to be given for this notice by 5 U.S.C. 553 or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 are inapplicable.

This notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

The current limits for certain categories are being adjusted for swing, special shift, and 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 65 FR 82328, published on December 28, 2000). Also see 65 FR 69910, published on November 21, 2000.

The current limits for certain categories are being adjusted for special shift.

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 65 FR 82328, published on December 28, 2000). Also see 65 FR 77594, published on December 12, 2000.

In a notice published on December 31, 1998, the Government of the United States announced that it had requested consultations with the Government of Pakistan on combed cotton yarn in Category 301, produced or manufactured in Pakistan. (63 FR 72288) As no solution was agreed upon in consultations, the Government of the United States limited imports in this category for the twelve-month period beginning on March 17, 1999 and extending through March 16, 2000 at a level of 5,262,665 kilograms. (March 12, 1999 64 FR 12290) This limit was extended for a second year on March 14, 2000 (65 FR 14544) and for a third year on February 28, 2001 (66 FR 13307). Pakistan challenged this limit under the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement process and, on October 8, 2001, the WTO Appellate Body affirmed a dispute settlement panel decision that certain aspects of the U.S. determination to impose the limit were not consistent with the WTO Agreement on Textiles and Clothing. In the letter published below, the Chairman of CITA directs the Commissioner of Customs to remove the limit on combed cotton yarn in Category 301, produced or manufactured in Pakistan.

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 65 FR 82328, published on December 28, 2000). Also see 65 FR 66972, published on November 8, 2000.

Currently, the Corporation is soliciting comments concerning the proposed applications entitled:

a. The AmeriCorps*VISTA Application Instructions;

b. The National Senior Service Corps Application Instructions;

c. The AmeriCorps*National, State and Indian Tribes and U.S. Territories Application Instructions;

d. The AmeriCorps Promise Fellows Application Instructions;

e. The AmeriCorps Education Awards Programs Application Instructions; and

f. The Innovative and Demonstration Programs Application Instructions.

The Corporation is particularly interested in comments which:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Corporation, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• 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;

• Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• 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 submissions of responses.

The Corporation publishes application guidelines and notices of funding availability that include information about the funding and requirements. The application instructions provide the information, instructions and forms that potential applicants need to complete an application to the Corporation for funding.

The Corporation does not currently have the capability to accept applications submitted electronically. However, we are in the process of building an electronic grants system that will meet the requirements of Pub. L. 106-107. As part of the development process, the Corporation is redesigning its application forms and instructions to reflect the electronic system design so that current grantees and applicants can become familiar with the new format.

The Corporation seeks public comment on the forms, the instructions for the forms, and the instructions for the narrative portion of these application instructions.

Type of Review: Revised collection.

Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

Title: AmeriCorps*VISTA Project Application Instructions.

OMB Number: 3045-0038.

Agency Number: None.

Affected Public: Eligible public, private, and faith-based nonprofit organizations.

Total Respondents: 2,200.

Frequency: Once per year.

Average Time Per Response: 15 hours.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 33,000 hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

The Corporation seeks public comment on the forms, the instructions for the forms, and the instructions for the narrative portion of these application instructions.

Type of Review: Revised collection.

Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

Title: National Senior Service Corps Application Instructions.

OMB Number: 3045-0035.

Agency Number: None.

Affected Public: Eligible applicants to the Corporation for funding.

Total Respondents: 1,513.

Frequency: Annually.

Average Time Per Response: 13.2 hours.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 20,027 hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): $6,497.

The Corporation seeks public comment on the forms, the instructions for the forms, and the instructions for the narrative portion of these application instructions.

Type of Review: Revised collection.

Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

Title: AmeriCorps*National, State, Indian Tribes and U.S. Territories Application Instructions.

OMB Number: 3045-0047.

Agency Number: None.

Affected Public: Eligible applicants to the Corporation for funding.

Total Respondents: 2,000.

Frequency: Once per year.

Average Time Per Response: Ten (10) hours.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 20,000 hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

The Corporation seeks public comment on the forms, the instructions for the forms, and the instructions for the narrative portion of these application instructions.

Type of Review: Revised collection.

Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

Title: AmeriCorps Promise Fellows Application Instructions.

OMB Number: 3045-0073.

Agency Number: None.

Affected Public: Eligible applicants to the Corporation for funding.

Total Respondents: 90.

