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

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

On January 19, 2001, the Secretary of Agriculture renewed the charter for the NACMPI. The Committee provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture pertaining to the Federal and State meat and poultry inspection programs pursuant to sections 301 (a)(4),7(c), 24, 205, 301(a)(3), and 301(c) of the Federal Meat Inspection Act and sections 5(a)(3), 5 (a)(4), 5(c), 8(b), and 11(e) of the Poultry Products Inspection Act. The Administrator of FSIS is the chairperson of the Committee. Membership of the Committee is drawn from representatives of consumer groups; producers, processors, and marketers from the meat and poultry industry; State government officials; and academia. The current members of the NACMPI are: Dr. Gladys Bayse, Spelman College; Nancy Donley, Safe Tables Our Priority; Sandra Eskin, American Association of Retired Persons; Dr. James Denton, University of Arkansas; Carol Tucker Foreman, Food Policy Institute, Consumer Federation of America; Michael Govro, Oregon Department of Agriculture; Martin Holmes, North American Meat Processors; Dr. Lee C. Jan, Texas Department of Health; Dr. Alice Johnson, National Food Processors Association; Collette Schulty Kaster, Premium Standard Farms; Dr. Daniel E. Lafontaine, South Carolina Meat-Poultry Inspection Department; Dr. Irene Leech, Virginia Tech; Charles Link, Cargill Turkey Products; Dr. Catherine Logue, North Dakota State University; Dr. Dale Morse, New York Department of Health; John Neal, Courseys Smoked Meats, and Michael Mamminga, Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship.

The Committee has three subcommittees to deliberate on specific issues and make recommendations to the whole Committee.

Members of the public will be required to register before entering the meeting.

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to better ensure that minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it and make copies of this Federal Register publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update. FSIS provides a weekly Constituent Update, which is communicated via Listserv, a free e-mail subscription service. In addition, the update is available on-line through the FSIS Web page located at http://www.fsis.usda.gov. The update is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, recalls, and any other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents/stakeholders. The constituent Listserv consists of industry, trade, and farm groups, consumer interest groups, allied health professionals, scientific professionals, and other individuals that have requested to be included. Through the Listserv and Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience.

For more information contact the Congressional and Public Affairs Office, at (202) 720-9113. To be added to the free e-mail subscription service (Listserv) go to the “Constituent Update” page on the FSIS Web site at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/update/update.htm. Click on the “Subscribe to the Constituent Update Listserv” link, then fill out and submit the form.

Proposed Action: Two primary objectives have been identified for the project: (1) modify travel and access management in the North Kennedy-Cottonwood project area by improving road conditions and decreasing the open road density. These actions would decrease big game vulnerability, restore fish habitat connectivity, and reduce sediment delivery from roads to streams while enhancing motorized recreational vehicle opportunities, and (2) restore seral, shade intolerant species (e.g., ponderosa pine) by adjusting tree stocking levels, stand structure, and species composition to conditions more consistent with the long-term disturbance regimes characteristic of the North Kennedy-Cottonwood project area. These action would promote the late- and early-seral forest structures that have declined within the project area and reduce the current and future stand susceptibility to forest insects.

The Proposed Action would eliminate yearlong travel by full-size motorized vehicles on 21 miles of roads, designate and sign 16 miles of roads as multiple-use to promote safe operation of motorized all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), decommission 2.5 miles of classified roads, reconstruct approximately 7 miles of classified roads to facilitate harvest activities, and replace/remove three culverts that are barriers to fish passage. Approximately 1 mile of unclassified roads would be improved to provide temporary access to facilitate harvest activities; these roads would be closed and revegetated upon completion of management activities.

The Proposed Action provides for vegetation management on approximately 4,500 acres in the 8,570-acre project area. The Proposed Action would employ a variety of silvicultural prescriptions that utilize commercial timber harvest and precommercial thinning. Silvicultural prescriptions for the proposed action are shaded fuel break (120 acres), commercial/precommercial thinning (3,380 acres), shelterwood regeneration (450 acres), and improvement (360 acres). Timber would be harvested using ground-based and skyline yarding systems. In addition, approximately 200 acres would be planted with seedlings to ensure desired species are established in a timely manner.

Preliminary Issues: A March 2001 scoping letter generated the following:

Issue 1: Too many open roads invite 4x4 vehicles and ATVs to drive off designated roads and harass wildlife. All roads that are either not graveled or a main access route should be closed after use. If roads are closed after use, big game security and vulnerability would be improved and the area will recover more quickly than if the public has too much access to keep the area disturbed.

Issue 2: Administrative road closures, as applied in the past, have been ineffective. Reclosing rather than obliterating, ineffectively closed roads will only prolong the ecological detriment associated with roads and illegal access. In addition, proposed road reconstruction, especially on those roads involving stream crossings, will not be adequate to substantially decrease sediment to area streams. Road obliteration/decommissioning of roads would be more effective in eliminating future risks to water quality and wildlife.

Possible Alternatives to the Proposed Action: The following alternatives to the proposed action have been discussed thus far and will be considered in the draft environmental impact statement: a no action alternative; a second action alternative that increases the miles of roads in a yearlong closure status and increases miles of roads decommissioned.

Decisions to be Made: The Boise National Forest supervisor will decide the following: (1) Should roads be closed, decommissioned and/or reconstructed within the North Kennedy-Cottonwood Stewardship project area at this time; and if so, where within the project area, and how many miles of road should be treated; (2) based on these management decisions for roads status, which culverts should be replaced or removed to provide habitat connectivity for aquatic species; and (3) should commercial thinning, precommercial thinning and timber harvest be conducted within the project area; and if so, where within the project area and how many acres.

Public Involvement and Comments: Written comments concerning the proposed project should be postmarked within 30 days from the day after publication of this announcement in the Federal Register.

Comments received in response to this solicitation, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available to public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR 215 or 217. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that, under FOIA, confidentiality might be granted in only limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding the request for confidentially, and where the request is denied, the agency will return the submission and notify the requester the comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address within 10 days.

Schedule: The draft EIS is anticipated to be available for public review and comment in June 2002, the final EIS is anticipated to be available in September 2002.

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

The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of the draft EIS must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions, ( Vermont Yankee Nuclear Corp. v. NRDC , 435 U.S. 519, 533 (1978)). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft EIS 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 (Ninth Circuit 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 comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.

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

Responsible Official: David D. Rittenhouse, Forest Supervisor, Boise National Forest is the responsible official, 1249 South Vinnell Way, Suite 200, Boise, Idaho 83709.

This Action has been reviewed and determined not to be a rule or regulation as defined in Executive Order 12866 and Departmental Regulation 1512-1; therefore, the Executive Order and Departmental Regulation do not apply to this Action.

Section 7(f)(1) of the United States Grain Standards Act, as amended (Act), authorizes GIPSA's Administrator to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services.

Section 7(g)(1) of the Act provides that designations of official agencies shall end not later than triennially and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 7(f) of the Act.

a. Pursuant to section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, the entire State of Alabama, except those export port locations within the State, is assigned to Alabama.

b. Pursuant to section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, the entire State of California, except those export port locations within the State, is assigned to California.

c. Pursuant to section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, in the State of Illinois, is assigned to Kankakee.

Bounded on the North by the northern Bureau County line; the northern LaSalle and Grundy County lines; the northern Will County line east-southeast to Interstate 57;

Bounded on the East by Interstate 57 south to U.S. Route 52; U.S. Route 52 south to the Kankakee County line;

Bounded on the South by the southern Kankakee and Grundy County lines; the southern LaSalle County line west to State Route 17; State Route 17 west to U.S. Route 51; U.S. Route 51 north to State Route 18; State Route 18 west to State Route 26; State Route 26 south to State Route 116; State Route 116 south to Interstate 74; Interstate 74 west to the western Peoria County line; and

Bounded on the West by the western Peoria and Stark County lines; the northern Stark County line east to State Route 88; State Route 88 north to the Bureau County line.

d. Pursuant to section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, in the State of Illinois, is assigned to Springfield.

Bounded on the North by the northern Schuyler, Cass, and Menard County lines; the western Logan County line north to State Route 10; State Route 10 east to the west side of Beason;

Bounded on the East by a straight line from the west side of Beason southwest to Elkhart on Interstate 55; a straight line from Elkhart southeast to Stonington on State Route 48; a straight line from Stonington southwest to Irving on State Route 16;

Bounded on the South by State Route 16 west to the eastern Macoupin County line; the eastern, southern, and western Macoupin County lines; the southern and western Greene County lines; the southern Pike County line; and

Bounded on the West by the western Pike County line west to U.S. route 54; U.S. Route 54 northeast to State Route 107; State Route 107 northeast to State Route 104; State Route 104 east to the western Morgan County line. The western Morgan, Cass, and Schuyler County lines.

The following grain elevator, located outside of the above contiguous geographic area, are part of this geographic area assignment: East Lincoln Farmers Grain Co., Lincoln, Logan County (located inside Central Illinois Grain Inspection, Inc.'s, area).

e. Pursuant to section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, the entire State of Washington, except those export port locations within the State, is assigned to Washington.

Interested persons, including Alabama, California, Kankakee, Springfield, and Washington, are hereby given the opportunity to apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas specified above under the provisions of section 7(f) of the Act and section 800.196(d) of the regulations issued thereunder. Designation in the specified geographic areas is for the period beginning January 1, 2003, and ending December 31, 2005. Persons wishing to apply for designation should contact the Compliance Division at the address listed above for forms and information.

GIPSA also is publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to present comments on the Alabama, California, Kankakee, Springfield, and Washington official agencies. Commenters are encouraged to submit pertinent data concerning these official agencies including information on the timeliness, cost, quality, and scope of services provided. All comments must be submitted to the Compliance Division at the above address.

Applications, comments, and other available information will be considered in determining which applicant will be designated.

This action has been reviewed and determined not to be a rule or regulation as defined in Executive Order 12866 and Departmental Regulation 1512-1; therefore, the Executive Order and Departmental Regulation do not apply to this action.

In the December 4, 2001, Federal Register (66 FR 63015), GIPSA asked persons interested in providing official services in the geographic areas assigned to the official agencies named above to submit an application for designation. Applications were due by January 2, 2002.

Georgia, Mid-Iowa, Montana, Oregon, and Schneider were the sole applicants for designation to provide official services in the entire area currently assigned to them, so GIPSA did not ask for additional comments on them.

GIPSA evaluated all available information regarding the designation criteria in section 7(f)(l)(A) of the Act and, according to Section 7(f)(l)(B), determined that Georgia, Mid-Iowa, Montana, Oregon, and Schneider are able to provide official services in the geographic areas specified in the December 4, 2001, Federal Register , for which they applied. Interested persons may obtain official services by calling the telephone numbers listed below.

On October 20, 1999, the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) published a notice appointing members to a Public Rights-of-Way Access Advisory Committee (Committee). 64 FR 56482 (October 20, 1999). The objectives of the Committee include providing recommendations for developing a proposed rule addressing accessibility guidelines for newly constructed and altered public rights-of-way covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, recommendations regarding technical assistance issues, and guidance for best practices for alterations in the public rights-of-way.

On January 10, 2001, the Committee presented its recommendations on accessible public rights-of-way in a report entitled “Building a True Community”. The report is available on the Access Board's Web site at www.access-board.gov or can be ordered by calling the Access Board at (800) 872-2253 (voice) or (800) 993-2822 (TTY).

