The mission of Veterinary Services (VS) of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is to protect and improve the health, quality, and marketability of domestic animals by preventing, controlling, and/or eliminating animal diseases and monitoring and promoting animal health and productivity.

Brucellosis is a contagious disease that affects animals and humans, caused by bacteria of the genus Brucella. Brucella abortus principally affects bison and cattle. In bison and cattle, brucellosis localizes in the reproductive organs and/or the udder, causing abortion in dams as well as systemic effects in males and females. Female cattle infected with brucellosis also suffer infertility and lowered milk production.

Brucellosis is spread when bacteria are shed in milk, aborted fetuses, afterbirth, or other reproductive tract discharges and are ingested by a susceptible animal. Cattle and bison have a tendency to sniff and lick an aborted fetus, which provides an avenue for the disease to spread if Brucella is present.

Brucellosis has caused devastating losses to farmers in the United States over the last century. It is estimated that the disease has cost the Federal Government, the States, and the livestock industry billions of dollars in direct losses and efforts to eliminate the disease. APHIS has estimated that if efforts to eradicate the disease were stopped, the costs of producing beef and milk would increase by an estimated $80 million annually in less than 10 years.

Brucellosis infection occurs in bison in Yellowstone National Park. Bison roam wild in Yellowstone National Park, and during winter and spring, some migrate outside of the park onto State and private lands. The prevention of the spread of brucellosis from bison to cattle in and around the park is an issue of concern.

VS, in cooperation with other Federal and State agencies, proposes to conduct an 11-week study in the West Yellowstone and Gardiner areas in Montana starting in March 2002 to determine how long a bison fetus remains in the environment as a potential source of Brucella organisms before it deteriorates or is consumed by scavengers. The research on the rate of fetal disappearance is supported in the Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Bison Management Plan for the State of Montana and Yellowstone National Park, dated December 20, 2000. Also, the study will comply with step 1 of the Joint Bison Management Plan within the Record of Decision.

To provide the public with documentation of APHIS' review and analysis of the environmental impacts associated with this study, we have prepared an environmental assessment titled, “Proposed Study for Bison Fetal Disappearance Rate,” dated November 2001. The environmental assessment provides a basis for our conclusion that the potential impacts to the environment of the proposed study are expected to be insignificant.

The environmental assessment may be viewed on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/es/vsdocs.html. You may request paper copies of the environmental assessment from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Please refer to the title of the environmental assessment when requesting copies. The environmental assessment is also available for review in our reading room (the location and hours of the reading room are listed under the heading ADDRESSES at the beginning of this notice).

The environmental assessment has been prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).

The information presented in this notice is included to help the reviewer determine if they are interested in or potentially affected by the proposed land management activities. The information in this notice is summarized. Contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section to obtain additional information about desired future condition, purpose and need, proposed action, design criteria and/or mitigation measures, and maps. The information packet and color maps are also available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/hiawatha.

The project area is approximately 30,600 acres and is located near the town of Trout Lake, Chippewa County, Michigan. Proposed activities within the project area include portions of the following areas: T44N, R4W, Sections 19, 31; T44N, R5W, Sections 2-11, 13-27, 35, 36; T44N, R6W, Sections 1-18, 21-24; T45N, R5W, Sections 8-10, 15-17, 19-22, 27-33; T45N, R6W, Sections 23, 25, 26, 31, 32, 34-36. To meet the purpose and need, this project proposes:

1. To salvage (through clearcut harvest) and regenerate approximately 2,216 acres of mature and overmature jack pine.

2. To harvest (clearcut) and regenerate approximately 289 acres of mature and overmature aspen, balsam fir/aspen/paper birch, and black spruce stands.

3. To harvest (clearcut) and regenerate approximately 119 acres of mature black spruce stands.

4. To harvest some trees (partial removal cuts) on approximately 508 acres in jack pine, aspen, balsam fir/aspen/paper birch, northern hardwoods, black spruce, red pine, white pine, and cedar.

5. To harvest (commercially thin) about 148 acres in northern hardwoods and paper birch.

6. Prepare sites for jack pine regeneration by rollerchopping about 1,400 acres and prescribed burning about 400 acres.

7. To adjust the transportation system by: constructing approximately 1.7 miles of classified roads, 1.5 miles of temporary roads on existing unclassified road corridors and then decommission, and 23.1 miles of temporary roads; changing the classification of approximately 2.8 miles from unclassified to classified; performing road maintenance on approximately 7.8 miles of classified roads, and 2.8 miles unclassified roads changed to classified roads; reconstructing approximately 0.1 mile of classified road; and decommissioning approximately 0.3 miles of classified roads and approximately 3.2 miles of unclassified roads.

8. To prune approximately 40 acres of weevil and blister rust damaged white pine saplings.

9. To adjust the old growth system by removing from the existing system about 348 acres with limited existing old growth conditions or in unfavorable locations and adding to the system about 223 acres with some existing old growth conditions or in more favorable locations.

10. To create wildlife openings on about 9 acres and maintain openings on about 157 acres by removing woody encroachment.

11. To improve fish habitat in Biscuit Creek by adding log bank cover along approximately 750 feet and placing 75 square yards of spawning gravel in the stream.

12. To develop design criteria and/or mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of management activities on resources. Specifically, design projects and/or mitigation measures to control road use; protect threatened, endangered and sensitive species; protect plant habitat; protect wildlife and protect and/or improve scenic integrity; protect heritage resources; provide safe snowmobiling in area of timber harvest; provide good seed source jack pine cones; and protect soil and hydrology.

The Forest Service will consider a range of alternatives. One of these will be the “no action” alternative in which none of the proposed activities will be implemented. Additional alternatives will examine varying levels and locations for the proposed activities to achieve the proposal's purposes in response to the issues identified during public involvement.

The public has had several previous opportunities to comment on these proposed actions. The original Interior Wetlands EA (circa 1997) was included in the NEPA quarterly, scoping letters were sent out, and public meetings were held. The public commented again during the 30-day public comment period (April 1999), and when the EA was appealed. In September 2000, the Forest Service released the Revised Interior Wetlands Project Set EA for another 30-day public comment period. From the public comments received from 1997-2000, preliminary issues that may be addressed in this EIS are as follows:

1. There is too much timber harvest proposed in the area, there is too much clearcutting proposed, and other resources (e.g. wildlife, wetlands, soils, and hydrology) would be negatively impacted.

2. There is too much road construction to accommodate the timber harvest, there are too many temporary roads proposed, and other resources (e.g. wildlife, wetlands, soils, and hydrology) would be negatively impacted by the construction and by ineffective closure and obliteration of temporary roads.

3. There is too much focus on providing timber products and not enough focus on restoring the ecosystem to more natural conditions.

The St. Ignace and Sault Ste. Marie District Ranger will decide the following:

1. Whether or not to salvage and harvest timber and if so, the selection and site-specific location of appropriate timber management practices (silvicultural prescription, logging system, fuels treatment, and reforestation); road construction/reconstruction/maintenance/decommissioning necessary to provide access and protect resources; and appropriate mitigation measures.

2. Whether or not to make adjustments to the old growth system.

3. Whether or not to maintain existing wildlife openings and create new ones.

4. Whether or not to modify fish habitat by adding log bank cover and placing spawning gravel.

5. What, if any, specific project monitoring requirements would be needed to ensure mitigation measures are implemented and effective.