Frequency: Once per year.

Average Time Per Response: 25 hours.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 2,250 hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

The Corporation seeks public comment on the forms, the instructions for the forms, and the instructions for the narrative portion of these application instructions.

Type of Review: Revised collection.

Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

Title: AmeriCorps Education Awards Program Application Instructions.

OMB Number: 3045-0065.

Agency Number: None.

Affected Public: Eligible applicants to the Corporation for funding.

Total Respondents: 200.

Frequency: Once per year.

Average Time Per Response: Eight (8) hours.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1,600 hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

The Corporation seeks public comment on the forms, the instructions for the forms, and the instructions for the narrative portion of these application instructions.

Type of Review: New collection.

Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

Title: Innovative and Demonstration Application Instructions.

OMB Number: None.

Agency Number: None.

Affected Public: Eligible applicants to the Corporation for funding.

Total Respondents: 200.

Frequency: Once per year.

Average Time Per Response: 20 hours.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 4,000 hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

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

Respondents are private industry and federal users of DSS products and services and who have direct contact with DSS personnel. The new DSS form records customer perceptions of the level of the quality, usefulness and professionalism of the goods and services delivered. The information, which will be collected electronically, will be used for agency and program level planning, programming and budgeting decisions as well as to comply with DoD's Defense Management Counsel, GPRA, and GAO requirements. If the information is not collected, DSS will be missing vital information necessary to plan, program and respond to customer's and DoD's needs well.

Section 4314(c)(1) through (5) of Title 5, U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations, one or more Senior Executive Service performance review boards. The boards shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of senior executives' performance by supervisors and make recommendations to the appointing authority or rating official relative to the performance of these executives.

The members of the Performance Review Board for the US NATO Field Element (Army) are:

1. Mr. Al Volkman, Director, OUSD/AT&L Intl Programs, Office of the Secretary of Defense.

2. Mr. Leo Michel, Director, NATO Policy, Office of the Secretary of Defense.

3. Mr. Steve Austin, OUSD ICAT&L PA, Office of the Secretary of Defense.

4. Mr. Jeffrey Starr, OSD/PI, Office of the Secretary of Defense.

5. Mr. Peter Verga, (alternate) Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Integration, Office of the Secretary of Defense.

The National Board of the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education is established under Title VII, Part B, section 742 of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 (20 U.S.C. 1138a). The National Board of the Fund is authorized to recommend to the Director of the Fund and the Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education priorities for funding and procedures for grant awards.

On Friday, November 16, 2001, from 1:30 p.m. to 4 p.m. the Board will meet in open session. The proposed agenda for the open portion of the meeting will include discussions of the Fund's programs and special initiatives.

On Friday, November 16, 2001, from 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. the meeting will be closed to the public for the purpose of discussing personnel matters associated with the work of the Board. This portion of the meeting will be closed under the authority of section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C.A. Appendix 2) and under exemptions (2) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act (Public Law 94-409), 5 U.S.C. 552b (c)(2) and (6). The review and discussion of Board personnel matters will relate solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency, and may disclose information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy if conducted in open session.

The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. An individual with a disability who will need an auxiliary aid or service to participate in the meeting ( e.g., interpreting service, assistive listening device or materials in an alternate format) should notify the contact person listed in this notice at least two weeks before the scheduled meeting date. Although the Department will attempt to meet a request received after that date, the requested auxiliary aid or service may not be available because of insufficient time to arrange it.

Records are kept of all Board proceedings, and are available for public inspection at the office of the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, 8th Floor, 1990 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-8544 from the hours of 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Title: Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Gasoline Volatility; (40 CFR 80.27), EPA ICR Number 1367.06, OMB Control Number 2060-0178, expiring December 31, 2001. This is a request for an extension of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: Gasoline volatility, as measured by Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) in pounds per square inch (psi), is controlled in the spring and summer in order to minimize evaporative carbon hydrocarbon emissions from motor vehicles. RVP ranges generally from about 7 psi to 9 psi, depending on location. The addition of ethanol to gasoline increases the RVP by about 1 psi. Gasoline that contains at least 9 volume percent ethanol is subject to a standard that is 1 psi greater. As an aid to industry compliance and EPA enforcement, the product transfer document (PTD), that accompanies a shipment of gasoline containing ethanol, is required by regulation to contain a legible and conspicuous statement that the gasoline contains ethanol and the percentage concentration of ethanol. This is intended to deter the mixing within the distribution system, particularly in retail storage tanks, of gasoline which contains ethanol with gasoline which does not contain ethanol. Such mixing would likely result in a gasoline with an ethanol concentration of less than 9 volume percent but with an RVP above the standard. Parties wishing a testing exemption must submit certain information to EPA. EPA estimates that 3,000,000 PTDs are generated annually for gasoline blended with ethanol. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. The Federal Register document required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on July 3, 2001 (66 FR 35239). No comments were received.