At its June meeting, the technical assistance sub-committee will continue to address the development and format of technical assistance materials relating to public rights-of-way. The sub-committee meeting will be open to the public and interested persons can attend the meeting and participate on subcommittees of the Committee. All interested persons will have the opportunity to comment when the proposed accessibility guidelines for public rights-of-way are issued in the Federal Register by the Access Board.

Individuals who require sign language interpreters or real-time captioning systems should contact Scott Windley by June 10, 2002. Notices of future meetings will be published in the Federal Register .

On October 30, 2001, the Department received a request from Longkou TLC Machinery Co., Ltd. (“Longkou TLC”), for a new shipper review pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b).

Section 751(a)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i) govern determinations of antidumping duties for new shippers. These provisions state that, in requesting a review, an exporter or producer of the subject merchandise must meet the following conditions: (1) It did not export the merchandise to the United States during the period covered by the original less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) investigation; and (2) it is not affiliated with any exporter or producer who exported the subject merchandise during that period. If these provisions are met, the Department will conduct a new shipper review to establish an individual weighted-average dumping margin for such exporter or producer, if the Department has not previously established such a margin for the exporter or producer. The regulations require that the exporter or producer include in its request, with appropriate certifications, the following information: (i) The date on which the merchandise was first entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, or, if it cannot certify as to the date of first entry, the date on which it first shipped the merchandise for export to the United States, or, if the merchandise has not yet been shipped or entered, the date of sale; (ii) a list of the firms with which it is affiliated; (iii) a statement from the exporter or producer, and from each affiliated firm, that it did not, under its current or a former name, export the merchandise during the period of investigation (“POI”); and (iv) in an antidumping proceeding involving inputs from a non-market-economy (“NME”) country, a certification that the export activities of such exporter or producer are not controlled by the central government. See 19 CFR 351.214(b)(ii) and (iii).

Longkou TLC's request was accompanied by information and certifications establishing the effective date on which it first shipped and entered brake rotors. The respondent also claims that it is not affiliated with companies which exported brake rotors from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) during the POI and has certified that its export activities are not controlled by the central government. Based on the above information, the Department initiated a new shipper review covering Longkou TLC ( see Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Sixth New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review (66 FR 63362, December 6, 2001)). The Department is now conducting this review in accordance with section 751 of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214.

On December 5, 2001, we issued the antidumping duty questionnaire to Longkou TLC. On December 17, 2001, the Department provided the parties an opportunity to submit publicly available information for consideration in these preliminary results.

On January 15, 2002, Longkou TLC submitted its questionnaire response.

On February 20 and 27, 2002, the petitioner and Longkou TLC submitted publicly available information and rebuttal comments, respectively.

On March 6, 2002, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Longkou TLC, to which it received a response on April 5, 2002.

On March 12, 2002, the petitioner submitted a letter requesting that the Department conduct a verification of the response submitted by Longkou TLC.

The products covered by this order are brake rotors made of gray cast iron, whether finished, semifinished, or unfinished, ranging in diameter from 8 to 16 inches (20.32 to 40.64 centimeters) and in weight from 8 to 45 pounds (3.63 to 20.41 kilograms). The size parameters (weight and dimension) of the brake rotors limit their use to the following types of motor vehicles: automobiles, all-terrain vehicles, vans and recreational vehicles under “one ton and a half,” and light trucks designated as “one ton and a half.”

Finished brake rotors are those that are ready for sale and installation without any further operations. Semi-finished rotors are those on which the surface is not entirely smooth, and have undergone some drilling. Unfinished rotors are those which have undergone some grinding or turning.

These brake rotors are for motor vehicles, and do not contain in the casting a logo of an original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”) which produces vehicles sold in the United States ( e.g. , General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Volvo). Brake rotors covered in the order are not certified by OEM producers of vehicles sold in the United States. The scope also includes composite brake rotors that are made of gray cast iron, which contain a steel plate, but otherwise meet the above criteria. Excluded from the scope of the order are brake rotors made of gray cast iron, whether finished, semifinished, or unfinished, with a diameter less than 8 inches or greater than 16 inches (less than 20.32 centimeters or greater than 40.64 centimeters) and a weight less than 8 pounds or greater than 45 pounds (less than 3.63 kilograms or greater than 20.41 kilograms).

Brake rotors are currently classifiable under subheading 8708.39.5010 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

The period of review (“POR”) is from April 1, 2001, through September 30, 2001.

As provided in section 782(i)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.307, we intend to verify Longkou TLC's information.

In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping duty deposit rate ( i.e., a PRC-wide rate).

The respondent in this review, Longkou TLC, is a joint venture. Thus, a separate-rates analysis is necessary to determine whether this exporter is independent from government control ( see Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the People's Republic of China ( “Bicycles” ) 61 FR 56570 (April 30, 1996)).

To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent in its export activities from government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department utilizes a test arising from 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” ), and amplified in 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” ). Under the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if the respondent can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over export activities.

Longkou TLC has placed on the administrative record documents to demonstrate absence of de jure control, including the “The Enterprise Legal Person Registration Administrative Regulations,” promulgated on June 3, 1988, the 1990 “Regulation Governing Rural Collectively-Owned Enterprises of PRC,” and the 1994 “Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China.”

As in prior cases, we have analyzed these laws and have found that they establish a sufficient absence of de jure control of collectively owned enterprises. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China ( “Furfuryl Alcohol” ), 60 FR 22544 (May 8, 1995), and Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Partial-Extension Steel Drawer Slides with Rollers from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 29571 (June 5, 1995). We have no new information in this proceeding which would cause us to reconsider this determination with regard to Longkou TLC.

As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. See Silicon Carbide and Furfuryl Alcohol. Therefore, the Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether the respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates.

The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by, or subject to the approval of, a governmental authority; (2) whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses ( see Silicon Carbide and Furfuryl Alcohol ).

Longkou TLC has asserted the following: (1) It establishes its own export prices; (2) it negotiates contracts without guidance from any governmental entities or organizations; (3) it makes its own personnel decisions; and (4) it retains the proceeds of its export sales, uses profits according to its business needs, and has the authority to sell its assets and to obtain loans. Additionally, Longkou TLC's questionnaire responses indicate that its pricing during the POR does not suggest coordination among exporters. This information supports a preliminary finding that there is absence of de facto governmental control of export functions performed by Longkou TLC. See Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Administrative Review, 62 FR 55215 (October 23, 1997). Consequently, we have preliminarily determined that Longkou TLC has met the criteria for the application of separate rates.

To determine whether sales of the subject merchandise by Longkou TLC to the United States were made at prices below normal value (“NV”), we compared its export prices to NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below.

We used export price methodology in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act because the subject merchandise was sold by the exporter directly to an unaffiliated customer in the United States prior to importation and constructed export price was not otherwise indicated.

For Longkou TLC, we calculated export price based on an FOB foreign port price to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling charges in the PRC in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. Because foreign inland freight and brokerage and handling fees were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in an NME currency ( i.e. , renminbi), we based those charges on surrogate rates from India ( see “Surrogate Country” section below for further discussion of our surrogate-country selection). To value foreign inland trucking charges, we used a November 1999 average truck freight value based on price quotes from Indian trucking companies. To value foreign brokerage and handling expenses, we relied on public information reported in the 1997-1998 new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel wire rod from India.

In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as an NME country. Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority ( see Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 52100, 52103 (October 12, 2001)). None of the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries.

Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value an NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or more market-economy countries that (1) are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country, and (2) are significant producers of comparable merchandise. India and Indonesia are among the countries comparable to the PRC in terms of overall economic development (see Memorandum from the Office of Policy to Irene Darzenta Tzafolias, Program Manager, dated December 6, 2001). In addition, based on publicly available information placed on the record, India is a significant producer of the subject merchandise. Accordingly, we considered India the primary surrogate country for purposes of valuing the factors of production because it meets the Department's criteria for surrogate-country selection. Where we could not find surrogate values from India, we used values into Indonesia.

In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on the factors of production which included, but were not limited to the following elements: (A) Hours of labor required; (B) quantities of raw materials employed; (C) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and (D) representative capital costs, including depreciation. We used the factors reported by Longkou TLC which produced the brake rotors it exported to the United States during the POR. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported unit factor quantities by publicly available Indian or Indonesian values.

The Department's selection of the surrogate values applied in this determination was based on the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices to make them delivered prices.

To value pig iron, steel scrap, ferrosilicon, ferromanganese, limestone, lubrication oil, firewood, and coking coal, we used April 2001-July 2001 average import values from Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India. We relied on the factor specification data submitted by the respondent for the above-mentioned inputs in its April 5, 2002, submission for purposes of selecting surrogate values from Monthly Statistics. We also added an amount for loading and additional transportation charges associated with delivering coal to the factory based on June 1999 Indian price data contained in the periodical Business Line.

We based our surrogate value for electricity on data obtained from Conference of Indian Industries: Handbook of Statistics ( “CII Handbook” ) and from the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy ( “CMIE data” ).

We valued labor based on a regression-based wage rate, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).

To value selling, general, and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses, factory overhead and profit, we used the 1998 financial data of Jayaswals Neco Limited (“Jayaswals”), the 1998-1999 financial data of Rico Auto Industries Limited (“Rico”), and the 2000-2001 financial data of Kalyani Brakes Limited (“Kalyani”). We have relied on fiscal data for three companies rather than just one company's fiscal data for purposes of calculating the surrogate-value percentages. In this case, Jayaswals' 1998 fiscal data and Rico's 1998-1999 fiscal data are reasonably contemporaneous with the POR and otherwise as suitable as Kalyani's data. Accordingly, we find it more reliable to use data of three companies than to use data of a single company. We have not used the 1999-2000 fiscal data suggested by the respondent from Rico's internet website because the data provided by its website is incomplete for purposes of calculating ratios for SG&A, factory overhead, and profit. Specifically, the website data provided only expense data based on general categories of expenses and not on the basis of specific expenses. Specific expense data ( i.e. , line-item expense categories such as advertising, repair and maintenance, etc.) is necessary for determining whether a particular expense should be considered an overhead or selling expense and for calculating accurate surrogate-value percentages.

Where appropriate, we removed from the surrogate overhead and SG&A calculations the excise duty amount listed in the financial reports. We made certain adjustments to the ratios calculated as a result of reclassifying certain expenses contained in the financial reports. For further discussion of the adjustments made, see the Preliminary Results Valuation Memorandum, dated May 29, 2002.

All inputs were shipped by truck. Therefore, to value PRC inland freight, we used a November 1999 average truck freight value based on price quotes from Indian trucking companies.

In accordance with the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401 (1997), we revised our methodology for calculating source-to-factory surrogate freight for those material inputs that are valued based on CIF import values in the surrogate country. We have added to CIF surrogate values from India a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distances from either the closest PRC port of importation to the factory or from the domestic supplier to the factory on an input-specific basis.