The public is encouraged to attend the public meeting at 6:30 pm on December 4, 2001 at the Trout Lake Town Hall. Forest Service officials will be available at that time to present an overview of the purpose and need and proposed action. It is also an opportunity for the public to comment on the project.

Public participation is an important part of the analysis. The public may visit Forest Service officials at any time during the analysis and prior to the decision. Public scoping has been ongoing for the Interior Wetlands project. The Forest Service will be seeking additional information, comments, and assistance from Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as local Native American tribes and other individuals or organizations that may be interested in or affected by the proposed action. This input will be used in preparation of the draft and final EIS. The scoping process will:

Identify potential issues.

Identify issues to be analyzed in depth.

Identify alternatives to the proposed action.

Explore additional alternatives that will be derived from issues recognized during scoping.

Identify potential environmental effects of this project and alternatives ( e.g. direct, indirect, and cumulative effects and connected actions).

The DEIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public review by November 2002. At that time EPA will publish a Notice of Availability of the DEIS in the Federal Register . The comment period on the DEIS will be 45 days from the date the EPA publishes the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register . It is very important that those interested in the management of this area participate at that time.

The final EIS is scheduled to be completed by February 2003. In the final EIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to comments and responses received during the comment period that pertain to the environmental consequences discussed in the DEIS and to applicable laws, regulations, and policies considered in making a decision regarding the proposal.

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

To be most helpful, comments on the DEIS should be as specific as possible and may address the adequacy of the statement or the merit of the alternatives discussed. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

The District Ranger of the St. Ignace and Sault Ste. Marie Ranger Districts, Hiawatha National Forest, 1798 West US-2, St. Ignace, MI 49781, is the Responsible Official. As the Responsible Official, he will decide if the proposed project will be implemented. He will document the decision and reasons for the decision in the Record of Decision.

The business meeting on December 7 begins at 10:00 AM, at the Helm Restaurant in the Sacajawea Center, 1824 Main Street, Lewiston, Idaho. Agenda topics will include FACA overview, Charter overview, Process for project identification/recommendation, election of Chairperson, operating guidelines, and establishment of future meeting schedule.

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

In response to a timely request by Yieh Hsing Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Yieh Hsing), the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain circular welded carbon steel pipe and tubes from Taiwan, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i). See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocations in Part, 66 FR 32934 (June 19, 2001). On July 3, 2001, Yieh Hsing withdrew its request for review. No other interested party requested a review for this period. Yieh Hsing was the sole respondent in the review.

The Department's regulations, at 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), provide that the Department will rescind an administrative review if the party that requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Because the party requesting review withdrew its request for an administrative review within the 90-day deadline, the Department is rescinding this administrative review.

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

This notice is published in accordance with § 351.213(d)(4) of the Department's regulations.

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

For purposes of this order, the products covered are certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness of not less than 4.0 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of this order. Specifically included within the scope of this order are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, and the substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium or niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum.

Steel products to be included in the scope of this order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), are products in which: (i) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (ii) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (iii) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

1.80 percent of manganese, or

2.25 percent of silicon, or

1.00 percent of copper, or

0.50 percent of aluminum, or

1.25 percent of chromium, or

0.30 percent of cobalt, or

0.40 percent of lead, or

1.25 percent of nickel, or

0.30 percent of tungsten, or

0.10 percent of molybdenum, or

0.10 percent of niobium, or

0.15 percent of vanadium, or

0.15 percent of zirconium.

All products that meet the physical and chemical description provided above are within the scope of this order unless otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or specifically excluded from the scope of this order:

• Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including, e.g., ASTM specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, A506).

• Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)/American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) grades of series 2300 and higher.

• Ball bearings steels, as defined in the HTS.

• Tool steels, as defined in the HTS.

• Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTS) or silicon electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent.

• ASTM specifications A710 and A736.

• USS Abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500).

• All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507).

• Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of the HTS.

The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the HTS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon steel flat products covered by this order, including: Vacuum degassed fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under this order is dispositive.

In accordance with section 735(a) of the Act, the Department made its final determination that certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products (hot-rolled steel) from Thailand is being sold at less-than-fair-value (LTFV). See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand, 66 FR 49622 (September 28, 2001). On November 13, 2001, the U.S. International Trade Commission (the ITC) notified the Department of its final determination, pursuant to section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of LTFV imports of subject merchandise from Thailand.

In accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct Customs officers to assess, upon further advice by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the subject merchandise exceeds the U.S. price of the subject merchandise for all relevant entries of hot-rolled steel from Thailand. These antidumping duties will be assessed on all unliquidated entries of hot-rolled steel from Thailand entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after May 3, 2001, the date on which the Department published its notice of preliminary determination for this investigation in the Federal Register . See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand, 66 FR 22199, (May 3, 2001).

On or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register , Customs officers must require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average antidumping duty margins:

The “All Others” rates apply to all exporters in Thailand of subject merchandise not specifically listed.

Article VI.5 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1994) prohibits assessing dumping duties on the portion of the margin attributable to an export subsidy. In this case, the product under investigation is subject to a countervailing duty investigation. See Notice of Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand, 66 FR 50410 (October 3, 2001).

Therefore, for all entries of hot-rolled steel from Thailand entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date on which the order in the companion countervailing duty investigation is published in the Federal Register , we will request for duty deposit purposes that the Customs Service deduct the portion of the margin attributable to export subsidies as determined in the countervailing duty investigation. The antidumping duty cash deposit rates, as adjusted for export subsidies, are as follows:

This notice constitutes the antidumping duty order with respect to hot-rolled steel from Thailand. Interested parties may contact the Department's Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Commerce building, for copies of an updated list of the antidumping duty orders currently in effect.

This order is published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Act.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Tariff Act) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce (the Department's) regulations are to the regulations at 19 CFR part 351 (2000).

For purposes of this order, the products covered are certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness of not less than 4.0 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of this order. Specifically included within the scope of this order are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, and the substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium or niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum.

Steel products to be included in the scope of this order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), are products in which: (i) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (ii) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (iii) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

1.80 percent of manganese, or

2.25 percent of silicon, or

1.00 percent of copper, or

0.50 percent of aluminum, or

1.25 percent of chromium, or

0.30 percent of cobalt, or

0.40 percent of lead, or

1.25 percent of nickel, or

0.30 percent of tungsten, or

0.10 percent of molybdenum, or

0.10 percent of niobium, or

0.15 percent of vanadium, or

0.15 percent of zirconium.

All products that meet the physical and chemical description provided above are within the scope of this order unless otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or specifically excluded from the scope of this order:

• Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including, e.g., ASTM specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, A506).

• Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)/American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) grades of series 2300 and higher.

• Ball bearings steels, as defined in the HTS.

• Tool steels, as defined in the HTS.

• Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTS) or silicon electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent.

• ASTM specifications A710 and A736.

• USS Abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500).

• All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507).

• Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of the HTS.

The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the HTS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon steel flat products covered by this order, including: Vacuum degassed fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under this order is dispositive.

In accordance with section 735(a) of the Act, the Department made its final determination that certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products (hot-rolled steel) from the Netherlands is being sold at less-than-fair-value (LTFV). See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Netherlands, 66 FR 50408 (October 3, 2001). On October 24, 2001, the Department issued an amended final determination ( see Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Netherlands, 66 FR 55637, November 2, 2001). On November 13, 2001, the U.S. International Trade Commission (the ITC) notified the Department of its final determination, pursuant to section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of LTFV imports of subject merchandise from the Netherlands.

In accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct Customs officers to assess, upon further advice by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the subject merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise for all relevant entries of hot-rolled steel from the Netherlands. These antidumping duties will be assessed on all unliquidated entries of hot-rolled steel from the Netherlands entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after May 3, 2001, the date on which the Department published its notice of preliminary determination for this investigation in the Federal Register . See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Netherlands, 66 FR 22146, (May 3, 2001).

On or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register , Customs officers must require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average antidumping duty margins as noted below. The “All Others” rates apply to all exporters in the Netherlands of subject merchandise not specifically listed. The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

This notice constitutes the antidumping duty order with respect to hot-rolled steel from the Netherlands. Interested parties may contact the Department's Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Commerce building, for copies of an updated list of the antidumping duty orders currently in effect.

This order is published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Tariff Act.

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

The Department received a timely request, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b) of the Department's regulations, for a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on flanges from India, which has a February anniversary date. ( See Antidumping Duty Order and Amendment to Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR 5994 (February 9, 1994). See also letter to the Secretary of Commerce from law firm of Miller & Chevalier, August 31, 2001, requesting a new shipper review.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b), Metal Forgings certified in its August 31, 2001 submission that it did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the period of the investigation (POI) (July 1, 1992 through December 31, 1992), and that it was not affiliated with any exporter or producer of the subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. Metal Forgings submitted documentation establishing the date on which it first shipped the subject merchandise for export to the United States, the volume shipped, and the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States.

In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act and § 351.214(d) of the Department's regulations, we are initiating a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on flanges from India. This review covers the period January 1, 2001 through July 31, 2001. We have defined the period of review in order to include the reported dates of sale and shipment and the estimated date of entry. We intend to issue the final results of the review no later than 180 days from the date of publication of this notice.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(e), effective on the date of publication of this notice, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for each entry of the subject merchandise exported by Metal Forgings, until the completion of the review.

Interested parties may submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b).

This initiation and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and § 351.214 of the Department's regulations.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), are 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 (2000).

On September 6, 2000, the Department initiated an antidumping duty administrative review for the period of January 4, 2000 through June 30, 2001 (65 FR 58733). The Department published its preliminary results on August 8, 2001 (66 FR 41517).

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act states that if it is not practicable to complete the review within the time specified, the administering authority may extend the 120-day period, following the date of publication of the preliminary determination, to issue its final results by an additional 60 days. Completion of the final results within the 120-day period is not practicable because this review involves certain complex issues, including respondent's request for a constructed export price offset and numerous affiliated entities.

Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time period for issuing the final results of review by 30 days until January 7, 2002.

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

On December 28, 2000, Peer Bearing Company—Changshan (“CPZ”) requested that we conduct a new shipper review. On December 29, 2000, a similar request was made by Yantai Timken Company Limited (“Yantai Timken”). We published the notice of initiation for these new shipper reviews on January 31, 2001 (66 FR 8385) with a period of review (“POR”) covering June 1, 2000 through November 30, 2000 for Yantai Timken and CPZ . On May 9, 2001, the Department expanded CPZ's POR through January 31, 2001. See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach: “Expansion of the Period of Review,” dated May 9, 2001, on file in the Department's Central Records Unit (“CRU”), in room B-099 of the main Commerce building.

On January 26, 2001, we sent out antidumping questionnaires to both Yantai Timken and CPZ. We received responses to these questionnaires from both companies in February and March 2001. We issued and received responses to supplemental questionnaires in April and May 2001.

In a letter dated October 26, 2001, the petitioner submitted comments urging the Department to discontinue the new shipper review of CPZ. Due to the proprietary nature of these comments, we are unable to restate them here.

We have analyzed the petitioner's comments. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(f), the Department may rescind a new shipper review if: (1) There has not been an entry and sale to an unaffiliated customer in the U.S. of subject merchandise, or (2) if a party withdraws its request for review not later than 60 days after the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. CPZ does not meet either of these criteria for discontinuing a new shipper review. Therefore, the Department is not rescinding the new shipper review of CPZ.

Merchandise covered by this order includes tapered roller bearings (“TRBs”) and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”); flange, take up cartridge, and hanger units incorporating tapered roller bearings; and tapered roller housings (except pillow blocks) incorporating tapered rollers, with or without spindles, whether or not for automotive use. This merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) item numbers 8482.20.00, 8482.91.00.50, 8482.99.30, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.80, 8708.99.80.15, and 8708.99.80.80. Although the HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order and this review is dispositive.

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information provided by CPZ and Yantai Timken, using standard verification procedures, including onsite inspection of manufacturers' facilities, the examination of relevant sales and financial records, and selection of original documentation containing relevant information. Our verification results are outlined in the public versions of the verification reports that are available in the Department's CRU. For the verification report of Yantai Timken, see Memorandum to John Brinkmann: “Yantai Timken Company Limited Verification Report,” dated September 26, 2001. For the report of CPZ, see Memorandum to John Brinkmann: “Peer Bearing Company—Changshan Verification Report,” dated October 3, 2001.

The Department has treated the PRC as a nonmarket economy (“NME”) country in all previous antidumping cases. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME shall remain in effect until revoked by the Department. None of the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment in this review. Moreover, parties to this proceeding have not argued that the PRC TRB industry is a market-oriented industry. Therefore, we are treating the PRC as an NME country within the meaning of section 773(c) of the Act.

We allow companies in NME countries to receive separate antidumping duty rates for purposes of assessment and cash deposits when those companies can demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to export activities. To establish whether a company operating in an NME country is sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each exporting entity under the test established in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“ Sparklers ”), as amplified by the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (“Silicon Carbide”). As shown below, CPZ and Yantai Timken meet both the de jure and de facto criteria and are entitled, therefore, to a separate rate. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine to apply a rate separate from the PRC rate to CPZ and Yantai Timken.

The Department considers three factors which support, though do not require, a finding of de jure absence of governmental control. These factors include: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.

During the PORs, both Yantai Timken and CPZ were joint ventures formed under the laws of the PRC and controlled by a board of directors. Yantai Timken was a joint venture majority owned by The Timken Company, with a minority interest held by Yantai Bearing Factory. Yantai Bearing Factory is a state-owned company administered by the Yantai Machinery Bureau, which is under the Yantai municipal government. CPZ is also a joint venture with majority interest held by a U.S. company and minority interest held by a PRC company (that is not a state-owned enterprise).

Information submitted during this review indicates that Yantai Bearing Factory is owned “by all of the people.” In Silicon Carbide (at 22586), we found that the PRC central government had devolved control of state-owned enterprises, i.e., enterprises owned “by all of the people.” As a result, we determined that companies owned “by all of the people” were eligible for individual rates if they met the criteria developed in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide, as described above.

Yantai Timken and CPZ have placed documents on the record that they claim demonstrate the absence of de jure governmental control. Additionally, in prior TRB cases, the Department has analyzed similar PRC laws and regulations, and found that they establish an absence of de jure control.

Yantai Timken's and CPZ's separation from the government is explicitly shown under the provisions of Article 3 of the Sino-Foreign Joint Venture Law of the People's Republic of China which grants companies “the right to do business and conduct business management activities independently.” The business licenses issued to Yantai Timken and CPZ authorize these companies to make domestic and export sales of tapered roller bearings as outlined in their respective business scopes.