Burden Statement : The annual public reporting and record keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 seconds per response. Burden means the total time, effort or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities : Refiners, Blenders, and Importers of gasoline blended with ethanol.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,000.

Frequency of Response: Daily.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 4,178 hours.

Estimated Total Annualized Capital, O&M Cost Burden: $0.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the addresses listed above. Please refer to EPA ICR Number 1367.06 and OMB Control Number 2060-0178 in any correspondence.

Title : Request for Applications for Critical Use Exemptions from the Phaseout of Methyl Bromide (EPA ICR No. 2031.01). This is a new collection.

Abstract : With this Information Collection Request (ICR), EPA's Office of Air and Radiation and Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances are preparing to request applications for critical use exemptions from the phaseout of methyl bromide under the Clean Air Act (CAA). This ICR is one piece of the ongoing development of the voluntary application process. Entities applying for these exemptions will be asked to submit to EPA applications with necessary data to evaluate the need for a critical use exemption. Necessary data will include: information on past methyl bromide use; consideration of alternatives, including steps taken to find and implement alternatives, steps planned to find and implement alternatives, data relating to the technical feasibility of currently available alternatives, and data relating to the economic feasibility of currently available alternatives; and, additional information. This information collection is conducted to meet U.S. obligations under Article 2H of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Protocol) and to implement section 604(d)(6) of the CAA, added by section 764 of the 1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Pub. L. No. 105-277; October 21, 1998).

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. The Federal Register document required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on 6/27/01 (66FR124); no public comments were received.

Burden Statement : The annual public reporting and record keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 108 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities : Respondents may include growers who use methyl bromide, applicators of methyl bromide, fumigators who use methyl bromide, companies associated with the storage of commodities that are fumigated with methyl bromide, and organizations/consortiums/associations of methyl bromide users.

Estimated Number of Respondents : 495 (largely composed of growers groups representing 50-100 individual growers).

Frequency of Response: Annual.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 229,050 hours.

Estimated Total Annualized Capital, O&M Cost Burden: $604,071.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the addresses listed above. Please refer to EPA ICR No. 2031.01 in any correspondence.

Title: NSPS subpart VVV, Polymeric Coating of Supporting Substrates Facilities, (OMB Control No. 2060-0181; EPA ICR No. 1284.06), expiring 12/31/2001. This is a request for extension of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: All data in this ICR that is recorded and reported is required by 40 CFR part 60 subpart VVV. The monitoring and record keeping requirements include: maintain records of startups, shutdowns, malfunctions, periods where the continuous monitoring system is inoperative (60.7(b)), and of all measurements including performance test measurements, operating parameters of monitoring device results for catalytic or thermal incinerator, carbon adsorption system, condensation system, vapor capture system and/or total enclosure (60.744(c-h)); and monitor actual 12-month volatile organic compounds (VOC) use and make semi-annual estimate of projected VOC use, if affected facility uses less than 95 Mg/year of VOC or is subject to provisions specified in 60.742(c)(3) and other information required by this part recorded in a permanent file suitable for inspection. The file shall be retained for at least two years.

Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated. Performance test reports are used by the Agency to discern a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standard, and note the operating conditions specified above under which compliance was achieved. Data obtained during periodic visits by Agency personnel from records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for internal Agency use in compliance and enforcement programs. The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.

The required information consisting of emissions data and other information have been determined not to be private. However, any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. The Federal Register document required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on September 15, 2000, (65 FR 5955). No comments were received.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and record keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 83 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Owners/operators of Polymeric Coating plants.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 56.

Frequency of Response: Annual and semiannual when a source has excess emissions.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 14,366 hours.

Estimated Total Annualized Capital, O&M Cost Burden: $563,300.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the addresses listed above. Please refer to EPA ICR No. 1284.06 and OMB Control No. 2060-0181 in any correspondence.