To value corrugated cartons, nails, paper cartons, paper cover, plastic bags, steel strip, tape, and clamps, we used April-July 2001 average import values from Monthly Statistics. To value pallet wood, we used a 2000 pallet-wood value from the Indonesian publication Indonesia Foreign Trade Statistics which the Department has used to value pallet wood in two recent antidumping duty proceedings ( see Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the PRC: Final Results of 1998-1999 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part, 66 FR 1953, 1955 (January 10, 2001) ( “TRBs” ), and accompanying decision memorandum at Comment 10, and Persulfates from the PRC: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 65 FR 46691 (July 31, 2000)).

We preliminarily determine that the following margin exists for Longkou TLC during the period April 1, 2001, through September 30, 2001:

We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to the parties to this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held on July 30, 2002.

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

Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in case briefs and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested parties may be submitted not later than July 19, 2002. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, will be due not later than July 26, 2002. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties are also encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited.

The Department will issue the final results of this new shipper review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later than 90 days after the date of issuance of this notice.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct the Customs Service to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties all entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which the importer-specific assessment rate is zero. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service upon completion of this review.

Upon completion of this review, for entries from Longkou TLC, we will require cash deposits at the rate established in the final results pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(e) and as further described below.

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this new shipper review for all shipments of brake rotors from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Longkou TLC will be the rate determined in the final results of review (except that, if the rate is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.50 percent, a cash deposit rate of zero will be required); (2) the cash deposit rate for PRC exporters who received a separate rate in a prior segment of the proceeding will continue to be the rate assigned in that segment of the proceeding; (3) the cash deposit rate for the PRC NME entity will continue to be 43.32 percent; and (4) the cash deposit rate for non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

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

This new shipper review and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 351.213.

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

Imports covered by this review are shipments of potassium permanganate, an inorganic chemical produced in free-flowing, technical, and pharmaceutical grades. During the review period, potassium permanganate was classifiable under item 2841.60.0010 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). The HTS item number is provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.

On January 3, 2002, the Department published in the Federal Register its notice of the preliminary results of the new shipper review of potassium permanganate from the PRC. See Potassium Permanganate From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR 303. In that notice, we invited interested parties to comment on our preliminary results. Since publication of this notice, the following significant events have occurred.

On March 19, 2002, Carus Chemical Company (Carus) (petitioner) submitted evidence that the business license which Groupstars Chemical Co. Ltd. (Groupstars) (respondent) placed on the record in this review had been altered. Although this information was submitted after the deadline for submitting factual information in this review (June 25, 2001), the Department accepted it because of its relevance to respondent's status as a new shipper. See Memorandum to the File from John Conniff: Submission of New Information and Schedule for Case Briefs and Hearing (April 1, 2002) . On April 10, 2002, petitioner and respondent submitted case briefs regarding the preliminary results of this review. On April 17, 2002, petitioner submitted rebuttal comments to the Department. On April 19, 2002, the respondent withdrew its request for a new shipper review. On May 16, 2002, the Department issued a memorandum that proposed rescission of this new shipper review. See Memorandum to Bernard Carreau from Holly A. Kuga: Rescission of New Shipper Review (May 16, 2002) (Rescission Memorandum) . We invited interested parties to submit comments regarding this memorandum by no later than May 20, 2002. No parties submitted comments.

As noted above, information has been placed on the record which calls into question the status of Groupstars as a new shipper. This information indicates that Groupstars' business license, as submitted to the Department, is altered from its original form. Moreover, Groupstars did not make all of the certifications required in a new shipper review under section 351.214(b)(2)(ii)(B) of the Department's regulations. Finally, both the petitioner and the respondent have requested that the Department rescind this new shipper review. Therefore, we are rescinding this new shipper review. See Rescission Memorandum.

This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (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/destruction of APO material or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanctions.

We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) 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 Act”) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the regulations at 19 CFR Part 351 (2001).

The Department published on June 8, 1999, a Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea, 64 FR 30636, (Sheet and Strip) and published on August 6, 1999 the Amended Final Determination: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea; and Notice of Countervailing Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France, Italy, and the Republic of Korea , 64 FR 42923. In the original investigation and a subsequent review, the Department determined that Inchon received countervailable subsidies and therefore the Department calculated a cash deposit rate for Inchon. In an August 6, 2001, letter to the Department, INI notified the Department that as of August 1, 2001, Inchon's corporate name had changed to INI Steel Company. On September 28, 2001, the Department published a Notice of Initiation of Changed Circumstances Countervailing Duty Administrative Review , 66 FR 49639.

For purposes of this changed circumstances review, the products covered are certain stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed ( e.g. , cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, etc.) provided that it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such processing.

The merchandise subject to this review is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, 7219.1300.81 1 , 7219.14.0030, 7219.14.0065, 7219.14.0090, 7219.32.0005, 7219.32.0020, 7219.32.0025, 7219.32.0035, 7219.32.0036, 7219.32.0038, 7219.32.0042, 7219.32.0044, 7219.33.0005, 7219.33.0020, 7219.33.0025, 7219.33.0035, 7219.33.0036, 7219.33.0038, 7219.33.0042, 7219.33.0044, 7219.34.0005, 7219.34.0020, 7219.34.0025, 7219.34.0030, 7219.34.0035, 7219.35.0005, 7219.35.0015, 7219.35.0030, 7219.35.0035, 7219.90.0010, 7219.90.0020, 7219.90.0025, 7219.90.0060, 7219.90.0080, 7220.12.1000, 7220.12.5000, 7220.20.1010, 7220.20.1015, 7220.20.1060, 7220.20.1080, 7220.20.6005, 7220.20.6010, 7220.20.6015, 7220.20.6060, 7220.20.6080, 7220.20.7005, 7220.20.7010, 7220.20.7015, 7220.20.7060, 7220.20.7080, 7220.20.8000, 7220.20.9030, 7220.20.9060, 7220.90.0010, 7220.90.0015, 7220.90.0060, and 7220.90.0080. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive.

Excluded from the scope of this review are the following: (1) sheet and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled, (2) sheet and strip that is cut to length, (3) plate ( i.e. , flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more), (4) flat wire ( i.e. , cold-rolled sections, with a prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 mm), and (5) razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the manufacture of razor blades. See Chapter 72 of the HTSUS, “Additional U.S. Note” 1(d).

The Department has determined that certain additional specialty stainless steel products are also excluded from the scope of this review. These excluded products are described below.

Flapper valve steel is excluded from this review. Flapper valve steel is defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a hardness (Hv) of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves in compressors.

Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm length.

Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is also excluded from the scope of this review. This stainless steel strip in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and total rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron.

Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also excluded from the scope of this review. This ductile stainless steel strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Arnokrome III.” 2

Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the scope of this review. This product is defined as a non-magnetic stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Gilphy 36.” 3

Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is also excluded from the scope of this review. This high-strength, ductile stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering System (“UNS”) as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Durphynox 17.” 4

Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also excluded from the scope of this review. These include stainless steel strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools (e.g., carpet knives). 5 This steel is similar to AISI grade 420 but containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold under proprietary names such as “GIN4 Mo.” The second excluded stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 carbide particles per 100 square microns. An example of this product is “GIN5” steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied as, for example, “GIN6”. 6

In determining that Inchon changed its name to INI, we reviewed documents submitted on the record, including: (1) the minutes of Inchon's shareholder's meeting; (2) official certification of name change registration; and (3) INI's business registration certificate. The minutes of the shareholder's meeting shows that the name change was approved under item two: “Topic of Bill of a Partial Amendment to Articles of Incorporation.” Article 1, which refers to the name of the company, shows that, prior to the amendment, the name of the company was Inchon Iron & Steel Co., Ltd, and that, after the partial amendment to the Articles of Incorporation, the company's name is INI Steel Company. We also reviewed a translated copy of the official certification of name change that INI provided to the Inchon District Court on July 31, 2001. Finally, we reviewed INI's business registration certificate as issued on August 1, 2001 by the Inchon City Tax Office. This document states that the reason the document was issued was for a “change of company name.”

Based upon the information on the record, we preliminarily determine that Inchon has changed its name to INI Steel company. If the final results of this review remain unchanged, we intend to update our instructions to U.S. Customs to reflect this name change; INI (Inchon) will receive Inchon's cash deposit ad valorem rate .

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310, any interested party may request a hearing within 10 days of publication of this notice. Persons interested in attending the hearing should contact the Department for the date and time of any hearing. Case briefs and/ or written comments from interested parties may be submitted no later than 10 days after the date of publications of this notice. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals comments, limited to the issues raised in those case briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 17 days after the publication of this notice. All written comments must be submitted and served on all interested parties on the Department's service list in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303. The Department will publish in the Federal Register a notice of final results of this changed circumstance countervailing duty administrative review, including the results of its analysis of any issues raised in any written comments.

During the course of this changed circumstance review, we will not change any cash deposit instructions on the merchandise subject to this changed circumstances review, unless a change is determined to be warranted pursuant to the final results of this review.

This notice is in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3) and 19 CFR 351.216.

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 (“URAA”). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the regulations at 19 CFR Part 351 (2001).

The Department published on July 3, 2000, a Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Structural Steel Beams From the Republic of Korea , 65 FR 41051, (Structural Beams); and published on August 14, 2000, the Notice of Countervailing Duty Order: Structural Steel Beams From the Republic of Korea , 65 FR 49542. The Department determined that Inchon was excluded from suspension of liquidation pursuant to that order because it received a de minimis net subsidy during the period of investigation. In an August 6, 2001, letter to the Department, INI notified the Department that as of August 1, 2001, Inchon's corporate name had changed to INI Steel Company. On September 28, 2001, the Department published a Notice of Initiation of Changed Circumstances Countervailing Duty Administrative Review , 66 FR 49641.

The products covered by this review include structural steel beams that are doubly-symmetric shapes, whether hot-or cold-rolled, drawn, extruded, formed or finished, having at least one dimension of at least 80 mm (3.2 inches or more), whether of carbon or alloy (other than stainless) steel, and whether or not drilled, punched, notched, painted, coated or clad. These products include, but are not limited to, wide-flange beams (“W” shapes), bearing piles (“HP” shapes), standard beams (“S”or “I” shapes), and M-shapes.

All products that meet the physical and metallurgical descriptions provided above are within the scope of this investigation unless otherwise excluded. The following products are outside and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation: structural steel beams greater than 400 pounds per linear foot or with a web or section height (also known as depth) over 40 inches.

The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) at subheadings: 7216.32.0000, 7216.33.0030, 7216.33.0060, 7216.33.0090, 7216.50.0000, 7216.61.0000, 7216.69.0000, 7216.91.0000, 7216.99.0000, 7228.70.3040, 7228.70.6000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to this proceeding is dispositive.

In determining that Inchon changed its name to INI, we reviewed documents submitted on the record, including: (1) the minutes of Inchon's shareholder's meeting; (2) official certification of name change registration; and (3) INI's business registration certificate. The minutes of the shareholder's meeting shows that the name change was approved under item two: “Topic of Bill of a Partial Amendment to Articles of Incorporation.” Article 1, which refers to the name of the company, shows that, prior to the amendment, the name of the company was Inchon Iron & Steel Co., Ltd, and that, after the partial amendment to the Articles of Incorporation, the company's name is INI Steel Company. We also reviewed a translated copy of the official certification of name change that INI provided to the Inchon District Court on July 31, 2001. Finally, we reviewed INI's business registration certificate as issued on August 1, 2001 by the Inchon City Tax Office. This document states that the reason the document was issued was for a “change of company name.”

Based upon the information on the record, we preliminarily determine that Inchon has changed its name to INI Steel company. If the final results of this review remain unchanged, we intend to update our instructions to U.S. Customs to reflect this name change, and INI (Inchon) will continue to be excluded from this order.

Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (“the Act”) (15 U.S.C. 4011-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. The regulations implementing Title III (“the Regulations”) are found at 15 CFR part 325. Pursuant to this authority, a Certificate of Review was issued on October 9, 1984 to N.B. Carson & Company, Inc.

A certificate holder is required by law (section 308 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 4018) to submit to the Department of Commerce annual reports that update financial and other information relating to business activities covered by its certificate. The annual report is due within 45 days after the anniversary date of the issuance of the certificate of review (Sections 325.14 (a) and (b) of the Regulations). Failure to submit a complete annual report may be the basis for revocation. (Sections 325.10 (a) and 325.14 (c) of the Regulations).

The Department of Commerce sent to N.B. Carson & Company, Inc., on October 01, 2001, a letter containing annual report questions with a reminder that its annual report was due on November 23, 2001. Additional reminders were sent on March 25, 2002 and on April 11, 2002. The Department has received no written response to any of these letters.

On May 22, 2002, and in accordance with Section 325.10 (c)(1) of the Regulations, a letter was sent by certified mail to notify N.B. Carson & Company, Inc. that the Department was formally initiating the process to revoke its certificate. The letter stated that this action is being taken because of the certificate holder's failure to file an annual report.

In accordance with Section 325.10 (c)(2) of the Regulations, each certificate holder has thirty days from the day after its receipt of the notification letter in which to respond. The certificate holder is deemed to have received this letter as of the date on which this notice is published in the Federal Register . For good cause shown, the Department of Commerce can, at its discretion, grant a thirty-day extension for a response.

If the certificate holder decides to respond, it must specifically address the Department's statement in the notification letter that it has failed to file an annual report. It should state in detail why the facts, conduct, or circumstances described in the notification letter are not true, or if they are, why they do not warrant revoking the certificate. If the certificate holder does not respond within the specified period, it will be considered an admission of the statements contained in the notification letter (Section 325.10 (c)(2) of the Regulations).

If the answer demonstrates that the material facts are in dispute, the Department of Commerce and the Department of Justice shall, upon request, meet informally with the certificate holder. Either Department may require the certificate holder to provide the documents or information that are necessary to support its contentions (Section 325.10 (c)(3) of the Regulations).

The Department shall publish a notice in the Federal Register of the revocation or modification or a decision not to revoke or modify (Section 325.10(c)(4) of the Regulations). If there is a determination to revoke a certificate, any person aggrieved by such final decision may appeal to an appropriate U.S. district court within 30 days from the date on which the Department's final determination is published in the Federal Register (Sections 325.10(c)(4) and 325.11 of the Regulations).

1. Scientific and Statistical Committee Meeting: June 17, 2002, 1 p.m.-5:30 p.m.

The Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will meet to hear a status report on Snapper Grouper Amendment 14 (Marine Protected Areas), review and discuss options for Snapper Grouper Amendment 13, and hear reports on the results of the Red Porgy Stock Assessment Workshops and Stock Assessment Review (SAW/SARC) meetings, the development of a preliminary Ecopath model for the South Atlantic Bight, the Cost and Returns Economic Study, and the status of the ongoing Fishing Communities Study. Beginning at 6:00 p.m. on Monday, June 17, a public scoping meeting will be held to address issues in the spiny lobster fishery.

2. Habitat Committee Meeting: June 18, 2002, 8:30 a.m.-12 Noon

The Habitat Committee will meet to hear a presentation on economic and governance perspectives on ecosystem management, a presentation on the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), ecosystem and Ecopath model development workshop process, and a presentation on EFH Final Guidelines. The Committee will also discuss policy statement revisions, guidance and timelines.

3. Personnel Committee Meeting: June 18, 2002, 1:30 p.m.-2:30 p.m. (closed)

The Personnel Committee will meet in closed session to discuss personnel issues.

4. Finance Committee Meeting: June 18, 2002, 2:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m.

The Finance Committee will meet to hear an update on the Calendar Year (CY) 2002 budget.

5. Protected Resources Committee Meeting: June 18, 2002, 3:30 p.m.-5:30 p.m.

The Protected Resources Committee will meet to review the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) with regards to fishery management, discuss objectives of the newly formed committee, develop a structure for the advisory panel, and discuss the impacts of the trawl fishery for jelly balls (jellyfish) on sea turtles and the potential need for management.

6. Snapper Grouper Committee Meeting: June 19, 2002, 8:30 a.m.-12 Noon and 1:30 p.m. until 5 p.m.

The Snapper Grouper Committee will meet to review the status of the Council's request for stock assessments from NMFS, hear reports on: the status of Marine Protected Area (MPA) workshops, red porgy stock assessment review, NMFS capacity work and the Black Seabass Pot Study. The Committee will also discuss the NMFS 2001 Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress and review options and make recommendations regarding Snapper Grouper Amendment 13.

7. Snapper Grouper Committee Meeting:June 20, 2002, 8:30 a.m.-12 Noon

The Snapper Grouper Committee will continue its meeting to review and make recommendations to staff regarding options for Snapper Grouper Amendment 13.

8. NEPA/EIS Committee Meeting: June 20, 2002, 1:30 p.m.- 2:30 p.m.

The NEPA/EIS Committee will meet to discuss the objectives, purpose and functions of the new Committee and establish a Committee name. The Committee will review NEPA requirements and receive a presentation on Programmatic Environmental Impacts Statements.

9. Council Session: June 20, 2002, 3 p.m.-6 p.m.

From 3 p.m.-3:15 p.m., the Council will have a Call to Order, introductions and roll call, adoption of the agenda, and approval of the March 2002 meeting minutes.

From 3:15 p.m.-3:30 p.m., the Council will hear a report from the Habitat Committee.

From 3:30 p.m.-3:45 p.m., the Council will hear a report from the Protected Resources Committee and address Committee recommendations.

Beginning at 3:45 p.m., a public comment period will be held on the issue of using powerhead gear and spears by divers for targeting cobia. Immediately following the comment period, the Council will discuss the issue and make recommendations to staff.

From 4:45 p.m.-6 p.m., the Council will hear a report from the Snapper Grouper Committee and provide direction to staff regarding options for Amendment 13 to the Snapper Grouper FMP.

10. Council Session: June 21, 2002, 8:30 a.m.-1 p.m.

From 8:30 a.m.-8:45 a.m., the Council will hear a report from the Personnel Committee (closed session).

From 8:45 a.m.-9:45 a.m., the Council will receive a legal briefing on litigation affecting the Council and address Committee recommendations.

From 9:45 a.m.-10 a.m., the Council will hear a report from the NEPA/EIS Committee and address Committee recommendations

From 10 a.m.-10:15 a.m., the Council will hear a report from the Finance Committee.

From 10:15 a.m.-10:45 a.m., the Council will receive a presentation on Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS).

From 10:45 a.m.-11:00 a.m., the Council will hear a report on the Highly Migratory Species (HMS) and Billfish Advisory Panel meetings.

From 11 a.m.-11:15 a.m., the Council will receive an update on the Magnuson-Stevens Act Reauthorization.

From 11:15 a.m.-11:30 a.m., the Council will receive a report on the Council Chairmen's Meeting.

From 11:30 a.m.-11:45 a.m., the Council will hear an update on the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP).

From 11:45 a.m.-1 p.m., the Council will hear NMFS status reports on the Golden/Red Crab FMP management unit emergency request and Shrimp Amendment 5. NMFS will also give status reports on landings for Atlantic king mackerel, Gulf king mackerel (eastern zone), Atlantic Spanish mackerel, snowy grouper & golden tilefish, wreckfish, greater amberjack and south Atlantic octocorals.

From 12 Noon-1 p.m., the Council will hear agency and liasion reports, discuss other business and upcoming meetings.

Documents regarding these issues are available from the Council office (see ADDRESSES ).

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subjects 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.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES ) by June 12, 2002.

The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226).

The objective of the study is to examine the behavior of humpback whale mother/calf pairs on their summer feeding grounds and compare the maternal behavior of solitary and social foragers. The study will also attempt to identify differences in the early behavior of the mother/calf pairs that may lead to the adoption of a particular foraging strategy in juveniles. A total of 250 humpbacks from all age classes will be approached annually for photo-identification, hydrophone recordings and video taping of behavior. Research activities will be conducted in southeastern Alaska through October 15, 2006.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), an initial determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this application should be mailed to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular request would be appropriate.

Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301) 713-0376, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period. Please note that comments will not be accepted by e-mail or by other electronic media.

Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register , NMFS is forwarding copies of this application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

FAR Part 47 and related clauses contain policies and procedures for applying transportation and traffic management considerations in the acquisition of supplies and acquiring transportation or transportation-related services. Generally, contracts involving transportation require information regarding the nature of the supplies, method of shipment, place and time of shipment, applicable charges, marking of shipments, shipping documents and other related items. This information is required to ensure proper and timely shipment of Government supplies.

Respondents: 65,000.

Responses Per Respondent: 4.4.

Annual Responses: 286,000.

Hours Per Response: .23.

Total Burden Hours: 65,780.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVP), Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0061, Transportation Requirements, in all correspondence.

Offers submitted in response to Government solicitations must be evaluated and awards made on the basis of the lowest laid down cost to the Government at the overseas port of discharge, via methods and ports compatible with required delivery dates and conditions affecting transportation known at the time of evaluation. Offers are evaluated on the basis of shipment through the port resulting in the lowest cost to the Government. This provision collects information regarding the vendor's preference for delivery ports. The information is used to evaluate offers and award a contract based on the lowest cost to the Government.

Respondents: 100.

Responses Per Respondent: 4.

Annual Responses: 400.

Hours Per Response: .25.

Total Burden Hours: 100.

Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVP), Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0057, Evaluation of Export Offers, in all correspondence.

Section 5 of the International Air Transportation Fair Competitive Practices Act of 1974 (49 U.S.C. 1517) (Fly America Act) requires that all Federal agencies and Government contractors and subcontractors use U.S.-flag air carriers for U.S. Government-financed international air transportation of personnel (and their personal effects) or property, to the extent that service by those carriers is available. It requires the Comptroller General of the United States, in the absence of satisfactory proof of the necessity for foreign-flag air transportation, to disallow expenditures from funds, appropriated or otherwise established for the account of the United States, for international air transportation secured aboard a foreign-flag air carrier if a U.S.-flag carrier is available to provide such services. In the event that the contractor selects a carrier other than a U.S.-flag air carrier for international air transportation, the contractor shall include a certification on vouchers involving such transportation. The contracting officer uses the information furnished in the certification to determine whether adequate justification exists for the contractor's use of other than a U.S.-flag air carrier.

Respondents: 150.

Responses Per Respondent: 2.

Annual Responses: 300.

Hours Per Response: .25.

Total Burden Hours: 75.

Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVP), Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0054, U.S.- Flag Air Carriers Certification, in all correspondence.

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

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

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPPTS-2002-0016. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the TSCA Nonconfidential Information Center, North East Mall Rm. B-607, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC. The Center is open from noon to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number of the Center is (202) 260-7099.

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

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

Another meeting of the NAC/AEGL Committee is scheduled for September, 2002.

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to all parties interested in SFIREG's information exchange relationship with EPA regarding important issues related to human health, environmental exposure to pesticides, and insight into EPA's decision-making process, and they are invited and encouraged to attend the meetings and participate as appropriate. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

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

2. In person. The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket ID number OPP-2002-0090. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number OPP-2002-0090 in the subject line on the first page of your response.

1. By mail . Submit your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

2. In person or by courier . Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. The PIRIB is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

3. Electronically. You may submit your comments electronically by e-mail to: opp-docket@epa.gov, or you can submit a computer disk as described above. Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format. All comments in electronic form must be identified by docket ID number OPP-2002-0090. Electronic comments may also be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice or collection activity.

7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.

8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

The following outlines the tentative agenda for the 2-day meeting.

1. Recommendations of the water quality registration review team.

2. Residual homeowner use chlorpyrifos stocks in the marketplace.

3. An issue review team to study conflicts among FIFRA and other environmental statutes (discussion).

4. Discussion of Certification and Training Advisory Group recommendations.

5. Discussion on e-Labeling.

6. Committee reports and introduction of issue papers.

7. Update on current Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance activities.

8. Update on current OPP activities.

9. SFIREG issue paper status reports.

10. Regional reports.

11. Other topics as appropriate.

EPA created the Superfund Subcommittee to undertake a dialogue about the future direction of the Superfund program in the context of other federal, state, and tribal cleanup programs. The Agency's charge to the Subcommittee requests that they discuss three key issues relevant to the Superfund program's future: the role of the National Priorities List (NPL), mega sites and program performance measures.

This first meeting of the Superfund Subcommittee will focus on discussions regarding the Subcommittee's charge and will also include presentations by EPA staff on relevant background information. On each day, there will be a limited time for public comment on the future direction of the Superfund program. Time allowed for individual presentations will be limited to 3 minutes, and all presenters must contact Lois Gartner (see contact information below) before June 10, 2002, and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the material to be presented. Presentations will be organized on a first-come basis. Written comments are encouraged, particularly if the material cannot be presented within the designated time limits, and must be sent to Ms. Gartner no later than June 14, 2002. To look at the complete agenda and to get more information, go to: www.epa.gov/oswer/sfsub.htm.

This action is directed to the public in general. Although this action may be of particular interest to persons who produce or use pesticides, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the information in this notice, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

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

This notice announces receipt by the Agency of applications from registrants to cancel 67 pesticide products registered under section 3 or 24(c) of FIFRA. These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number (or company number and 24(c) number) in Table 1 of this unit:

Unless a request is withdrawn by the registrant within 180 days of publication of this notice, orders will be issued canceling all of these registrations. Users of these pesticides or anyone else desiring the retention of a registration should contact the applicable registrant directly during this 180-day period.

Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number:

Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register . Thereafter, the Administrator may approve such a request.

Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for cancellation must submit such withdrawal in writing to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , postmarked before December 2, 2002. This written withdrawal of the request for cancellation will apply only to the applicable FIFRA section 6(f)(1) request listed in this notice.If the product(s) have been subject to a previous cancellation action, the effective date of cancellation and all other provisions of any earlier cancellation action are controlling. The withdrawal request must also include a commitment to pay any reregistration fees due, and to fulfill any applicable unsatisfied data requirements.

The effective date of cancellation will be the date of the cancellation order. The orders effecting these requested cancellations will generally permit a registrant to sell or distribute existing stocks for 1 year after the date the cancellation request was received. This policy is in accordance with the Agency's statement of policy as prescribed in the Federal Register of June 26, 1991 (56 FR 29362) (FRL-3846-4). Exceptions to this general rule will be made if a product poses a risk concern, or is in noncompliance with reregistration requirements, or is subject to a data call-in. In all cases, product-specific disposition dates will be given in the cancellation orders.

Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products which are currently in the United States and which have been packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action. Unless the provisions of an earlier order apply, existing stocks already in the hands of dealers or users can be distributed, sold, or used legally until they are exhausted, provided that such further sale and use comply with the EPA-approved label and labeling of the affected product. Exception to these general rules will be made in specific cases when more stringent restrictions on sale, distribution, or use of the products or their ingredients have already been imposed, as in a Special Review action, or where the Agency has identified significant potential risk concerns associated with a particular chemical.

You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

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

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPP-2002-0078 official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as confidential business information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number OPP-2002-0078 in the subject line on the first page of your response.

1. By mail . Submit your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

2. In person or by courier . Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The PIRIB is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

3. Electronically . You may submit your comments electronically by e-mail to: opp-docket@epa.gov, or you can submit a computer disk as described above. Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Electronic submissions will be accepted in Wordperfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format. All comments in electronic form must be identified by docket control number OPP-2002-0078. Electronic comments may also be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.

7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

EPA has received a pesticide petition as follows proposing the establishment and/or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA has determined that this petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

The petitioner summary of the pesticide petition is printed below as required by section 408(d)(3) of the FFDCA. The summary of the petition was prepared by the Interregional Research Project Number 4, and represents the view of the Interreional Research Project. EPA is publishing the petition summary verbatim without editing it in any way. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.

EPA has received a pesticide petition (1E6322) from the Interregional Research Project Number 4, 681 U.S. Highway 1 South, North Brunswick, New Jersey 08902-3390] proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR 180.479 by establishing a tolerance for residues of the herbicide [halosulfuron, methyl 5-[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl) amino]carbonylaminosulfonyl-3-chloro-1-methyl-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxylate] in or on the raw agricultural commodities (RAC) dry bean and succulent snap bean at 0.05 parts per million (ppm). EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition. This notice includes a summary of the petition prepared by Gowan Company, Yuma, Arizona 85366.

1. Plant metabolism . The metabolism of halosulfuron-methyl as well as the nature of the residues in plants is adequately understood for purposes of this tolerance.

2. Analytical method . A practical analytical method, gas chromatography with a nitrogen specific detector (TSD) which detects and measures residues of halosulfuron-methyl, is available for enforcement purposes with a limit of detection that allows monitoring of food with residues at or above the levels set in these tolerances. This enforcement method has been submitted to the Food and Drug Administration for publication in the Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM II). It has undergone independent laboratory validation and validation at the Beltsville laboratory.

3. Magnitude of residues . In snap and dry bean residue studies, there were no quantifiable residues found in the RAC using an analytical method with limit of quantitation (LOQ) of 0.05 ppm.

The nature of the toxic effects caused by halosulfuron-methyl is discussed in unit II.B of the Federal Register on April 31, 2001 (66 FR 45993) (FRL-6796-1).

1. Dietary exposure . Tolerances have been established (40 CFR 180.479) for residues of halosulfuron-methyl in or on a variety of plant and animal RACs.

i. Food — a. Acute exposure . For purposes of assessing the potential dietary exposure from food under existing and proposed tolerances, the aggregate exposure is based on the Theoretical Maximum Residue Contribution (TMRC) which is an estimate of the level of residues consumed daily if each food item contained pesticide residues equal to the tolerance.

The calculated TMRC value using the 99.9 th percentile consumption data was 0.006 milligrams/kilograms bodyweight day (mg/kg bwt day) or 1.2% acute Reference Dose (aRfD) for the general U.S. population. TMRC is obtained by multiplying the tolerance levels for each commodity by the daily consumption of the food forms of that commodity eaten by the U.S. population and various population subgroups.

In conducting this exposure assessment, conservative assumptions were made resulting in a large overestimate of human exposure. Thus, the dietary exposures to halosulfuron-methyl are less 3.0% aRfD for all sub-populations. Food consumption data from DEEM software were used in the calculation.

b. Chronic exposure . The chronic Reference Dose (cRfD) is 0.1 mg/kg/day. For all established and proposed tolerances of halosulfuron-methyl, the calculated TMRC value for the U.S. population is 0.00049 mg/kg/day or 0.5% RfD.

ii. Drinking water . The estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) in ground water (acute and chronic) is 0.008 μg/L. The estimated EECs (acute and chronic) for surface water are 4.3 μg/L and 1.1 μg/L, respectively. These estimates are based on a maximum application rate of 0.063 lbs. active per acre, which may be applied twice per season. There is no Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) established for residues of halosulfuron-methyl.

2. Non-dietary exposure . The non-dietary exposure assessment for halosulfuron-methyl is discussed in unit II.C of the Federal Register on April 31, 2001 (66 FR 45993) (FRL-6796-1).

The potential for cumulative effects for halosulfuron-methyl is discussed in unit II.D of the Federal Register on April 31, 2001 (66 FR 45993) (FRL-6796-1).

1. U.S. population . Aggregate chronic exposure to halosulfuron-methyl from “food only” utilizes less than 1% of the chronic populated adjusted dose (cPAD) for the most sensitive subgroup, children (1-6 years). The lowest drinking water level of concern (DWLOC) calculated was 1,000 μg/L for infants and children which is significantly higher than the EEC for chronic ground water (0.008 μg/L) and surface water (1.1 μg/L). As a result, the aggregate risk from chronic exposure to halosulfuron-methyl residues from all anticipated dietary exposures does not pose appreciable risks to human health.

Short-term risk—short-term aggregate exposure takes into account chronic dietary food and water plus short-term residential exposure. For halosulfuron-methyl, the EPA has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate exposure via oral exposure route (food and water) with those via oral and dermal exposure routes from residential uses. The MOEs for “food only” and residential exposure routes are 113, 600, and 330 for females 13+ years. Short-term DWLOC for females 13+ is 10,000 μg/L which is substantially higher than the EECs for acute surface water (4.3 μg/L). The food only and residential (oral and dermal) MOEs are well above the acceptable short-term aggregate MOE of 100. Therefore, exposure to halosulfuron-methyl residues resulting from current and proposed uses does not pose a short-term aggregate risk.

Intermediate-term risk—intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account chronic dietary food and water plus intermediate-term residential exposure. The MOEs for “food only” and residential exposure routes are 22,800 and 120 for adult males, and 23,000 and 100 for females 13+ years. The intermediate-term DWLOCs are 590 μg/L and 57 μg/L, respectively, for adult males and females 13+. Intermediate-term DWLOCs are substantially higher than the EEC for chronic surface water (1.1 μg/L). The food only and residential (dermal) MOEs are above the acceptable short-term aggregate MOE of 100. Therefore, exposure to halosulfuron-methyl residues resulting from current and proposed uses does not pose a intermediate-term aggregate risk.

Halosulfuron-methyl has been classified as a Group E chemical based upon the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in mice and rats, and has been classified as not likely to be a human carcinogen.

Therefore based upon this risk assessment, there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to halosulfuron-methyl residues resulting from current and proposed uses.

2. Infants and children . FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA may apply an additional safety factor (up to 10) in the case of threshold effects for infants and children to account for pre-natal and post-natal toxicity and the completeness of the data base. Except for the pending request for a developmental neurotoxicity study, the toxicity data base is complete for halosulfuron-methyl.

The chronic RfD was determined to be 0.1 mg/kg/day based upon the chronic dog study. The percent of RfD occupied is 0.9% for the most sensitive population subgroup, children (1-6 years old). The DWLOC for chronic exposure for infants and children is 1,000 μg/L and is significantly greater than the maximum concentration of halosulfuron-methyl in drinking water (0.008 μg/L in ground water and 1.1 μg/L in surface water).

Based upon reliable toxicity data, the use of an additional 10X safety factor is not warranted. Dietary assessments do not indicate a level of concern for potential risks to infants and children based upon the low use rates of halosulfuron-methyl, and the results of field and animal RAC studies conclude that detectable residues are not expected in human foods.

Therefore, based on complete and reliable toxicity data and the conservative exposure assessment, it is concluded that there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to halosulfuron-methyl residues with respect to the proposed new uses on dry and succulent snap beans.

Maximum residue levels have not been established for residues of halosulfuron-methyl on any food or feed crop by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.

We invite you to submit comments regarding the guidelines. During and after the comment period, you may view all public comments about these guidelines at the following site: http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/content/ offerings_content.jsp?contentOID= 121870&contentType=1004&P=1&S=1.

On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public record for these guidelines. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person listed under For a Copy of the Guidelines and Further Information.

You may view this document in text form at the following site: http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/content/ offerings_content.jsp?contentOID= 121870&contentType=1004&P=1&S=1.

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) mandates that the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) shall assess whether adequate information on health effects is available for the priority hazardous substances. Where such information is not available or under development, ATSDR shall, in cooperation with the National Toxicology Program, initiate a program of research to determine these health effects. The Act further directs that where feasible, ATSDR shall develop methods to determine the health effects of substances in combination with other substances with which they are commonly found. The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 requires that factors to be considered in establishing, modifying, or revoking tolerances for pesticide chemical residues shall include the available information concerning the cumulative effects of substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity, and combined exposure levels to the substance and other related substances. The FQPA requires that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency consult with the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (which includes ATSDR) in implementing some of the provisions of the act.

To carry out these legislative mandates, ATSDR has developed a chemical mixtures program. As part of the mixtures program, ATSDR developed a guidance manual that outlines the latest methods for mixtures health assessment. In addition, a series of documents called interaction profiles are being developed for certain priority mixtures that are of special concern to ATSDR. The purpose of an interaction profile is to evaluate data on the toxicology of the “whole” priority mixture (if available) and on the joint toxic action of the chemicals in the mixture in order to recommend approaches for the exposure-based assessment of the potential hazard to public health.

Although key studies for each of the mixtures were considered during the profile development process, this Federal Register notice seeks to solicit any additional studies, particularly unpublished data and ongoing studies, which will be evaluated for possible addition to the profiles now or in the future.

The following draft documents will be available to the public on or about, June 1, 2002.

All documents issued as “Drafts for Public Comment” represent ATSDR's best efforts to provide important toxicological information on interactions of priority hazardous substances. We are seeking public comments and additional information which may be used to supplement these documents. ATSDR remains committed to providing a public comment period for these documents as a means to best serve public health and our clients.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development will submit the proposed information collection package to OMB for review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).

This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Telephone survey of sponsor/managers of HUD-assisted properties housing people with disabilities regarding property size and type, resident characteristics, and program operations.

OMB Control Number:

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The information to be collected is part of a larger study, mandated by Congress and conducted by Abt Associates Inc., of the social and economic benefits and problems of providing housing for people with disabilities in projects of varying sizes. Specifically, the study will look at HUD's Section 811 and Section 202 programs and will explore how project size influences the properties, their residents, and the immediate neighborhoods. The telephone survey of sponsor/managers will administered to a nationally representative sample of Section 811 and 202 property sponsor/managers. The topics will include project and resident characteristics, services offered on site, off-site services available to residents, other links between the project and the surrounding neighborhood, factors that contribute to development and operating costs, and opinions on how project scale relates to costs, access to services, acceptance by the community, and residents' quality of life. This information is not currently available from any other source. The data will be compiled in a database for analysis for the study's final report. This research is intended to help HUD respond to Congress' interest in project scale and, more broadly, to explore effective project-based housing solutions for low-income people with disabilities.

Members of affected public: Sponsor/managers of Section 811 and Section 202 properties.

Estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection, including the number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response:

Status of the proposed information collection: Pending OMB approval.

The Department will submit the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).

This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Assessment of resident satisfaction with their living conditions.

OMB Control Number: 2577—(Formerly 2507-0001).

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: HUD conducts a resident survey of assisted and insured housing residents on an annual basis to assess the overall living conditions. Residents of public housing agencies (PHAs) are surveyed annually in accordance with requirements of the Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS) regulation. PHAs are required to implement the survey and follow up on substandard scores. Twenty percent of multifamily property residents are surveyed annually. Properties are selected randomly. No implementation or follow-up is required.

Agency form numbers, if applicable: Not applicable.

Members of affected public: Individuals or households, businesses or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions.

Estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: 631,261 residents receive the survey, 3,173 PHAS submit implementation and follow-up plans, HUD receives a total 269,091 responses from residents and PHAs (total based on 47% resident response rate for survey); annual submission per resident respondents and PHAs; average hours for resident response is 15 minutes; average hours for PHA response is 5.45 hours; the total reporting burden is 82,903 hours.

Status of the proposed information collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.

The Department will submit the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).

The Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Commitment to Guarantee Mortgage-Backed Securities.

OMB Control Number, if applicable: 2503-0001.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: This form is used by Mortgage-Backed Securities issuers to apply for Ginnie Mae commitment authority to guarantee mortgage-backed securities.

Agency form numbers, if applicable: HUD Form 11704.

Members of affected public: For-profit business (mortgage companies, thrifts, savings & loans, etc. ),

Estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection, including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response:

Status of the proposed information collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.

In July 2001, the MMS released the final EIS for proposed Eastern Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale 181. The final EIS evaluated three sale-area configurations and a no action alternative, as well as eleven mitigation measures in the form of lease stipulations. The Revised Proposal for Eastern Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale 181 was not one of the alternatives evaluated in the final EIS because the Revised Proposal was developed after publication of the final EIS. An EA was prepared to evaluate potential impacts within the area of the Revised Proposal and a finding of no new significant impacts was made on September 26, 2001. Only three of the eleven proposed lease stipulations evaluated in the final EIS were applicable to the reduced area for Lease Sale 181.

The issues and resources identified for and addressed in the final EIS (MMS 2001-051) that were applicable to the Revised Proposal were evaluated in the EA (MMS 2001-083). The programmatic EA that is the subject of this Notice is being prepared to evaluate the issues and potential environmental impacts related to exploratory drilling and associated activities in the EPA sale area.

The MMS requests interested parties to submit comments regarding any new information or issues that should be addressed in the programmatic EA to Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, Office of Leasing and Environment, Attention: Regional Supervisor (MS 5410), 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394. Comments should be submitted no later than 30 days after the publication of this Notice in the Federal Register .

The final phase of these investigations is being scheduled as a result of affirmative preliminary determinations by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) that certain benefits which constitute subsidies within the meaning of section 703 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b) are being provided to manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Argentina, Brazil, France, and Korea of certain cold-rolled steel products, and that such products from Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, 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 petitions filed on September 28, 2001 with the Commission and Commerce by Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Bethlehem, PA; LTV Steel Co., Inc., Cleveland, OH; National Steel Corporation, Mishawaka, IN;  1 Nucor Corporation, Charlotte, NC; Steel Dynamics Inc., Butler, IN; United States Steel LLC, Pittsburgh, PA; WCI Steel, Inc., Warren, OH); and Weirton Steel Corporation, Weirton, WV. 2

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 section 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 section 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 July 3, 2002, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 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 July 18, 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 July 8, 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 (if necessary) to be held at 9:30 a.m. on July 10, 2002, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 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 section 207.23 of the Commission's rules; the deadline for filing is July 11, 2002. Parties may also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, as provided in section 207.24 of the Commission's rules, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of section 207.25 of the Commission's rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is July 25, 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 July 25, 2002. On August 19, 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 August 21, 2002, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with section 207.30 of the Commission's rules. Parties may submit additional final comments pertaining to investigations in which Commerce has extended its final determinations on or before October 11, 2002. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 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 sections 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.

Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for FY 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554) requires each Federal agency to publish guidelines for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of the information it disseminates. Agency guidelines must be based on government-wide guidelines issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In compliance with this statutory requirement and OMB instructions, the Commission has posted its draft Information Quality Guidelines on the Commission's website (www.usitc.gov).

The Guidelines describe the agency's procedures for ensuring the quality of information that it disseminates and the procedures by which an affected person may obtain correction of information disseminated by the Commission that does not comply with the Guidelines. The Commission invites public comments on its draft Guidelines and will consider the comments received in developing its proposed final Guidelines, which must be submitted to OMB for review. The agency's final Guidelines are to be published by October 1, 2002. Persons who cannot access the draft Guidelines through the Internet may request a paper or electronic copy by contacting the Office of the Secretary.

1. Purpose. The United States International Trade Commission (Commission) issues these Information Quality Guidelines (Guidelines) to describe the agency's procedures for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information that it disseminates and to set forth the administrative procedure by which an affected person may obtain correction of disseminated information that does not comply with the Guidelines.

2. Authority. The Guidelines are based on section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law No. 106-554) and the implementing guidelines of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published on September 28, 2001 (66 FR 49718) and February 22, 2002 (67 FR 8452).

3. Effective Date. The Guidelines are effective as of October 1, 2002.

4. Definitions. The definitions of “quality,” “utility,” “objectivity,” “integrity,” “information,” “Government information,” “information dissemination product,” “dissemination,” “influential,” and “reproducibility” contained in section V of the notice, “Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies,” as published by the Office of Management and Budget on February 22, 2002 (67 FR 8452), are incorporated herein by reference.

5. Applicability. The mission of the Commission is to: (1) Administer U.S. trade remedy laws within its mandate in a fair and objective manner; (2) provide the President, the United States Trade Representative, and Congress with independent, quality analysis, information, and support on matters of tariffs and international trade and competitiveness; and (3) maintain the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. In so doing, the Commission serves the public by implementing U.S. law and contributing to the development of sound and informed U.S. trade policy.

In carrying out its mission, the Commission generates a variety of information products. Some are subject to section 515 and OMB's implementing guidelines. These and the Commission guidelines corresponding to them are discussed below. Others do not fall within the coverage of the statute and guidelines. Such excluded information includes press releases, responses to Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act requests, correspondence with individuals, information that is provided in response to individual requests, and links to other website pages from the Commission website. Because the government-wide guidelines also exclude information that is disseminated in “adjudicative processes,” the Commission Guidelines do not apply to decisions, orders, or any other documents disseminated in the course of Commission adjudicative proceedings. Initial determinations issued by Commission administrative law judges are subject to review by the Commission in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Final Commission decisions, including initial determinations of administrative law judges that become final Commission decisions, are subject to judicial review in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

The Commission also conducts import injury investigations under a number of statutory authorities. These investigations are not adjudicative proceedings, but are subject to judicial review in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. The Commission considers documents disseminated in such investigations to be sufficiently analogous to adjudicative processes for the purposes of section 515 to conclude that documents disseminated in those investigations are not covered by that statute or the OMB guidelines.

6. Basic Standard of Quality. The basic standard of quality for information disseminated by the Commission is “reasonable assurance.” The agency's procedures for ensuring the quality of information it disseminates are intended to provide reasonable assurance that the information is accurate, clear, unbiased, and useful for intended users, and secure from unauthorized access or revision. This basic quality standard is consistent with the standard employed in internal management reviews to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the agency's operations.

7. Procedures to Ensure Quality.

a. Research program products. Commission research products are produced by the Office of Operations with assistance from other staff offices. A team prepares a draft report which is then submitted to a rigorous review process, normally involving primary review and senior review by agency staff and then review and approval by the Commission. Once approved, the products are provided to customers. Much of the information that the Commission disseminates is confidential business information and/or national security information, and is made available only to authorized recipients. In general, information that is publicly disclosable is provided to the general public through the Commission's website and other means of dissemination.

The transparency of research products is assured, where appropriate, through inclusion of clear explanations of study methodology in report texts. Thus, to the extent that interested parties have appropriate access to the material, the statistical information and analyses that the Commission disseminates in its reports are available, and if appropriately qualified persons use the same or a similar methodology, they would be expected to generate similar findings and results.

b. Trade information. Commission trade information, including the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, is produced by the Office of Operations with assistance from other staff offices. Each product undergoes an internal review by subject matter experts prior to review by the Commission, where appropriate.

c. General information about the Commission. The Commission's Offices of External Relations and of the Secretary disseminate a variety of products that provide information about the agency. An example is the Commission's Year in Review publication that summarizes agency activities during the past year. The Office of External Relations reviews each such information product prior to its review and approval by the Commission, and its subsequent public dissemination.

The Commission issues a Strategic Plan, annual Performance Plan, and annual Performance Report in accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). These documents are prepared by subject matter experts and reviewed by Commission office directors, and are approved by the Commission prior to their issuance. The Commission and Commission staff also prepare various documents that describe agency processes, such as the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Handbook and An Introduction to Administrative Protective Order in Import Injury Investigations, and these publications are subject to appropriate internal reviews by subject matter experts.

d. Integrity of information on the Commission website. Commission office directors and appropriate subject matter experts in their offices are responsible for ensuring that accurate, complete, and current information in each office's area of responsibility is provided to the webmaster for posting to the Commission website. Information maintained on the website for public dissemination is backed up regularly to permit restoration in the event of any compromise of the site.

e. Use of disclaimers. As a part of its procedures to ensure information quality, the Commission uses disclaimers where appropriate. A disclaimer notice regarding the accuracy and timeliness of information provided on the DataWeb website is included on that website. Staff research products, such as the International Economic Review and the Industry, Trade, and Technology Review, contain a disclaimer to advise users that the products are those of staff and do not represent the views of the Commission. Other disclaimers may be used, as appropriate, in future information dissemination products.

8. Requests for Correction of Disseminated Information. This section sets forth the administrative procedure by which an affected person may obtain correction of information disseminated by the Commission that does not comply with its Information Quality Guidelines. This administrative procedure applies only to requests for correction of disseminated information to which these Guidelines apply, as described in section 5 above. Only requests from an “affected person,” that is, a person who may benefit from or be harmed by reliance on information disseminated by the Commission under these Guidelines, will be considered. Requests for correction of information that are made in bad faith or without justification will be rejected. This procedure for the correction of information is not intended to have any effect on the Commission's conduct of adjudicative proceedings and non-adjudicative import injury investigations.

a. Request for correction. A request for correction of disseminated information that allegedly does not comply with the Commission Information Quality Guidelines must be submitted, in writing, to the Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW, Washington, DC 20436. The request for correction must specifically identify the disseminated information that allegedly does not comply with the Guidelines and explain how the requestor is affected by the information.

b. Initial decision. The Secretary to the Commission, or her designee, will review a request for correction of disseminated information and will issue a written initial decision to the requestor within 20 workdays of receipt of the request. The initial decision will advise the requestor of corrections made or, if the request is denied, will explain why no correction was made and advise the request for the opportunity to appeal the initial decision.

c. Appeal to the Chief Information Officer. A requestor may appeal an initial decision denying a request for correction of disseminated information to the Chief Information Officer (CIO) of the Commission. The appeal must be submitted, in writing, to the Chief Information Officer (CIO) of the Commission. The appeal must be submitted, in writing, to the Chief Information Officer, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW, Washington, DC 20436. The appeal must be submitted no later than 10 workdays from the date of the initial decision. The appeal must include a copy of the request for correction, a copy of the Secretary's initial decision, a statement of the reasons why the decision is not satisfactory to the requestor, and a statement of what remedy would be satisfactory to the requestor. The CIO will issue a decision within 20 workdays of receipt of the appeal.

The decision of the CIO is final and is not subject to administrative or judicial review.

d. Reports. Beginning on January 1, 2004, and annually thereafter, the Commission will file reports with OMB that provide the number and nature of complaints received regarding information disseminated by the Commission and how the complaints were resolved.

9. Revisions to the Guidelines. Each Commission office that produces information dissemination products to which these Guidelines apply is responsible for notifying the CIO of the Commission whenever a change in the Guidelines with respect to the office's products is required. Changes may be required, for example, when a new information dissemination product is created or an existing product is discontinued, or when there is a change in the office's procedures for ensuring the quality of an information dissemination product for which the office is responsible. The CIO will initiate necessary changes to the Guidelines. When changes to the Guidelines are made, a revised version will be posted to the Commission's website.

Title of Collection: Evaluation of the Impact and Use of the National Institutes of Health Curriculum Supplements on Students' Scientific Knowledge.

OMB Control No.: 3145-NEW.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has provided funding for systematically developed, research-based curriculum materials beginning in the 1960s. NSF has the responsibility of coordinating evaluations of mathematics and science education programs across government, including agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Since its establishment as part of NIH, the Office of Science Education (OSE) has engaged in the development of science curriculum supplements and other educational materials related to medicine and research. NSF and NIH will partner in this evaluation because both desire information on the effectiveness of curriculum materials and the effective means to collect this information. Over the years, there have been changes in the levels of funding for such instructional materials, reflecting changes in public support and concerns for such endeavors. However, concerns about student achievement in science have focused attention on the need for strong curriculum materials to support “systemic reform” (O'Day & Smith, 1993). NSF has responded to these needs by increasing support to research-based instructional materials that have been reviewed by content experts and found to be of high quality and meet the demands of the National Science Education Standards (NSES).

The proposed evaluation's study questions to be addressed are: Do the curriculum supplements promote better science education? Do the curriculum supplements reduce academic inequity? Do the curriculum supplements deepen students' understanding of the importance of basic research to advances in medicine and health? Do the curriculum supplements foster student analysis of the direct and indirect effects of scientific discoveries on their individual and public health? Do the curriculum supplements encourage students to take more responsibility for their own health?

The data to address these questions will be gathered using mixed methods. In addition to assessing student achievement data and using surveys, the mixed-methods evaluation model will include pre-observation questionnaires, observations, and interviews of teachers. Interviews and observations, for example, will enable research evaluators to clarify vague responses in surveys or confirm findings. As part of the evaluation, pre- and post-assessment will be used for NIH Curriculum Supplement Series for Grades 9-12 to compare students' learning of scientific concepts and skills when a supplement of NIH materials will be used, with students who do not receive the NIH materials. Teacher and student surveys, interviews, site visits, document reviews, standardized performance measures, and student work samples will provide the basis for comparison.

The expected respondents and observation subjects are pre-college teachers and students.

The total annual burden hours for this collection are 6,952 for a maximum of 6,132 respondents, assuming an 80-100% response rate. The burden on the general public is small because the study is limited to a 10 percent random sample of the 12,000 teachers who have requested the materials being studied, a sample of impacted students, and 60 treatment and 60 comparison teachers.

The National Science Foundation, as directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541), has developed regulations that implement the “Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora” for all United States citizens. The Agreed Measures, developed by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties, recommended establishment of a permit system for various activities in Antarctica and designation of certain animals and certain geographic areas as requiring special protection. The regulations establish such a permit system to designate Specially Protected Areas and Sites of Special Scientific Interest.

The applications received are as follows:

Randall Davis, Marine Biology, Texas A&M University, 5007 Avenue U, Galveston, TX 77551.

Taking. The applicant proposes to capture by net up to 20 free ranging adult Weddell seals and approximately 10 Weddell seal pups. Animal-borne video system/data loggers will be attached to the seals to record diving behavior, physiology, and locomotor performance of marine mammals at depth. This research is part of a project studying Weddell seals to test hypothesis related to general foraging strategy, foraging location, searching mode, prey detection, and the cost of diving and foraging. All captured seals will be released.

McMurdo Sound, Antarctica.

October 1, 2002 to February 15, 2003.

David Ainley, H.T. Harvey and Associates, 3150 Almaden Expressway, Suite 3150, San Jose, CA 95118.

Take and Enter Antarctic Specially Protected Areas. The applicant proposes to enter the Adelie penguin rookeries in the Antarctic Specially Protected Areas of Beaufort Island (ASPA 105), Cape Royds, Ross Island (ASPA 121), and Cape Crozier, Ross Island (ASPA 124) to assess (1) reproductive success, annual mortality, and between colony movement rates, and, (2) the environmental context of the populations. Up to 1800 birds will be banded. Up to 70 adult birds will have stomach lavages to collect stomach contents for diet studies. An additional 100 adult birds will have either a satellite tag (PTT) attached to determine foraging area, or a time-depth-recorder (TDR) to determine foraging behavior. These instruments will be removed after 1-2 foraging dives and attached to other birds. Finally, approximately 15 adult birds at each site will have a geolocation tag (GLS) attached to their leg bands to determine the wintering area of each individual. These tags will be removed the following summer and the data downloaded for analysis.

Beaufort Island (ASPA 105), Cape Royds, Ross Island (ASPA 121), and Cape Crozier, Ross Island (ASPA 124).

November 1, 2002 to February 15, 2005.

Paul J. Ponganis, Center for Marine Biotechnology & Biomedicine, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0204.

Take, Enter an Antarctic Specially Protected Areas, and Import into the United States. The applicant proposes to enter the Emperor penguins colonies at Antarctic Specially Protected Areas of Beaufort Island (ASPA 105), and Cape Crozier, Ross Island (ASPA 124) to conduct a census of the bird population. The colonies were severely affected by the B15 iceberg in 2001; there were no living emperors at Cape Crozier, and the census was extremely reduced at Beaufort Island. Access to these sites will allow continuation of the census of these populations from previous research, and will provide continuity with planned censuses in the future. The B15 iceberg has become a natural experiment to evaluate the fidelity of Emperor penguins to colony sites and to examine the resilience of Emperor penguins to short-term disasters. The applicant also proposes to salvage up to 20 Emperor carcasses, if found, for return to the States for autopsy/specimen collection/anatomical study.

Beaufort Island (ASPA 105), and Cape Crozier, Ross Island (ASPA 124).

October 1, 2002 to October 1, 2003.

William R. Fraser, Polar Oceans Research Group, P.O. Box 368, Sheridan, MT 59749.

Take. The applicant, as a participant in a long-term ecological research program in the western Antarctic Peninsula, proposes to capture, collect samples, weigh, band and attach transmitters to a number of penguin and seabird species to assess how annual environmental variability affects seabird diets, breeding success, growth rates, survival, recruitment, behavior, population trends, foraging success and seasonal dispersal. The methods and species are listed in the chart below.

Manner of Taking By Capture and Release For (1) Census populations and/or mark breeding territories; (2) capture, mark, band and/or weight adults, chicks and eggs; (3) obtain diet data through stomach lavage, by screening the contents of terrestrial sediment traps and/or by collecting naturally regurgitated prey items; (4) place transmitters on individuals; (5) place instrumented artificial eggs under incubating individuals; and (6) use GIS/GPS technologies to update existing breeding habitat maps.

Palmer Station, Anvers Island vicinity, and Marguerite Bay and vicinity.

October 1, 2002 to September 30, 2007.

William R. Fraser, Polar Oceans Research Group, P.O. 368, Sheridan, MT 59749.

Take, and Enter Antarctic Specially Protected Areas, and Import into the United States. The applicant is a participant in two long-term ecological research (LTER) programs in the western Antarctic Peninsula region. The focus of the research is to relate variability in seabird ecology to changes in the physical and biological environment, especially sea ice, snow conditions and prey availability. Studies will assess how annual environmental variability affects seabird diets, breeding success, growth rates, survival and recruitment, behavior, population trends, foraging success and seasonal dispersal. To accomplish these objective, the applicant proposes to: (1) Census populations and mark breeding territories; (2) capture, mark, and weight a select number of adults, chicks and eggs; (3) obtain diet samples through stomach lavage, by screening the contents of terrestrial sediment taps and collecting naturally regulagitated prey items; (4) place transmitters on individuals to develop foraging and dispersal profiles; (5) place instrumented artificial eggs under incubating individuals to measure heart-rate and body temperature; and, (6) use GIS/GPS technologies to update existing breeding habitat maps * * * The applicant proposes to enter the following Antarctic Specially Protected Areas:

Dion Islands, Marguerite Bay (ASPA 107)—This site has the only known breeding population of Emperor Penguins in the western Antarctic Peninsula. The applicant proposes to conduct a census in order to update the population data available on this species, since a census has not been conducted in more than two decades.

Litchfield Island, Arthur Harbor (ASPA 113) and Biscoe Point, Anvers Island (ASPA 139)—These two sites near Palmer Station, Anvers Island, serve as research control areas. The applicant proposes to enter Litchfield Island 2-3 times a week and Biscoe Point up to 5 times a season, for 4-5 hours each visit to census, brand, weight, collect diet samples of seabirds and conduct habitat mapping. Heavily vegetated areas will be avoided.

Avian Island, Marguerite Bay (ASPA 117)—This site serves as an alternate site in the Marguerite Bay region for obtaining Adelie Penguin diet samples and censuses during the annual Palmer LTER research cruise. The applicant proposes to obtain diet samples from 20-25 penguins to determine trends in diets and populations of this species in the Marguerite Bay region to determine if it differs from those in the Palmer Station region due to differences in annual sea ice and snow conditions.

Lagotellerie Island, Marguerite Bay (ASPA 115)—This site has a population of Adelie penguins that could be used as an alternate sampling area in the event access to Avian Island is impeded by ice or weather.

Dion Islands, Marguerite Bay (ASPA 107); Litchfield Island, Arthur Harbor (ASPA 113); Lagotellerie Island, Marguerite Bay (ASPA 115); Avian Island, Marguerite Bay (ASPA 117); and, Biscoe Point, Anvers Island (ASPA 139).

October 1, 2002 to September 30, 2007.

William R. Fraser, Polar Oceans Research Group. P.O. 368, Sheridan, MT 59749.

Take, and Import into the United States. The applicant is a participant in two long-term ecological research (LTER) programs in the western Antarctic Peninsula region, and during the course of normal research occasionally encounters specimens of various species (penguins, seabirds, etc.) that have died of natural causes. The application proposes to salvage and preserve these specimens for import into the U.S. and disposition at teaching and research institutions.

Palmer Station, Anvers Island and vicinity.

October 1, 2002 to September 30, 2007.

Mark Buckley, Multimedia Manager, Raytheon Polar Services Company, 7400 S. Tucson Way, Centennial, CO 80112.

Enter Antarctic Specially Protected Areas. The applicant is a member of Raytheon Polar Services Company, which is the prime civilian contractor to the U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP), and is tasked by the National Science Foundation (NSF) with video production in Antarctica. During the past year or so, unprecedented ice conditions had adverse impact on penguin colonies in the McMurdo Sound and Ross Sea region. With the recent calving of C-19 and the influence of B-15, it is expected that scientific interest and activities, as well as public interests will continue. Therefore the applicant proposes his staff of videographers be permitted to enter the Antarctic Specially Protected Areas of Beaufort Island (ASPA 105), New College Valley, Cape Bird (ASPA 116), Cape Royds, Ross Island (ASPA 121), and, Cape Crozier, Ross Island (ASPA 124) for the purpose of taking “low impact” documentary film footage. The video team will accompany a similarly permitted researcher into the sites to film scientific research. Access to the sites will be dependant upon operational, scientific conditions, and availability of transportation.

Beaufort Island (ASPA 105), New College Valley, Cape Bird (ASPA 116), Cape Royds, Ross Island (ASPA 121), and, Cape Crozier, Ross Island (ASPA 124).

October 1, 2002 to February 14, 2003.

Title: NMVC Program Application Interview Questions; SSBIC Applicant Tech Proposal; Request for Approval of Management Services Fees.

No's: 2216, 2217.

Frequency: On Occasion.

Description of Respondents: Program Applicants and participants; SSBIC's receiving grants under the NMVC program.

Responses: 38.

Annual Burden: 210.

On October 22, 2001, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issued affirmative determinations under section 202(b) of the Trade Act (22 U.S.C. 2252(b)) that (1) carbon and alloy steel slabs, plate (including cut-to-length plate and clad plate), hot-rolled sheet and strip (including plate in coils), cold-rolled sheet and strip (other than grain-oriented electrical steel), and corrosion-resistant and other coated sheet and strip; (2) carbon and alloy hot-rolled bar and light shapes; (3) carbon and alloy cold-finished bar; (4) rebar; (5) carbon and alloy welded tubular products (other than oil country tubular goods); (6) carbon and alloy flanges, fittings, and tool joints; (7) stainless steel bar and light shapes; and (8) stainless steel rod are being imported in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industries producing those products. The Commissioners voting were equally divided with respect to the determination under section 202(b) of the Trade Act as to whether increased imports of (9) carbon and alloy tin mill products; (10) tool steel, all forms; (11) stainless steel wire; and (12) stainless steel flanges and fittings are being imported in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industries producing those products.

On March 5, 2002, the President issued Proclamation 7529, which established safeguard measures in the form of increases in duty and a tariff-rate quota pursuant to section 203 of the Trade Act on imports of the ten steel products described in paragraph 7 of that proclamation. Effective with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m., EST, on March 20, 2002, Proclamation 7529 modifies the HTS so as to provide for such increased duties and a tariff-rate quota. Proclamation 7529 also authorized the USTR to further consider requests for the exclusion of particular products and, upon publication in the Federal Register of his finding that a particular product should be excluded, to modify the HTS provisions created by the Annex to that proclamation to exclude such particular product from the pertinent safeguard measure. USTR requested additional information about these exclusions, in the form of a requester's questionnaire from interested persons that had requested exclusions, and an objector's questionnaire from interested persons that had opposed such requests.

Proclamation 7529 authorized the USTR, in March of each year in which any safeguard measure established by the Proclamation remains in effect and after consultation with the TPSC, to exclude particular products from the safeguard measure. In a Memorandum of March 5, 2002, the President instructed the USTR to publish in the Federal Register a notice of the procedures by which interested persons may request the TPSC to recommend whether to exclude a particular product.

USTR, in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce), has concluded that the new requester and new objector questionnaires used with regard to the new exclusion requests submitted on May 20, 2002, will elicit the information needed to evaluate whether to grant the exclusion of a particular product in March 2003, March 2004, or at such other time as may be permitted by Proclamation 7529. USTR and Commerce have further concluded that interested persons that already submitted requester's questionnaires for a product should file an updated requester's questionnaire that revises and supplements the previously submitted request. Anyone that previously submitted an objection to such request must also file a revised objector's questionnaire updating the information previously submitted.

In November 2002 and November 2003, or at any other time that may be appropriate, USTR will publish in the Federal Register a notice inviting any interested persons seeking the exclusion of a particular product to submit (1) for previously submitted product exclusion requests, an updated requester questionnaire, referencing the alphanumeroc tracking number assigned to the product, that revises the previously submitted version and provides any additional information the requester deems necessary for our analysis; or (2) a new requester questionnaire. A list of products for which we have received a requester questionnaire that we have deemed to be appropriately filed is available from the USTR and Commerce Department websites, http://ia.ita.doc.gov/steel/exclusion/. Any updated requester questionnaire or new requester questionnaire should be submitted within 30 days of the date of publication of the Federal Register notice described in this paragraph.

Within 15 business days after the date for submitting questionnaires, USTR will post a summary of the requested exclusions on its website. Interested persons opposing any request for exclusion should submit (1) for objections previously submitted, an updated objector's questionnaire, referencing the appropriate alphanumeric tracking number, that revises the previously submitted version and provides any additional information the objector deems necessary for our analysis; or (2) a new objector's questionnaire. Interested persons objecting to new requests or filing revised objector's questionnaires regarding previously submitted requests should submit their objections within 30 days following the posting of the product description summaries on the USTR website.

These questionnaires will be available on the USTR and Commerce Department websites at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/steel/exclusion/. USTR may disregard an exclusion request for a particular product if a complete response to the requester's questionnaires has not been received with regard to that product by the applicable date. USTR may conclude that there is no opposition with regard to the exclusion of a particular product if a complete response to the new objector's questionnaire with regard to that product has not been received by the applicable date.

Each request will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. USTR will grant only those exclusions that do not undermine the objectives of the safeguard measures. In analyzing the requests, USTR will consider whether the product is currently being produced in the United States, whether substitution of the product is possible, whether qualification requirements affect the requester's ability to use domestic products, inventories, whether the requested product is under development by a U.S. producer who will imminently be able to produce it in commercial quantities and any other relevant factors. Where necessary, USTR and/or the Commerce Department will meet with interested persons to discuss the information that was submitted and/or to gain additional information.

Every effort will be made to process requests as soon as possible consistent with resources and the quality of information that is received.

Interested persons should follow the instructions posted on the USTR and Commerce Department web sites at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/steel/exclusion/. Failure to follow the instructions posted there may result in rejection of the questionnaire submission.

We will assign each product covered by new request an alpha-numeric tracking number such as “N299.3,” and will notify requesters as soon as possible after receipt of the submission. All interested persons must use this alpha-numeric designator in every subsequent reference to that exclusion request.

We strongly discourage the submission of business confidential information. Any questionnaire response that contains business confidential information must be accompanied by six copies of a public summary that does not contain business confidential information, and a diskette containing an electronic version of the public summary. Any paper submission and diskette containing business confidential information must be clearly marked “Business Confidential” at the top and bottom of the cover page (or letter) and each succeeding page of the submission, and on the label of the diskette. The version that does not contain business confidential information should also be clearly marked, at the top and bottom of each page, “public version” or “nonconfidential,” and on the label of the diskette.

Respondents: 200.

Responses per respondent: 6.5.

Annual responses: 1300.

Hours per response: 2.

Total burden hours: 2600.

Respondents: 50.

Responses per respondent: 2.

Annual responses: 100.

Hours per response: 15.

Total burden hours: 1500.

Respondents: 17.