Other laws placed on the record in this case—the “Law of the People's Republic of China on Foreign-Capital Enterprises,” effective April 12, 1986 (“ 1986 Law ”); “Regulations of the PRC for Controlling the Registration of Enterprises as Legal Persons,” adopted on May 13, 1988 (“ 1988 Regulations ”); and “Company Law of the PRC,” effective July 1, 1994 (“ 1994 Law ”)—also demonstrate a lack of de jure governmental control. The 1986 Law states that the government will not nationalize or requisition any enterprise with foreign capital allowing companies to facilitate their own business within the laws of the PRC. Chapter X of the 1988 Regulations discusses supervision and control, and allows companies to conduct business operations as legal persons in line with the items of registration and in accordance with company articles of association and contracts. The 1994 Law places responsibility for profits and losses with each company, further demonstrating lack of de jure control.

There is no indication from the company responses that the subject merchandise is listed on any governmental list of export provisions or export licensing. In addition, there are no reported export quotas regarding the subject merchandise. Consistent with Silicon Carbide, we preliminarily determine that there is an absence of de jure governmental control over Yantai Timken and CPZ's export pricing and marketing decisions.

The Department uses four factors to determine de facto absence of government control: (1) Whether each exporter sets its own export prices independently of the government and without the approval of a government authority; (2) whether each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) whether each exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and (4) whether each exporter has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management ( see Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587, and Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589).

The following record evidence, which is contained in CPZ's and Yantai Timken's questionnaire responses and the Department's company-specific verification reports, demonstrates a lack of de facto government control over the export activities of both companies.

Both Yantai Timken and CPZ have asserted that they establish their own export prices. However, in order to pass the subject merchandise through PRC Customs, both companies are required to have a stamp of approval from their local Chamber of Commerce confirming that the company-established price is above a minimum. The authority of any PRC Chamber of Commerce to review prices for minimum values derives from the “Interim Provisions on Implementing Seal upon Price Preview Process for Export Price Control on Certain Key Merchandise.” During verification, each company stated that it was never prevented from exporting subject merchandise due to the level of its selling price. Additionally, according to their responses, neither company coordinated or consulted with other exporters regarding its pricing.

The board of directors of Yantai Timken controls the company and chooses the general manager. Other high-level officials are nominated by the general manager and approved by the board. The general manager and the vice-managers of CPZ are appointed by the company's board of directors. Outside of board approval, the general manager may appoint mid-level management and make daily routine manufacturing and merchandise decisions. Although both companies report the board members and the appointed managers to the PRC government, there is no evidence that any government authority controls the selection process or has rejected senior managers selected.

CPZ's and Yantai Timken's sources of funds are their own respective revenues or bank loans. They have sole control over, and access to, their bank accounts, which are held in CPZ's and Yantai Timken's own names. Furthermore, there are no restrictions on the use of the respondents' revenues or profits, including export earnings.

The general managers of both companies have the right to negotiate and enter into contracts, and may delegate this authority to other employees within the companies. There is no evidence that this authority is subject to any level of governmental approval.

This information supports a preliminary finding that there is an absence of de facto governmental control of the export functions of Yantai Timken and CPZ. Consequently, we preliminarily determine that Yantai Timken and CPZ have met the criteria for the application of separate rates.

For all sales made by CPZ and Yantai Timken to the United States, we used constructed export price (“CEP”) in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold in the United States before or after the date of importation, by or for the account of the producer or exporter of the merchandise, or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to an unaffiliated purchaser, as adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d) of the Act.

We calculated CEP based on the packed, ex-warehouse prices from CPZ's and Yantai Timken's U.S. subsidiaries to unaffiliated customers. We made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price for CEP for international freight, foreign brokerage and handling, foreign inland freight, marine insurance, customs duties, U.S. brokerage, U.S. warehousing, and U.S. inland freight. In accordance with 772(d)(1) of the Act, we made further deductions from the starting price for CEP for the following selling expenses that related to economic activity in the United States: commissions, credit expenses, further manufacturing, repacking costs, and indirect selling expenses (including inventory carrying costs). For CPZ, we adjusted upwards its reported indirect selling expenses. For more information, see Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for CPZ (November 20, 2001). In accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we have deducted from the starting price an amount for profit. For information on how profit was calculated, see “Overhead, SG&A Expenses, and Profit” in the “ Normal Value ” section below.

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine normal value (“NV”) using a factors-of-production (“FOP”) methodology if: (1) the subject merchandise is exported from an NME country, and (2) the Department finds that the available information does not permit the calculation of NV under section 773(a) of the Act. We have no basis to determine that the available information would permit the calculation of NV using PRC prices or costs. Therefore, we calculated NV based on factors data in accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c).

Under the FOP methodology, we are required to value, to the extent possible, the NME producer's inputs in a market economy country that is at a comparable level of economic development and that is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. We chose India as the surrogate on the basis of the criteria set out in 19 CFR 351.408(b). For further discussion of our surrogate selection see Memorandum to John Brinkmann from Jeff May, “Antidumping Duty Investigation of TRBs and Parts, Thereof, Finished and Unfinished from the PRC: Nonmarket Economy Status and Surrogate Country Selection,” dated January 29, 2001; and Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, “Selection of a Surrogate Country and Steel Value Sources” dated November 20, 2001 (“ Steel Values Memo ”).

We used publicly available information on Indian imports and exports to India to value the various factors. Pursuant to the Department's FOP methodology, we valued the respondents' reported FOP by multiplying them by the values described below. For a complete description of the factor values used, see the Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach: “Factors of Production Values Used for the Preliminary Results” (“ FOP Memo ”), dated November 20, 2001, which is on file in the Department's CRU.

1. Steel Inputs. For hot-rolled alloy steel bars used in the production of cups, consistent with Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of 1999-2000 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part , 66 FR 57420 (November 15, 2001) (“ TRBs XIII ”), we used an adjusted weighted-average of Japanese export values to India from the Japanese Harmonized Schedule (“HS”) category 7228.30.900 obtained from Official Japan Ministry of Finance statistics. For a further discussion of selection of steel value sources, see the Steel Values Memo.

As in previous administrative reviews in this proceeding, we eliminated from our calculation steel imports from NME countries and imports from market economy countries that were made in small quantities. We made adjustments to include freight costs incurred using the shorter of the reported distances from either the closest PRC port to the TRBs factory or the domestic supplier to the TRBs factory. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Collated Roofing Nails From the People's Republic of China , 62 FR 51410 (October 1, 1997), and Sigma Corporation v. United States , 117 F. 3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

CPZ states that it manufactured the subject merchandise under review using steel purchased from a market economy producer. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), we generally value steel inputs using the actual price reported for directly imported inputs from a market economy. However, in TRBs XIII , we found a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that certain market economy steel inputs purchased by PRC TRB manufacturers and used to manufacture TRBs were subsidized. Consistent with our treatment of subsidized inputs in TRBs XIII , we have not used the actual prices paid by CPZ for steel which we have continuing reason to believe or suspect is subsidized. Instead, we relied on surrogate values. ( See individual company calculation memoranda for a more detailed company-specific discussion of this issue.)

We valued scrap recovered from the production of cups, using Indian import statistics from Indian HS category 7204.2909.

Because this information is contemporaneous with the current PORs, we made no further adjustments to the steel input data.

2. Labor. 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3) requires the use of a regression-based wage rate. We have used the regression-based wage rate available on Import Administration's internet website at www.ia.ita.doc.gov/wages.