Source Compliance and State Action Reporting; EPA ICR Number 0107.07; OMB Number 2060-0096; expiration date December 31, 2001.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are those State, District, Local, and Commonwealth governments that make air compliance information available to EPA on a quarterly basis via input to the AIRS Facility Subsystem (AFS) of the Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS).

Abstract: Source Compliance and State Action Reporting is an activity whereby State, District, Local, and Commonwealth governments (hereafter referred to as “States/locals” or “State and local agencies”) make air compliance information available to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) on a quarterly basis via input to the AIRS Facility Subsystem (AFS) of the Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS). The information provided to EPA includes compliance activities and determinations, and enforcement activities. EPA uses this information to assess progress toward meeting emission requirements developed under the authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) to protect and maintain the atmospheric environment and the public health. The EPA and many of the State and local agencies access the data in AFS to assist them in the management of their air pollution control programs. Much of this collection activity is authorized and required in the following subsections of regulations implementing the Clean Air Act under “Subpart Q—Reports” in 40 CFR 51: sections 51.323(c)(1), 51.323(c)(2), 51.324 (a) and (b), and 51.327. Some of the activity also is authorized by 40 CFR 70.4(j)(1), which addresses submittal of information to EPA by State and local agencies, and 40 CFR 70.10(c)(1)(iii), which addresses EPA oversight of State and local agencies' compliance and enforcement efforts for major sources under Title V operating permit programs. Much of the information also is necessary for EPA to provide adequate oversight for other Federal programs delegated to States, such as the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) in 40 CFR Part 60, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) in 40 CFR Part 61 and Part 63, and New Source Review (NSR) permitting regulations in 40 CFR Part 51 and Part 52. The information also relates to the State Implementation Plan recordkeeping and reporting provisions in 40 CFR 51.116. Finally, the information is necessary for EPA to fulfill its oversight responsibilities to ensure that State Implementation Plans (SIPs) fulfill the testing, enforcement, and inspection requirements of 40 CFR 51.212, on an ongoing basis.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. The Federal Register document required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on February 1, 2001, (66 FR 8588). EPA received ten comments.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and record keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 240 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: State, Local, District and Commonwealth environmental agencies.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 89.

Frequency of Response: Quarterly.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 85,496 hours.

Estimated Total Annualized Capital, O&M Cost Burden: $0.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the addresses listed above. Please refer to EPA ICR No. 0107.07 and OMB Control No. 2060-0096 in any correspondence.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0995.

Title: Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission's Rules—Competitive Bidding Procedures, 47 CFR Section 1.2105(c)(1) of the Commission's Rules, Anti-Collusion.

Form Numbers: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local or Tribal Governments.

Number of Respondents: 10.

Estimated Time per Response: 5 hours (2 hours w/in-house staff + 1.5 hours w/in-house counsel + 1.5 hours to prepare and file w/FCC).

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirements.

Total Annual Burden: 50 hours.

Total Annual Costs: $6,000.

Needs and Uses: The information requirement will enable the Commission to ensure that no bidder gains an unfair advantage over other bidders in its spectrum auctions and thus enhance the competitiveness and fairness of its auctions. The information collected will be reviewed and, if warranted, referred to the Commission's Enforcement Bureau for possible investigation and administrative action. The Commission may also refer allegations of anticompetitive auction conduct to the Department of Justice for investigation.

OMB Approval Number: 3060-0850.

Title: Quick-Form Application for Authorization in the Ship, Aircraft, Amateur, Restricted and Commercial Operator, and General Mobile Radio Services.

Form No.: FCC 605.

Type of Review: Revision to an Existing Collection.

Respondents: Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents: 170,250.

Estimated Time Per Response: .44 hours.

Total Annual Burden: 74,910 hours.

Total Respondent Cost: $2,468,650.

Needs and Uses: FCC 605 application is a consolidated application form for Ship, Aircraft, Amateur, Restricted and Commercial Radio Operators, and General Mobile Radio Services and is used to collect licensing data for the Universal Licensing System.

The form is being revised to create an additional schedule to collect Exemptions for Ship Station Requirements and to clarify existing instructions for the general public.

The data collected on this form includes the applicant's Taxpayer Identification Number, and Date of Birth for Amateur and Commercial Operator licensing, however, this information will be redacted from public view.

There is a change to the estimated average burden and the number of respondents due to additional filings for Exemptions since the last submission.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0548.

Title: Section 76.1708, Principal Headend; Sections 76.1709 and 76.1620, Availability of Signals; Section 76.56, Signal Carriage Obligations; and Section 76.1614, Identification of Must-Carry Signals.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 10,400.

Estimated Time per Response: 30 mins. to 1 hr.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping; On occasion reporting requirements; Third party disclosure.

Total Annual Burden: 62,400 hrs.

Total Annual Costs: None.

Needs and Uses: FCC rules under 47 CFR sections 76.56, 76.1614, 76.1620, 76.1708, and 76.1709, require, among other things, that to fulfill the provisions of the signal carriage and must-carry statutes, each cable television system operator must maintain a public inspection file containing a list of broadcast television stations carried by its system and the designation and location of the principal headend; provide a list of must-carry signals within 30 days of receipt of a written request; and notify subscribers who were authorized to install additional receiver connections themselves of the broadcast stations that cannot be received without a converter box and how to obtain the additional connections, charges to buy or lease the converter box, and the installation instructions.

FCC and local public officials use these records when they examine the local cable television system's compliance with applicable rules and regulations.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0419.

Title: Section 76.94, Notification; Section 76.95, Exceptions; Section 76.105, Notifications; Section 76.106, Exceptions; Section 76.107, Exclusivity contracts; Section 76.109, Requirements for invocation of protection; and Section 76.1609, Non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 5,555.

Estimated Time per Response: 30 mins. to 2 hrs.

Frequency of Response: One time requirement; Third party disclosure.

Total Annual Burden: 182,552 hrs.

Total Annual Costs: None.

Needs and Uses: FCC Rules under 47 CFR sections 76.94, 76.95, 76.105, 76.106, 76.107, 76.109, and 76.1609, require, among other things, that television stations, broadcast television stations, and program distributors notify cable system operators of non-duplication protection and exclusivity rights being sought within prescribed limitations and terms of contractual agreements. The various notification and disclosure requirements protect broadcasters that purchase the exclusive rights to transmit syndicated programming in their recognized markets.

The Council was established by the Federal Communications Commission to bring together leaders of the telecommunications industry and telecommunications experts from academic, consumer and other organizations to identify and recommend measures that would enhance network reliability.

At the January 4, 2002 meeting, the Council will receive reports on, and discuss, the conclusions of its focus groups: Network Reliability, Wireline Spectrum Management and Integrity, and Interoperability. The Council may also discuss such other matters as come before it at this meeting. Members of the general public may attend the meeting. The Federal Communications Commission will attempt to accommodate as many people as possible. Admittance, however, will be limited to the seating available. The public may submit written comments before the meeting to Kent Nilsson, the Commission's Designated Federal Officer for the Network Reliability and Interoperability Council, by email (KNILSSON@FCC.GOV) or U.S. mail (7-B452, 445 12th St. SW., Washington, DC 20554). Real Audio and streaming video access to the meeting will be available at http://www.fcc.gov/.

Continuously accelerating technological changes in telecommunications design, manufacturing, and deployment require that the Commission be promptly informed of those changes to fulfill its statutory mandate effectively. The Council was established by the Federal Communications Commission to provide a means by which a diverse array of recognized technical experts from a variety of interests such as industry, academia, government, citizens groups, etc., can provide advice to the FCC on innovation in the communications industry. The purpose of, and agenda for, the third meeting under the Council's new charter will be to organize the Council's efforts to fulfill its responsibilities under the new charter and consider such questions as the Commission may put before it. Members of the general public may attend the meeting. The Federal Communications Commission will attempt to accommodate as many persons as possible. Admittance, however, will be limited to the seating available. Unless so requested by the Council's Chair, there will be no public oral participation, but the public may submit written comments to Julius Knapp, the Council's Designated Federal Officer, before the meeting. Julius Knapp's e-mail address is jknapp@fcc.gov. His U.S. mail address is Julius Knapp, Deputy Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.

All principal campaign committees of candidates only participating in the Oklahoma Special Primary shall file a 12-day Pre-Primary Report on November 29, 2001. (See chart below for the closing date for the report.)