3. Overhead, SG&A Expenses, and Profit. For factory overhead, we used information obtained from the fiscal year 1999-2000 annual reports of five Indian bearing producers. We calculated factory overhead and selling, general and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses as percentages of direct inputs and applied these ratios to each producer's direct input costs. These expenses were calculated exclusive of labor and electricity, but included employer provident funds and welfare expenses not reflected in the Department's regressed wage rate. This is consistent with the methodology we utilized in TRBs XIII. For profit, we totaled the reported profit before taxes for the five Indian bearing producers and divided it by the total calculated cost of production (“COP”) of goods sold. This percentage was applied to each respondent's total COP to derive a company-specific profit value.

4. Packing. We calculated surrogate values for packing materials reported by each company ( e.g. , wooden pallet, plastic bag, steel strip) using import statistics reported in Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India, Vol. II—Imports by Commodity (April 2000 through January 2001). We multiplied these surrogate values by the usage factor reported by each company to calculate packing costs.

5. Electricity. Consistent with Manganese Metal from the People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 66 FR 15076 (March 15, 2001), we calculated our surrogate value for electricity based on a simple average of the 1998/1999 rates for the “industrial” category listed for 19 Indian states or electricity boards. The source of this data was the Energy Data Directory and Yearbook published by Tata Energy Research Institute. We adjusted the electricity value to the PORs using the Reserve Bank of India electricity-specific price index.

6. Foreign Inland Freight. We valued truck freight using an average of November 1999 truck freight rate quotes collected from Indian trucking companies by the Department and used in the Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Bulk Aspirin from the People's Republic of China , 65 FR 116 (January 3, 2000) (“ Bulk Aspirin from the PRC ”). We valued rail freight using two November 1999 rate quotes for domestic bearing quality steel shipments within India that were also used in Bulk Aspirin from the PRC. Because this information is not contemporaneous with the current PORs, we adjusted the freight rate to the PORs using the Indian wholesale price index (“WPI”).

7. Ocean Freight. We calculated a value for ocean freight based on May 2000 rate quotes from Maersk Inc. Because this information is contemporaneous with the current PORs, no further calculations were necessary.

8. Marine Insurance. We calculated a value for marine insurance based on the CIF value of shipped TRBs. This rate was obtained for Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of 1998-1999 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part , 66 FR 1953 (January 10, 2001) through queries made directly to an international marine insurance provider. We adjusted the marine insurance rate to the PORs using the U.S. purchase price index.

9. Brokerage and Handling. We used the public version of a U.S. sales listing reported in the questionnaire response submitted by Meltroll Engineering for Stainless Steel Bar from India; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review , 65 FR 48965 (August 10, 2000). Because this information is not contemporaneous with the current PORs, we adjusted the brokerage and handling rate to the PORs using the Indian WPI.

We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margins exist for the period June 1, 2000 through November 30, 2000 for Yantai Timken and June 1, 2000 through January 1, 2001 for CPZ:

The above deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of these new shipper reviews for all shipments of TRBs from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act.

Interested parties may request a hearing within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs ( see below). Interested parties may submit written arguments in case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the date of filing the case briefs. Parties who submit briefs in these proceedings should provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Copies of case briefs and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3).

The Department will issue the final results of these new shipper reviews within 90 days from the issuance of these preliminary results. The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.

For CEP sales, we divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for each importer/customer. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of new shipper reviews, we will direct the Customs Service to assess the resulting percentage margin against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise on each of that importer's/customer's entries during the review period.

Effective upon publication of the final results of these new shipper reviews for all shipments by the PRC companies named above of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates will be the rates for these firms established in the final results of these reviews, except that, for exporters with de minimis rates, i.e. , less than 0.50 percent, no deposit will be required; (2) for previously-reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters with separate rates, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established for the most recent period during which they were reviewed; (3) for all other PRC exporters, the rate will be the PRC country-wide rate, which is 33.18 percent; and (4) for all other non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These deposit 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 doubled antidumping duties.

These new shipper reviews and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

The U.S. Automotive Parts Advisory Committee (the “Committee”) advises U.S. Government officials on matters relating to the implementation of the Fair Trade in Automotive Parts Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-261). The Committee: (1) Reports to the Secretary of Commerce on barriers to sales of U.S.-made automotive parts and accessories in Japanese and other Asian markets; (2) reviews and considers data collected on sales of U.S.-made auto parts and accessories in Japanese and other Asian markets; (3) advises the Secretary of Commerce during consultations with other Governments on issues concerning sales of U.S.-made automotive parts in Japanese and other Asian markets; and (4) assists in establishing priorities for the initiative to increase sales of U.S.-made auto parts and accessories to Japanese markets, and otherwise provide assistance and direction to the Secretary of Commerce in carrying out the intent of that section; and (5) assists the Secretary of Commerce in reporting to Congress by submitting an annual written report to the Secretary on the sale of U.S.-made automotive parts in Japanese and other Asian markets, as well as any other issues with respect to which the Committee provides advice pursuant to its authorizing legislation. At the meeting, committee members will discuss specific trade and sales expansion programs related to automotive parts trade policy between the United States and Japan and other Asian markets.

The Acting Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the General Counsel formally determined on November 21, 2001, pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, that the December 13 meeting of the Committee and of any subcommittee thereof, dealing with privileged or confidential commercial information may be exempt from the provisions of the Act relating to open meeting and public participation therein because these items are concerned with matters that are within the purview of 5 U.S.C. 552b (c)(4) and (9)(B). A copy of the Notice of Determination is available for public inspection and copying in the Department of Commerce Records Inspection Facility, Room 6020, Main Commerce.

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

NIST Docket Number: 99-013US.

Title: Efficient Microwave Magnetic Recording System.

Abstract: A microwave magnetic recording system can enable magnetic recording heads for computer disk drives to record efficiently at data rates in excess of 500 × 10 − 6 bits per second. The microwave magnetic recording system permits a recording head to operate a bandwidths which are limited only by the fundamental physical limits of electron spin precession rates. The system includes a microwave waveguide as the source of the energizing field, shaped write pulses to reduce overshoot due to ferromagnetic resonance, an rf ac bias signal to thermally excite the recording medium and thereby reduce the necessary recording field, higher moment magnetic head materials to increase the spin precession rate in a thin-film geometry, and hard-axis biased magnetic head materials to increase the flux conduction efficiency of thin pole tip materials. All of these features complement thin-film head designs or may be used with exotic planarized head structure.

NIST Docket Number: 00-010US.

Title: Reagents For Water Determination In Samples Containing Iodine-Reacting Interfering Substances.

Abstract: The present invention relates to reagents for water determination in materials containing iodine-reacting interfering substances. The reagents are use for corrrection of results of Karl Fischer (KF) water determination in matters such as oils, drugs, cosmetic products, foodstuffs, chemical products and other polar- and non-polar materials containing iodine-reacting substances, which interfere with the Karl Fischer methods for water determination. The Reagents of the invention comprise iodine, an iodide and a buffer in mixture of solvents in which at lease one is a polar non-aqueous solvent and at least one is a non-polar non-aqueous solvent.

NIST Docket Number: 03-033US.

Title: Electrochemical Fluidized Bed Coating of Powders.

Abstract: A method for coating particulate substrate materials is provided which comprises (a) combining particles and an electrolyte in an imperforate container; (b) vibrating the container to generate a fluidized bed of particles in the electrolyte; and (c) electrochemically depositing a coating on the particles from reactants in the electrolyte. An apparatus for coating particles is also provided which comprises an imperforate containere for receiving particles to be coated and an electrolyte and a device for generating afluidized bed in the container, the device being operatively associated with the container.

Agenda items for the committees and Council meetings are: Identify Council/Commission priorities for 2003 quota set-aside species, refine criteria to be used in evaluating proposals received in response to 2003 Request for Research Proposals, recommend adjustments to weights to be applied to evaluation criteria, discuss need for and timing of pre-proposal process; review and discuss Monitoring Committee’s recommendations on summer flounder, scup, and black sea management measures, review and discuss Advisory Panels recommendations on summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass management measures, develop and approve management measures for 2002 summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass recreational fisheries; review the Council’s 2002 meeting calendar, i.e., changes to meeting locations and times; initiate Fisheries Achievement Award process for second half of 2001; the Council intends to prepare an EIS under the National Environmental Policy Act, to assess the potential effects on the human environment of its proposed action to initiate Amendment 9 to the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The amendment currently would extend the moratorium on entry into the Illex fishery, allow for specification of management measures for multiple years for all four species in the management unit, and provide analyses of fishing gear impacts on essential fish habitat (EFH) for all four species; review proposed management changes previously mentioned in Amendment 9 to the Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish FMP and fishing gear impacts on EFH, i.e., remedy EFH disapprovals identified in Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish FMP Amendment 8; hear organizational and committee reports.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before the Council and the Commission for discussion, these issues can not be the subject of formal Council action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305 (c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council’s intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Joanna Davis at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

Several individuals involved in the national marine protected area (MPA) initiative will brief the Committee on recent developments and on-going programs related to MPAs. The Committee will discuss the Executive Order on MPAs (E.O. 13158) and the role of the Council in regards to MPAs. The Committee will begin the development of a Council policy and strategy on MPAs.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 days prior to the meeting dates.

The formation of this ad hoc committee is in response to the Council’s request for a committee to scope multi-year management approaches for the West Coast groundfish fishery. Multi-year management of the groundfish fishery would be synchronized with a multi-year groundfish stock assessment schedule. Full accommodation of federal notice and comment requirements would also be incorporated into the multi-year cycle. This is the first meeting of the committee, and the primary purpose of the meeting is to refine the purpose and objectives of multi-year management, as well as initiate scoping of alternative approaches.

Although nonemergency issues not contained in the GMMC meeting agenda may come before the GMMC for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal GMMC action during the meeting. GMMC action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the GMMC's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at (503) 326-6352 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

Through this solicitation, NETL seeks applications in the following fourteen (14) separate (i.e., stand alone) Areas of Interest:

Once released, the solicitation will be available for downloading from the IIPS Internet page. At this Internet site you will also be able to register with IIPS, enabling you to submit an application. If you need technical assistance in registering or for any other IIPS function, call the IIPS Help Desk at (800) 683-0751 or E-mail the Help Desk personnel at IIPS_HelpDesk@e-center.doe.gov. The solicitation will only be made available in IIPS, no hard (paper) copies of the solicitation and related documents will be made available.

Prospective applicants who would like to be notified as soon as the solicitation is available should subscribe to the Business Alert Mailing List at http://www.netl.doe.gov/business. Once you subscribe, you will receive an announcement by E-mail that the solicitation has been released to the public. Telephone requests, written requests, E-mail requests, or facsimile requests for a copy of the solicitation package will not be accepted and/or honored. Applications must be prepared and submitted in accordance with the instructions and forms contained in the solicitation. The actual solicitation document will allow for requests for explanation and/or interpretation.

Title: Voluntary Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Direct and Indirect Discharging Mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category (EPA ICR No. 2015.01). This is a new collection.

Abstract: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) imposed minimum monitoring requirements on bleached papergrade kraft and soda (subpart B) mills under 40 CFR part 430 as part of the final Cluster Rules promulgated on April 15, 1998. See 63 FR 18504. These provisions require direct and indirect discharging subpart B mills to monitor their effluent for certain pollutants, including chloroform, at specified frequencies. See 40 CFR 430.02. EPA is considering promulgating an amendment to the Cluster Rules to allow direct and indirect discharging subpart B mills, for a particular fiber line, to demonstrate compliance with applicable chloroform limitations and standards under 40 CFR part 430 in lieu of the minimum monitoring requirements specified in 40 CFR 430.02 by voluntarily certifying two sets of circumstances. EPA proposed that amendment on April 15, 1998. See 61 FR 18796. First, the mill would need to certify that the fiber line(s) in question is/are not using elemental chlorine or hypochlorite as bleaching agents. Second, the mill would need to certify that the fiber line(s) in question maintain(s) certain process and operating conditions that the facility has demonstrated achieve compliance with applicable chloroform limitations. (The proposed rule would require mills wishing to employ the certification alternative to monitor for chloroform at the minimum frequency required by 40 CFR 430.02 for at least two years prior to being eligible to make the certification discussed above.) EPA is also considering requiring participating mills to submit a brief report summarizing the results of the initial compliance demonstration period and subsequently submit periodic certifications confirming that the participating fiber line(s) continues to operate within the range of process and operating conditions documented during the initial compliance demonstration period.

The burden associated with these additional voluntary reporting requirements is expected to be offset by a substantial savings in burden and costs that would otherwise be incurred, pursuant to the minimum monitoring frequency and duration at 40 CFR 430.02, to comply with applicable chloroform effluent limitations and standards.

All data submitted by mills as part of the initial compliance demonstration and claimed as confidential business information (CBI) would be maintained pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 when EPA is the permitting authority, and pursuant to regulations governing such information when States are the permitting authorities.

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 March 19, 2001 (66 FR 15424-15427). EPA received one comment, which is addressed in the ICR.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this voluntary collection of information is estimated to average six 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: Operations that chemically pulp wood fiber using kraft or soda methods to produce bleached papergrade pulp, paperboard, coarse paper, tissue paper, fine paper, and/or paperboard.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 80.

Frequency of Response: not less than annually for direct dischargers and not less than twice annually for indirect dischargers.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 480 hours.

Estimated Total Annualized Cost Burden (non-labor costs): $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. 2015.01 in any correspondence.

Title: Facility Ground-water Monitoring Requirements, OMB Control Number 2050-0033, EPA ICR Number 0959.11, expiration date November 30, 2001. This is a request for extension of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: This ICR examines the ground-water monitoring standards for permitted and interim status facilities at 40 CFR parts 264 and 165, as specified. The ground-water monitoring requirements for regulated units follow a tiered approach whereby releases of hazardous contaminants are first detected (detection monitoring), then confirmed (compliance monitoring), and if necessary, are required to be cleaned up (corrective action). Each of these tiers requires collection and analysis of ground-water samples. Owners or operators that conduct ground-water monitoring are required to report information to the oversight agencies on releases of contaminants and to maintain records of ground-water monitoring data at their facilities. The goal of the ground-water monitoring program is to prevent and quickly detect releases of hazardous contaminants to ground-water, and to establish a program whereby any contamination is expeditiously cleaned up as necessary to protect human health and environment. Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) creates a comprehensive program for the safe management of hazardous waste. Section 3004 of RCRA requires owners and operators of facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste to comply with standards established by EPA that are to protect the environment. Section 3005 provides for implementation of these standards under permits issued to owners and operators by EPA or authorized States. Section 3005 also allows owners and operators of facilities in existence when the regulations came into effect to comply with applicable notice requirements to operate until a permit is issued or denied. This statutory authorization to operate prior to permit determination is commonly known as “interim status.” Owners and operators of interim status facilities also must comply with standards set under section 3004. 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 June 25, 2001 (66 FR 33579); no comments were received.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average118 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: Entities that operate surface impoundments, waste piles, land treatment units, and landfills which manage hazardous waste regulated under RCRA.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 824.

Frequency of Response: Quarterly.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 96,913.

Estimated Total Annualized Capital, O&M Cost Burden: 16,757,560.

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. 0959.11 and OMB Control No. 2050-0033 in any correspondence.

Title: Correction of Misreported Chemical Substances on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Substance Inventory (EPA ICR No. 1741.03; OMB Control No. 2070-0145). This is a request for extension of an existing approved collection that is currently scheduled to expire on December 31, 2001. Under 5 CFR 1320.10(e)(2), the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while the submission is pending at OMB.

Abstract: Section 8(b) of the TSCA requires EPA to compile and keep current an Inventory of Chemical Substances in Commerce, which is a listing of chemical substances manufactured, imported, and processed for commercial purposes in the United States. The purpose of the Inventory is to define, for the purpose of TSCA, what chemical substances exist in U.S. commerce. Since the Inventory thereby performs a regulatory function by distinguishing between existing chemicals and new chemicals, which TSCA regulates in different ways, it is imperative that the Inventory be accurate.

However, from time to time, EPA or respondents discover that substances have been incorrectly described by reporting companies. Reported substances have been unintentionally misidentified as a result of simple typographical errors, the misidentification of substances, or the lack of sufficient technical or analytical capabilities to characterize fully the exact chemical substances. EPA has developed guidelines (45 FR 50544, July 29, 1980) under which incorrectly described substances listed in the Inventory can be corrected. The correction mechanism ensures the accuracy of the Inventory without imposing an unreasonable burden on the chemical industry. Without the Inventory correction mechanism, a company that submitted incorrect information would have to file a premanufacture notification (PMN) under TSCA section 5 to place the correct chemical substance on the Inventory whenever the previously reported substance is found to be misidentified. This would impose a much greater burden on both EPA and the submitter than the existing correction mechanism.

Responses to the collection of information are voluntary. Respondents may claim all or part of a notice confidential. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a claim of confidentiality only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in TSCA section 14 and 40 CFR part 2. 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.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.0 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: Manufacturers and importers of chemical substances, mixtures or categories.

Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

Estimated No. of Respondents: 200.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 200 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Costs: $16,150.

Changes in Burden Estimates: There is no change in the estimated burden associated with this ICR as compared with the ICR most recently approved by OMB.

According to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12, EPA has submitted this ICR to OMB for review and approval. Any comments related to the renewal of this ICR should be submitted within 30 days of this notice, as described above.

Title: Assessment of EPA Compliance Assistance Projects, OMB Control No. 2020-0015, EPA ICR Number 1860.02, expiration date December 31, 2001.

Abstract: This information collection determines how well EPA compliance assistance tools and services meet customers needs and to assess the effectiveness of the assistance activities. This will be a voluntary collection of information to gauge customer satisfaction with the compliance assistance projects, measure any resulting changes in knowledge and/or behavior, and evaluate any environmental and human health impacts. EPA proposes to use assessment surveys to provide the agency with feedback on the compliance assistance documents, onsite visits, telephone assistance, web sites, and compliance assistance seminars and workshops delivered by headquarters and regional compliance assistance programs to the regulated community. This feedback will help EPA improve the quality and delivery of compliance assistance tools and services. This ICR will only provide anecdotal data for the purpose of informing EPA of the effectiveness of compliance assistance tools, and customer satisfaction with those tools. All assessments undertaken under this ICR will adhere to specific conditions to ensure that data is collected and used properly and efficiently. The information collection is voluntary, and will be limited to non-sensitive data concerning the quality of compliance assistance activities. 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 August 31, 2001 (66 FR 45982); no comments were received.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 9 minutes 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: Business or other for profit, Federal Government, or State, Local, and Tribal Government.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 25,676.

Frequency of Response: One time.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 3,956.

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. 1860.02 and OMB Control No. 2020-0015 in any correspondence.

Title: Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Direct and Indirect Discharging Mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category (EPA ICR No. 1878.01). This is a new collection.

Abstract: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) imposed minimum monitoring requirements on bleached papergrade kraft and soda (subpart B) and papergrade sulfite (subpart E) mills under 40 CFR part 430 as part of the effluent limitations guidelines and standards promulgated on April 15, 1998 (63 FR 18504). With approval of this ICR, the permitting and pretreatment control authority must require applicable facilities subject to subparts B or E to monitor their effluent for adsorbable organic halides (AOX), 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD), 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF), chloroform, and 12 chlorinated phenolics at specified frequencies. See 40 CFR 430.02. Under 40 CFR 122.41(e)(4), the discharger must then report these monitoring results to the permitting or pretreatment control authority using either Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) or Periodic Compliance Reports (PCRs). These additional minimum monitoring requirements and corresponding additional reporting requirements are necessary to demonstrate compliance with the effluent limitations guidelines and standards promulgated at 40 CFR part 430, subparts B and E. 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 March 19, 2001 (66 FR 15424-15427). EPA received no comments.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 392 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: Entities potentially affected by this action are those operations that chemically pulp wood fiber using kraft or soda methods to produce bleached papergrade pulp, paperboard, coarse paper, tissue paper, fine paper, and/or paperboard; and those operations that chemically pulp wood fiber using papergrade sulfite methods to produce pulp and/or paper.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 94.

Frequency of Response: Not less than annually for direct dischargers and not less than twice annually for indirect dischargers.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 36,858 hours.

Estimated Total Annualized Cost Burden (non-labor costs): $ 19,002,000.

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 following addresses. Please refer to EPA ICR No. 1878.01 in any correspondence.

In 1983, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)/National Research Council (NRC) published its report entitled Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. In that report, the NRC recommended that Federal regulatory agencies establish “inference guidelines” to promote consistency and technical quality in risk assessments and to ensure that the risk assessment process was maintained as a scientific effort separate from risk management. EPA responded to this recommendation by publishing a set of risk assessment guidelines in 1986, including Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (51 FR 33992, Sept. 24, 1986). These Guidelines set forth principles and procedures to guide EPA scientists in assessing the cancer risks from chemicals or other agents in the environment and inform the public about these procedures. EPA continues to revise its risk assessment guidelines and to develop new guidelines as experience and scientific understanding evolve. Revisions to the Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment are intended to make greater use of the increasing scientific understanding of the mechanisms that underlie the carcinogenic process. As part of that process, the Agency published Proposed Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment in 1996 (61 FR 17960, Apr. 23, 1996).

The draft revisions to the Guidelines have been subject to extensive public comment and scientific peer review, including three reviews by EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB). The SAB provided its initial comments to the Agency in September 1997. In July 1999, the SAB provided additional comments on major sections of the 1996 proposed Guidelines that had been revised to address prior SAB and public comments. In September 2000, the SAB provided further comments on new discussions focusing on assessing risks to children that are contained in the draft revised Guidelines (July 1999). This review, while supportive of EPA's efforts, did not reach a consensus on several important issues. Such lack of consensus is not uncommon in peer reviews. Since 1996, EPA has also hosted scientific workshops on children's cancer risks and received input from EPA's Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee.

EPA has commenced the process to issue final Cancer Guidelines in light of these reviews and activities, as well as public comments received. The July 1999 draft revised Guidelines will be the basis from which the Agency moves forward to issue final Guidelines and are being made available today. EPA is in the process of evaluating peer review and public comments received in order to determine what revisions to the draft revised Guidelines may be appropriate. Additionally, EPA is providing an opportunity for the public to provide (1) information or comment on experience gained in applying the 1996 proposed Guidelines or the July 1999 draft revised Guidelines and (2) other new information or comment that addresses issues raised during the public comment period and in the SAB reviews, particularly the 1999 and 2000 SAB reports. The issues currently being considered by EPA as it proceeds to issue final Guidelines are described in the January 2001 response to the SAB (see Supplementary Materials). Issues include, but are not limited to, the nature and use of default assumptions; definition and application of hazard descriptors; identification of carcinogenic mode(s) of action and, in particular, consideration of relevancy for children (e.g., the potential for differential life stage susceptibility); and guidance on the use of the margin of exposure analysis.

In addition to the July 1999 draft revised Guidelines, supplementary materials are available at the website www.epa.gov/ncea/raf/cancer.htm relevant to the development of the current draft revised Guidelines. These materials include the SAB's review letter (September 1997) and EPA's (March 1998) response covering the 1996 proposed Guidelines; the SAB's review letter (July 1999) summarizing the January 1999 review of selected revised sections of the 1996 Guidelines; the SAB's review letter (September 2000) covering EPA's July 1999 revisions to address the protection of children; EPA's January 2001 response to the latter two SAB reviews; a letter (May 1999) from EPA's Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee which presented issues for consideration by the Agency; and a summary of a workshop co-sponsored by EPA on information needs to address children's cancer risk.

Effective immediately, the July 1999 draft revised Guidelines will serve as EPA's interim guidance to EPA risk assessors preparing cancer risk assessments. As with all previous versions of the cancer risk assessment Guidelines, the predominant guidance provided in the July 1999 draft revised Guidelines is for risk assessors to use the best science and risk assessment techniques available to them at the time a risk assessment is conducted. Thus, while the July 1999 draft revised Guidelines will be available to EPA risk assessors as guidance, any final cancer risk assessment may take a different approach depending on evolving science, the facts of a particular case, or comments from peer reviewers, the public or others.

The final phase of these investigations is being scheduled as a result of affirmative preliminary determinations by the Department of Commerce that imports of silicomanganese from India, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela are being sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 733 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b). The investigations were requested in a petition filed on April 6, 2001, by Eramet Marietta, Inc. (Marietta, OH) and the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union, Local 5-0639.

Persons, including industrial users of the subject merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the final phase of these investigations as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in § 201.11 of the Commission's rules, no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. A party that filed a notice of appearance during the preliminary phase of the investigations need not file an additional notice of appearance during this final phase. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigations.

Pursuant to § 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in the final phase of these investigations available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the investigations, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the investigations. A party granted access to BPI in the preliminary phase of the investigations need not reapply for such access. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

The prehearing staff report in the final phase of these investigations will be placed in the nonpublic record on January 10, 2002, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to § 207.22 of the Commission's rules.

The Commission will hold a hearing in connection with the final phase of these investigations beginning at 9:30 a.m. on January 24, 2002, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before January 17, 2002. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should attend a prehearing conference to be held at 9:30 a.m. on January 22, 2002, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by §§ 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 207.24 of the Commission's rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony in camera no later than 7 days prior to the date of the hearing.

Each party who is an interested party shall submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of § 207.23 of the Commission's rules; the deadline for filing is January 17, 2002. Parties may also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, as provided in § 207.24 of the Commission's rules, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of § 207.25 of the Commission's rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is January 31, 2002; witness testimony must be filed no later than three days before the hearing. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the investigations may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the investigations on or before January 31, 2002. On February 21, 2002, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before February 25, 2002, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with § 207.30 of the Commission's rules. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of § 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of §§ 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means.

In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

On October 26, 2001, the TPSC published in the Federal Register a Notice and Request for Comments on what action the President should take under section 203 of the Trade Act to facilitate efforts by the domestic industries producing certain steel products to make a positive adjustment to import competition and provide greater economic and social benefits than costs. See 66 FR 54321. According to the October 26th Notice, the deadline for the submission of requests for the exclusion of specific products from any action under section 203(a) of the Trade Act was November 13, 2001, and the deadline for the submission of responses to such requests was November 27, 2001. The TPSC is extending the November 27, 2001, deadline until not later than December 5, 2001. Parties should refer to the October 26th Notice, and additional information provided below, for instructions for the submission of written comments.

The October 26th Notice contained instructions for the submission of written comments. In light of recently implemented security measures, U.S. mail submissions will not be received in time for consideration. To improve the receipt of submissions by electronic mail, the TPSC is making the following modifications to the instructions:

• The October 26th Notice allowed interested persons filing written comments, requests, or other information to provide the information by electronic mail or by U.S. mail. It instructed interested persons submitting documents by U.S. mail to include twenty (20) copies. The TPSC now requests only one (1) copy of any documents submitted by U.S. mail. Interested persons submitting documents by U.S. mail should also make arrangements for the transmission of an electronic copy of the document by electronic mail in accordance with the instructions in the October 26th Notice, as modified below. Although the TPSC prefers the use of electronic mail, a copy of any documents submitted by U.S. mail may also be transmitted to the TPSC by fax at (202) 395-9674.

• The October 26th Notice indicated that interested persons may file documents in any commercial word processing or spreadsheet format. The TPSC strongly encourages the submission of documents in Adobe PDF format, as attachments to an electronic mail message.

• The October 26th Notice instructed that for any document containing business confidential information submitted by electronic transmission, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC-”, and the file name of the public version should begin with the characters “P-”. The TPSC further requests that the characters “P-” or “BC-” be followed by the name of the submitter. If a submission represents the views of multiple persons, only one needs to be listed in the file name. If the same person or persons has submitted multiple documents, each should be sequentially numbered, with the number following the name of the submitter in the file name. (E.g., the sixth public submission by Smith and Jones would be labeled “P-Smith-6''.)

• Interested persons who make submissions by electronic mail should not provide separate cover letters. Any information that might appear in a cover letter should be included in the submission itself, or in the electronic mail message used to transmit the submission. To the extent possible, any attachments to the submission should be aggregated into a single file with the submission itself, and not transmitted separately.

These modifications are applicable to all documents related to action under section 203 of the Trade Act with regard to imports of certain steel that are submitted to the TPSC after publication of this notice in the Federal Register .

The OCC is requesting OMB approval of the following information collection:

Title: OCC Communications Questionnaire.

OMB Number: 1557—to be determined.

Description: The OCC is proposing to collect information from national banks regarding the quality, timeliness, and effectiveness of OCC communications products, such as booklets, issuances, CDs, and Web site. Completed questionnaires will provide the OCC with information needed to properly evaluate the effectiveness of its paper and electronic communications products. The OCC will use the information to identify problems and to improve its service to national banks.

Type of Review: New collection.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit (national banks).

Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,300.

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 2,300.

Frequency of Response: One time.

Estimated Time per Respondent: 30 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 1,150 burden hours.

ETAAC reports to the Director, Electronic Tax Administration, who is the executive responsible for the electronic tax administration program. Increasing participation by external stakeholders in the development and implementation of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) strategy for electronic tax administration will help achieve the goal that paperless filing should be the preferred and most convenient method of filing tax and information returns. ETAAC members are not paid for their time or services, but consistent with Federal regulations, they are reimbursed for their travel and lodging expenses to attend the public meetings, working sessions, and an orientation each year.