If only two elections are held, all principal campaign committees of candidates participating in the Oklahoma Special Primary and Special General Elections shall file a 12-day Pre-Primary Report on November 29, 2001; a Pre-General Report on December 27, 2001; and a Post-General Report on February 7, 2002. (See chart below for the closing date for each report.)

If three elections are held, all principal campaign committees of candidates only participating in the Oklahoma Special Primary and Special Runoff Elections shall file a 12-day Pre-Primary Report on November 29, 2001; and a Pre-Runoff Report on December 27, 2001. (See chart below for the closing date for each report.)

All principal campaign committees of candidates participating in the Oklahoma Special Primary, Special Runoff and Special General Elections shall file a 12-day Pre-Primary Report on November 29, 2001; a Pre-Runoff Report on December 27, 2001; a Pre-General Report on January 31, 2002; and a Post-General Report on March 14, 2002. (See chart below for the closing date for each report.)

Political committees that file on a semiannual basis during 2001 are subject to special election reporting if they make previously undisclosed contributions or expenditures in connection with the Oklahoma Special Primary, Runoff or General Elections by the close of books for the applicable report(s). Consult the chart below that corresponds to the committee's situation for close of books and filing date information.

Since disclosing financial activity from two different calendar years on one report would conflict with the calendar year aggregation requirements set forth in the Commission's disclosure regulations, unauthorized committees will be required to file certain special election reports on two separate forms. If three elections are held (Primary, Runoff and General), unauthorized committees that are required to file the Pre-General Report must file this report on two separate forms: one covering 2001 activity, labeled as the Year-End Report; and the other covering only 2002 activity, labeled as the Pre-General Report. Both forms must be filed by January 31, 2002. On the other hand, if a Runoff Election is not necessary and only two elections are held (Primary and General), unauthorized committees that are required to file the Post-General Report must file this report on two separate forms: one covering 2001 activity, labeled as the Year-End Report; and the other covering only 2002 activity, labeled as the Post-General Report. Both forms must be filed by February 7, 2002.

Committees filing monthly that support candidates in the Oklahoma Special Primary, Special Runoff or Special General Elections should continue to file according to the monthly reporting schedule.

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated October 25, 2001, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

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

I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of Oklahoma to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster: Washita County for Public Assistance.

All counties within the State of Oklahoma are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Oklahoma is hereby amended to include Individual Assistance to 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 October 25, 2001:

This meeting will be open to the public with limited seating available on a first-come, first-served basis. See the Response and Security Procedures below.

Committee members and members of the general public who plan to attend the meeting must contact Cindy Wivell, on or before Tuesday, December 4, 2001, at the United States Fire Administration, 16825 South Seton Avenue, Emmitsburg, Maryland 21727, or by telephone at (301) 447-1083, or via e-mail at Cindy.Wivell@fema.gov. This is necessary to be able to create and provide a current roster of visitors to NETC per security directives.

Increased security controls and surveillance are in effect at the National Emergency Training Center. All visitors must have a valid picture identification card and their vehicles will be subject to search by security personnel. All visitors will be issued a visitor pass which must be worn at all times while on campus. Please allow adequate time before the meeting to complete the security process.

Minutes of the meeting will be prepared and will be available upon request 30 days after they have been approved at the next FICEMS Committee Meeting on March 7, 2002. The minutes will also be posted on the United States Fire Administration website at http://www.usfa.fema.gov/ems/ficems.htm within 30 days after their approval at the March 7, 2002, FICEMS Committee Meeting.

You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information about the meeting.

FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for reviewers entitled “Integration of Study Results to Assess Concerns About Human Reproductive and Developmental Toxicities.” This draft guidance describes a process for estimating human reproductive and development risks as a result of drug exposure. The integration process is intended to estimate the likelihood a drug will increase the risk of adverse human reproductive or developmental effects. The process is based on the evaluation of a complete set of reproductive and general toxicology studies conducted in animals, pharmacokinetics, and the absorption and distribution of metabolic elimination (ADME) studies conducted in animals and humans. The evaluation also compares animal and human drug-induced pharmacodynamic responses, drug metabolism and disposition, drug-induced pharmacologic and toxic effects, and drug exposures in animal studies versus those at the highest recommended dose in humans.

An earlier version of this integration tool was presented in a public meeting announced on May 4, 1999 (64 FR 23844), and held on June 24, 1999. The draft integration tool, slides from the presentations at the meeting, and comments received subsequent to the meeting were placed on the FDA Web site and in docket number 99N-2079. This draft guidance incorporates modifications as a result of the public meeting and comments submitted to the public docket.

The type and extent of the available toxicology data may vary depending on the biologic actions of the product, test systems available for studying the compound, and other factors. In some instances, the data may not include all desirable reproductive toxicology, general toxicology, pharmacokinetics, and ADME studies. Such limitations of the available data may preclude use of the integration process (e.g., often the case for biologic products). However, even if the integration process cannot be used, the product should be evaluated to the greatest extent possible in accordance with sound scientific principles and the considerations described in this document.

For purposes of this draft guidance, all reproductive risks are divided into one of two broad categories of toxicity—reproductive and developmental toxicity, which are further subdivided into seven classes of toxicity. The three classes of reproductive toxicity include: Effects on fertility, parturition, and lactation. The four classes of developmental toxicity include: Mortality, dysmorphogenesis (structural alterations), alterations to growth, and functional toxicities. For a given drug, each class of toxicity should ordinarily be assessed individually.

The criteria presented in the draft guidance are derived from a limited sample of pharmaceuticals where the clinical outcomes are reasonably well defined. The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) believes that using specific criteria and benchmark values to assess the potential to increase risk to humans for adverse reproductive and developmental outcomes will result in a more unbiased and uniform evaluation. CDER also believes this approach will help identify specific areas of additional information about a pharmaceutical that would be useful in more fully defining risk and allow specific analysis of areas of disagreement that influence the risk evaluation. CDER is particularly interested in comment on the appropriateness of the values used to define levels of increased risk for products with positive signals for reproductive or developmental toxicity and on experience in applying the outlined evaluation approach using information that may exist in public and commercial domains.

This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the agency's current thinking on “Integration of Study Results to Assess Concerns About Human Reproductive and Developmental Toxicities.” It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

Interested persons may submit to the Dockets Management Branch (address above) written comments on the draft guidance. Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. The draft guidance and received comments are available for public examination in the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm or http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm .

FDA is announcing the availability of a draft document entitled “Guidance for FDA Staff: The Leveraging Handbook, An Agency Resource for Effective Collaborations” dated November 2001. “Leveraging”, as used by FDA, describes formal or informal relationships or agreements with others outside FDA that enhance the agency's ability to meet its public health mission. Leveraged collaborations between FDA and non-FDA partners, such as industry, academia, consumer groups, scientific experts, public health providers, States, and other government agencies, are not new to the agency. For many years, FDA has used collaborations to accomplish a wide variety of tasks related to fulfilling its public health mission. FDA is careful to structure its collaborations so that the agency's regulatory independence, impartiality, and integrity are preserved. Successful collaborations used by FDA and its partners range in size and complexity from simple daylong workshops and training sessions to the creation of cooperatively administered centers that provide critical product-related safety information and expertise, i.e., the National Center for Food Safety and Technology, the Joint Initiative for Food Safety and Nutrition, and the Product Quality Research Institute. Other collaborations involve conducting research to improve the safety, efficacy, purity, or potency of regulated products and convening experts to evaluate emerging public health issues and to recommend actions that should be taken to address the issues.

FDA held two public meetings that were announced in the Federal Register to discuss ways in which FDA could improve and increase collaborations with outside organizations (65 FR 8365, February 18, 2000). The meetings were held on March 23, 2000, at Stanford University, and on April 12, 2000, at Duke University. More than 300 people attended the meetings and more than 25 leveraging proposals were presented to the agency. FDA is currently reviewing the proposals. To review the transcripts of the meetings, you can visit the FDA Dockets Management Branch Web site at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/00n0001/00n0001.htm .

This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA’s good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115; 65 FR 56468, September 19, 2000). This draft guidance document represents the agency's current thinking on the formation and implementation of leveraged collaborations between FDA and outside organizations. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirement of the applicable statutes and regulations.

This draft document is being distributed for comment purposes only and is not intended for implementation at this time. Interested persons may submit to the Dockets Management Branch (address above) written or electronic comments regarding this draft guidance document. Submit written comments to ensure adequate consideration in preparation of the final document by February 11, 2002. Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except individuals may submit one copy. Comments should be identified with the docket number found in the brackets in the heading of this document. A copy of the document and received comments are available for public examination in the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance document at either http://www.fda.gov/oc/leveraging/handbook.html or http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm .