Title: Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000.

OMB Number: 0596-0165.

Expiration Date of Approval: 3/31/2002.

Type of Request: Extension with no revision.

Abstract: On May 23, 1908, the U.S. Congress enacted 16 U.S.C. 500, which created what is commonly known as the Twenty-Five Percent Fund. Under this act, States receive payment from the Federal Government of twenty-five percent of the revenues generated from the national forests that are located within their borders. On October 30, 2000, the Congress enacted the Secure Rural Schools, and Community Self-Determination Act (Public Law 106-393; hereafter, the act), which is intended to restore stability and predictability to the annual payments made to States and counties containing National Forest System lands and public domain lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management. Like the 25 percent fund, the counties may use the proceeds only for the benefit of public schools, roads, and other purposes.

The Secretary of Agriculture is directed to implement the act. Under the act, eligible counties and their States need to reach an agreement on the distribution of funds authorized by the act and the amount that each county will receive as its share of the State's full payment amount. Counties will need to determine whether they wish to continue to receive their share of the State's twenty-five percent payment or whether they choose their share of the State's full payment amount through the act. A decision to receive a share of the State's 25 percent payment is effective for two years; a decision to receive a share of the act's full payment amount stays in effect through fiscal year 2006.

Those counties choosing the full payment and receiving more than $100,000 under the act are required to make an election regarding the proportion of their funds (between fifteen and twenty percent) to be applied to Title II or Title III of the act. Title II allows the funds paid under the act to be used for special projects on Federal lands that meet the requirements described in Title II of the act, and Title III allows the funds to be spent on county projects that meet the requirements described under Title III of the act. Annually, each State Treasurer is requested to notify the Forest Service, by September 30, of the projected payment distributions to each county and, when required, each county's elected proportion of funds for Title II or for Title III.

Upon receipt, the Forest Service will evaluate the information from States in order to properly implement the act. States and counties must provide the requested information in order for the Forest Service to properly calculate and distribute the State's full payment amount authorized by Public Law 106-393 and, by extension, provide counties with their commensurate share of that full payment amount. This information collection is a vital and integral part of the Forest Service's ability to implement the act. Failure to implement the act would potentially lead to unnecessary harm to those schools and counties that benefit from the funds.

Estimate of Annual Burden: 30 minutes.

Type of Respondents: State Treasurers and Counties.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 41.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 22 hours per year.

Comment is invited on: (1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the information collection submission for Office of Management and Budget approval.

The Green Mountain National Forest is extending the comment period for the NOI until August 31, 2001. Written comments on the NOI will now be accepted until that time. All other information in the May 2, 2002 NOI remains the same.

The project area contains approximately 35,900 acres, of which approximately 28,475 are National Forest System acres, on the Ontonagon and Bergland Ranger Districts on the Ottawa National Forest, Ontonagon County, Michigan. The legal description of the project area contains all or parts of the following locations: T49N R38W, Sections 18, 19, 30; T49N R39W, Sections 1-36; T49N R40W, Sections 1-4, 8-17, 20-28, 33-36; and T50N R39W, Sections 27, 31-35, Michigan Meridian.

The proposed project area includes portions of management areas (MAs) 1.1, 8.1, 9.2, and 9.3, and is comprised of National Forest System lands and parcels of private land. The Ottawa Forest Plan provides guidance for management activities within the potentially affected area through its goals, objectives, standards and guidelines, and management area direction.

The purpose and need for action is to:

(1) Promote and maintain processes that would enhance natural species diversity while providing a supply of wood products for regional and local needs to help support a stable economic base within the market area.

(2) Maintain and enhance habitat conditions that sustain viable populations of a variety of fish and wildlife species and enhance watershed conditions.

(3) Maintain a road system that allows for management of National Forest System lands and provides for public access while meeting other resource needs.

(4) Provide recreational opportunities to meet the public's needs.

(5) Provide for public safety.

The Forest Service proposes treatments on approximately 3360 acres of National Forest System land that would harvest approximately 48,000 hundred cubic feet (CCF) (equivalent to approximately 61,000 cords) of timber through a variety of harvest methods. Silvicultural treatment systems that would be used include: clearcut with reserve trees on approximately 1975 acres, selection harvest on approximately 100 acres, commercial thinning on approximately 825 acres, shelterwood harvest on approximately 360 acres, and removal harvest on approximately 100 acres. This proposal includes 15 temporary openings greater than 40 acres (size range is approximately 50 to 186 acres), to treat Aspen forest types at high risk of loss to insect and disease (60 days' public notice period and Regional Forester review would be required prior to signing the Record of Decision for exceeding the forty-acre temporary opening limit set in 36 CFR 219.27(d)(2)). Connected treatment actions would include site preparation for natural and artificial regeneration on approximately 2200 acres, and supplemental conifer planting on approximately 400 acres. The proposal also includes the classification of approximately 1650 acres of old growth, of which approximately 290 acres would be classified as managed old growth and approximately 1360 acres would be classified as unmanaged old growth.

The proposed National Forest road management needed to access the treatment areas would include an estimated: 1.1 miles of new system road construction, 9.7 miles of system road reconstruction, 40.8 miles of system road maintenance, and 1.0 mile of temporary road construction. Temporary roads would be obliterated and allowed to revegetate to a natural state following completion of treatment activities.

In addition to the above proposed road treatments, the following road management would allow for future management of National Forest lands, provide for public access, and meet other resource needs. This includes an estimated: 28.1 miles of road decommissioning, 15.6 miles of system road reconstruction, 49.6 miles of system road maintenance, and 2.6 miles of road being unclassified. The 2.6 miles of unclassified road are no longer needed for long-term management of forest resources, but are access routes currently under special use permit or being used by leaseholders.

The proposed expansion of the Gauthier Gravel Pit would provide materials necessary for future transportation management.

The proposed wildlife and fisheries management activities, intended to maintain or enhance wildlife and fisheries habitat, would include: maintaining approximately 165 acres of permanent openings, mowing along approximately 13 miles of road to improve succulent forage for grouse, scarifying some sites for seeding or natural regeneration of conifers to increase the conifer component in existing conifer stands, hand-cutting small patches of Tag Alder adjacent to Aspen stands to rejuvenate woodcock habitat, add/create large coarse woody debris to some of the harvested Aspen stands for grouse and other species, and adding large woody debris at selected sites in the Baltimore River.

The proposed dispersed recreation management activities, intended to maintain or enhance existing recreation opportunities to meet current and expected future demand while protecting resources, would include: hardening, enhancing, or developing some dispersed recreation camping sites adjacent to Forest Roads 730 and 733, conversion of approximately 300 feet of existing unclassified road to a trail to protect resources while still allowing for Ontonagon River access, and improvement of a small parking area near the Ontonagon River access site.

The proposed management needed to address public health and safety concerns would include relocating a portion of snowmobile trail #3 that is currently located in the US-45 right of way. The existing trail location creates a less than ideal safety situation for motor vehicle users on the highway and also for snowmobilers.

The Forest Service will consider a range of alternatives. One of these will be the “no action” alternative in which none of the proposed activities would be implemented. Additional alternatives will examine varying levels and locations for the proposed activities to achieve the proposal's purposes, as well as to respond to the issues and other resource values.

The EIS will analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of the alternatives. Past, present, and projected activities on both private and National Forest System lands will be considered. The EIS will disclose site-specific design criteria.

Ralph E. Miller, Acting District Ranger, Ontonagon Ranger District, 1209 Rockland Rd., Ontonagon, MI 49953, is the Responsible Official. As the Responsible Official he will decide if the proposed project will be implemented. He will document the decision and reasons for the decision in the Record of Decision.

The Ontonagon District Ranger will decide the following:

• Whether or not to implement vegetation management activities, and if so, identify the selection of, and site-specific location of, appropriate timber management practices (silvicultural prescription, site preparation, and reforestation).

• Identify road construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and temporary road construction necessary to provide access to accomplish treatments, or provide for long-term resource management, as well as any appropriate design criteria.

• Whether or not to permanently decommission, obliterate, or close roads to restrict passenger vehicle access or protect resources, and if so, where and how.

• Whether or not to expand an existing gravel pit, and if so, to what extent.

• Whether or not to maintain permanent openings and mow certain roads, and if so, the location and size of openings to be maintained and roads to be mowed.

• What improvements or developments, if any, should be undertaken to enhance dispersed recreation opportunities.

• Whether or not to relocate a portion of snowmobile trail #3, and if so, where.

• What, if any, specific project monitoring requirements would be needed to assure design criteria are implemented and effective.

In July 1998, initial scoping was done for the Thumper Vegetation Management Project that was listed in the 1998 winter edition of the Ottawa Quarterly. The 1999 summer edition of the Ottawa Quarterly further included the Winterfest Timber Sale as part of the Thumper Vegetation Management Project. This project was never completed and is now included in the Baltimore analysis. Comments received regarding the Thumper Vegetation Management Project prior to this notice will be included in the documentation for the EIS. The public is encouraged to take part in the process by communicating or visiting with Forest Service officials at any time during the analysis and prior to the decision. The Forest Service will be seeking information, comments, and assistance from Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as other individuals or organizations that may be interested in, or affected by, the proposed action. This input will be used in preparation of the draft and final EIS. The scoping process will include:

• Initiating public involvement.

• Identifying potential issues.

• Identifying major issues to be analyzed in depth.

• Identifying alternatives to the proposed action.

• Identifying potential environmental effects of this proposed action and the alternatives ( i.e. direct, indirect, and cumulative effects and connected actions).

Tentatively, a few preliminary issues of concern have been identified. These issues are briefly described below.

Implementation of the proposed action would decommission roads not needed for the long-term transportation system. Some additional segments of road would be managed as closed to some types of motorized use. This may affect the public's ability to use traditional access routes.

There are large areas of mature and declining Aspen that are at high risk of loss to insects or disease. When proposed harvest areas are added to recently harvested adjacent areas (0-10 years ago), several temporary open areas exceeding 40 acres would be created.

A portion of snowmobile trail #3 is located in the US-45 right of way. The present trail location creates a situation where snowmobile traffic must parallel the highway, cross the highway several times, and cross the Ontonagon River by traveling over and along the US-45 bridge. This creates a less than ideal safety situation for motor vehicle users on the highway and also for snowmobilers. Within the scope of this project, proposing to relocate a portion of the existing trail could reduce the amount of trail within the US-45 right of way. For reasons outside the scope of this project, a separate analysis and document is needed to propose alternative methods for crossing the Ontonagon River, which could reduce the number of times the trail has to cross US-45 and eliminate snowmobiles having to travel over and along the US-45 bridge.

This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. While public participation in this analysis is welcome at any time, comments received within 30 days of the publication of this notice will be especially useful in the preparation of the draft EIS.

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

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

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

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), RUS invites comments on this information collection for which RUS intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). These requirements have been approved by emergency clearance under OMB Control Number 0572-0127.

Comments on this notice must be received by September 6, 2002.

Comments are invited on (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments may be sent to F. Lamont Heppe, Jr., Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Stop 1522, Room 4034 South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522.

Title: Broadband Pilot Grant Program

Type of Request: New collection.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 152 hours per response.

Respondents: Public bodies, commercial companies, cooperatives, nonprofits, Indian tribes, and limited dividend or mutual associations and must be incorporated or a limited liability company.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 105.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 16,005 hours.

Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Michele Brooks, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, at (202) 690-1078.

All responses to this information collection and recordkeeping notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

The provision of broadband transmission service is vital to the economic development, education, health, and safety of rural Americans. To further this objective, RUS will provide financial assistance to eligible entities that propose, on a “community-oriented connectivity” basis, to provide broadband transmission service that fosters economic growth and delivers enhanced educational, health care, and public safety services. RUS will provide this assistance in the form of grants. RUS will give priority to rural areas that it believes have the greatest need for broadband transmission services.

Twenty million dollars in grant authority will be utilized to deploy broadband infrastructure to extremely rural, lower income communities on a “community-oriented connectivity” basis. The “community-oriented connectivity” concept integrates the deployment of broadband infrastructure with the practical, everyday uses and applications of the facilities. This broadband access is intended to promote economic development and provide enhanced educational and health care opportunities. RUS will provide financial assistance to eligible entities that are proposing to deploy broadband transmission service in rural communities where such service does not currently exist and who will connect the critical community facilities including the local schools, libraries, hospitals, police, fire and rescue services and who will operate a community center that provides free and open access to residents. Under this Notice, grants will be made available, on a competitive basis, for the deployment of broadband transmission services to critical community facilities, rural residents, and rural businesses and for the construction, acquisition, or expansion and operation of a community center that provides free access to broadband transmission services to community residents for at least two years. Funding is also available for end-user equipment, software, and installation costs. A state-of-the-art community center will not only provide improved access but will aid rural residents in developing on-line businesses and will allow them to reap the benefits of Internet-based advanced placement courses, and continuing adult education. An application is limited to including only one project, as defined in this notice. Applicants wishing to serve multiple projects must submit an application for each project. Applicants will be required to provide a minimum matching contribution that is equal to 15 percent of the grant amount awarded.

For application information, contact the following individuals:

Applications from: Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands, West Virginia, Wisconsin: Mr. Kenneth Kuchno, Director, Eastern Area, Telecommunications, Rural Utilities Service, USDA, STOP 1599, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-1599, Telephone (202) 690-4673.

Applications from: Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Washington, Wyoming: Mr. Jerry Brent, Director, Northwest Area, Telecommunications, Rural Utilities Service, USDA, STOP 1595, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-1595, Telephone (202) 720-1025.

Applications from: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, American Samoa, Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, Republic of Marshall Islands, Republic of Palau, Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands: Mr. Ken Chandler, Director, Southwest Area, Telecommunications, Rural Utilities Service, USDA, STOP 1597, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-1597, Telephone (202) 720-0800.

As used in this notice:

Bandwidth means the capacity of the radio frequency band or physical facility needed to carry the broadband transmission services.

Basic broadband transmission service means the broadband transmission service level provided by the applicant at the lowest rate or service package level for residential or business customers, as appropriate, providing such service meets the requirements of this notice.

Broadband transmission service means providing an information rate equivalent to at least 200 kilobits/second in the consumer's connection to the network, both from the provider to the consumer (downstream) and from the consumer to the provider (upstream).

Community means any incorporated or unincorporated city, town, village, or borough.

Community center means a public building, or a section of a public building, that is used solely for the purposes of providing free access to and/or instruction in the use of broadband Internet service, and is of the appropriate size to accommodate this sole purpose. The community center must be open and accessible to area residents before and after normal working hours and on Saturday or Sunday. Examples of facilities that may be partially used for the described purposes include school, library, or city hall.

Computer access points means a new computer terminal with access to basic broadband transmission service.

Critical community facility means a public school, public library, public medical clinic, public hospital, community college, public university, or law enforcement, fire and ambulance stations.

Eligible applicant shall have the meaning set forth in that paragraph entitled “Eligible Applicant.”

Eligible grant purposes shall have the meaning set forth in that paragraph entitled “Eligible Grant Purposes.”

End-user equipment means computer hardware and software, audio or video equipment, computer network components, telecommunications terminal equipment, inside wiring, interactive video equipment, or other facilities required for the provision and use of broadband transmission services.

Matching contribution means the applicant's qualified contribution to the project.

Project means the approved purposes financed by the grant and the applicant's matching contribution to serve one community and the contiguous, unincorporated areas located outside the community's boundaries.

Rural area means any area of the United States not included within the boundaries of any incorporated or unincorporated city, town, village, or borough having a population of more than 20,000 inhabitants.

Service area means a single community and the contiguous, unincorporated areas located outside the community's boundaries.

Spectrum means a defined band of frequencies that will accommodate the broadband transmission services.

Telecommunications terminal equipment means the assembly of telecommunications equipment at the end of a circuit or path of a signal, including but not limited to facilities that receive or transmit over the air broadcast, satellite, and microwave, normally located on the premises of the end user, that interfaces with telecommunications transmission facilities, and that is used to modify, convert, encode, or otherwise prepare signals to be transmitted via such telecommunications facilities, or that is used to modify, reconvert, or carry signals received from such facilities, the purpose of which is to accomplish the goal for which the circuit or signal was established.

To be eligible for a grant, the applicant must:

(a) Be a public body; an Indian tribe; a cooperative, nonprofit, limited dividend or mutual association; municipality; an incorporated or limited liability company; or other legally organized entity. The applicant may not be an individual or a partnership; and

(b) Have the legal authority to own and operate the broadband facilities as proposed in its application, to enter into contracts and to otherwise comply with applicable Federal statutes and regulations.

To be eligible for a grant, the project must:

(a) Propose to serve a rural area where broadband transmission service does not currently exist;

(b) Propose to serve one community;

(c) Deploy basic broadband transmission service, free of all charges for at least 2 years, to all critical community facilities located within the proposed service area;

(d) Deploy basic broadband transmission service, free of all charges for at least 2 years, to the community center;

(e) Offer basic broadband transmission service to all residential and business customers within the proposed service area; and

(f) Provide a community center within the proposed service area and make broadband transmission service available, free of all charges to users within the center for at least 2 years. The community center must have, as a minimum, 10 computer access points or computer access points equal to 1 percent of the service area's population, whichever is greater.

Grant funds may be used to finance:

(a) The construction, acquisition, or lease of facilities, including spectrum, to deploy broadband transmission services to all critical community facilities and to offer such service to all residential and business customers located within the proposed service area;

(b) The improvement, expansion, construction, or acquisition of a community center that furnishes free access to broadband Internet service, provided that the community center is open and accessible to area residents before and after normal working hours and on Saturday or Sunday. Grant funds provided for such costs shall not exceed the greater of 5 percent of the grant amount requested or $100,000;

(c) End-user equipment needed to carry out the project;

(d) Operating expenses incurred in providing broadband transmission service to critical community facilities for the first 2 years of operations and to provide training and instruction. Salary and administrative expenses will be subject to review, and may be limited, by RUS for reasonableness in relation to the scope of the project; and

(e) The purchase of land, buildings, or building construction needed to carry out the project.

Grant funds may not be used to finance the duplication of any existing broadband transmission services provided by other entities.

Facilities financed with grant funds cannot be utilized, in any way, to provide local exchange telecommunications service to any person or entity already receiving such services.

The grant applicant's minimum matching contribution must equal 15 percent of the grant amount requested and shall be in the form of:

(a) Cash for eligible grant purposes; and

(b) In-kind contributions of purposes that could have been financed with grant funds under this notice. In-kind contributions must be new or non-depreciated assets with established monetary values. Manufacturers' or service providers' discounts are not matching contributions.

(c) The rental value of space provided within an existing community center, provided that the space is provided free of charge to the applicant;

(d) Salary expenses incurred for the individual(s) operating the community center.

(e) Expenses incurred in operating the community center.

Cost incurred by the applicant, or others on behalf of the applicant, for facilities or equipment installed, or other services rendered prior to submission of a completed application, shall not be considered as an eligible grant purpose or matching contribution.

Rental values of space provided must be substantiated by rental agreements documenting the cost of space of a similar size in a similar location.

Rental values, salaries, and other expenses incurred in operating the community center will be subject to review by RUS for reasonableness in relation to the scope of the project.

Any financial assistance from Federal sources will not be considered as matching contributions unless there is a Federal statutory exception specifically authorizing the Federal financial assistance to be considered as a matching contribution.

A completed application must include the following documentation, studies, reports and information in a form satisfactory to RUS. Applications should be prepared in conformance with the provisions of this notice and applicable USDA regulations including 7 CFR parts 3015, 3016, and 3019. Completed applications must include the following:

(a) An application for Federal Assistance. A completed Standard Form 424.

(b) An executive summary of the project. The applicant must provide RUS with a general project overview that addresses the following categories:

(1) A description of why the project is needed;

(2) A description of the applicant;

(3) An explanation of the total project cost;

(4) A general overview of the broadband telecommunications system to be developed, including the types of equipment, technologies, and facilities used;

(5) Documentation describing the procedures used to determine the unavailability of existing broadband transmission service; and

(6) A description of the participating community organizations (such as schools, health care providers, police and fire departments, etc.).

(c) Scoring criteria documentation. Each grant applicant must address and provide documentation on how it meets each of the scoring criteria detailed in the “Scoring of Applications” section hereafter.

(d) System Design. The applicant must submit a system design that contains the following, satisfactory to RUS:

(1) A narrative discussing the proposed community center and all costs of the project, all existing and proposed facilities that are a part of the project, the services to be provided by the project, and the proposed service area;

(2) Engineering design studies providing an economical and practical engineering design of the project, including a detailed description of the facilities to be funded, technical specifications, data rates, and costs; and

(3) A map of the proposed service area reflecting the proposed location of the community center and critical community facilities; and

(e) A scope of work. The scope of work must include, at a minimum:

(1) The specific activities and services to be performed under the project;

(2) Who will carry out the activities and services;

(3) The time-frames for accomplishing the project objectives and activities; and

(4) A budget for all capital and administrative expenditures reflecting the line item costs for eligible purposes for the grant funds, the matching contributions, and other sources of funds necessary to complete the project.

(f) Community-oriented connectivity plan. The applicant must provide a community-oriented connectivity plan consisting of the following:

(1) A listing of all critical community facilities to be connected, including public schools, public libraries, public medical clinics, public hospitals, community colleges, public universities, and law enforcement, fire and ambulance stations. The applicant must provide documentation of consultation with these groups, including commitments to participate in the proposed project;

(2) A description of the services available to local residents through the use of the community center;

(3) A listing of the proposed telecommunications terminal equipment, telecommunications transmission facilities, data terminal equipment, interactive video equipment, computer hardware and software systems, and components that process data for transmission via telecommunications, computer network components, communication satellite ground station equipment, or any other elements of the broadband telecommunications system designed to further the deployment and use of broadband transmission services, that the applicant intends to build or fund using RUS grant funds and matching contribution; and

(4) A description of the consultations with the appropriate telecommun-ications carriers (including interexchange carriers, cable television operators, enhanced service providers, providers of satellite services and telecommunications equipment manufacturers and distributors) and the anticipated role of such providers in the proposed broadband telecommunications system.

(g) Financial information and sustainability. The applicant must provide a narrative description demonstrating sustainability of the project, including having sufficient resources and expertise necessary to undertake and complete the project and how the project will be sustained following completion. The following financial information is required:

(1) Certified financial statements, if available; and

(2) 5 years of pro-forma financial information, evidencing the sustainability of the project.

(h) A statement of experience. Information on the owners and principal employees' relevant work experience that would ensure the success of the project. The applicant must provide a written narrative describing its demonstrated capability and experience, if any, in operating a broadband telecommunications system.

(i) Evidence of legal authority and existence. The applicant must provide evidence of its legal existence and authority to enter into a grant agreement with RUS and perform the activities proposed under the grant application.

(j) Funding commitment from other sources. If the project requires additional funding from other sources in addition to the RUS grant, the applicant must provide evidence that funding agreements have been obtained to ensure completion of the project.

(k) Compliance with other Federal statutes. The applicant must provide evidence of compliance with other Federal statutes and regulations, including, but not limited to the following:

(1) 7 CFR part 15, subpart A—Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs of the Department of Agriculture—Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

(2) 7 CFR part 3015—Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations.

(3) 7 CFR part 3017—Government wide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement).

(4) Government wide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace.

(5) 7 CFR part 3018—New Restrictions on Lobbying.

(6) Certification regarding Architectural Barriers.

(7) Certification regarding Flood Hazard Precautions.

(8) An environmental report, in accordance with 7 CFR 1794.

(9) Certification that grant funds will not be used to duplicate lines, facilities, or systems providing broadband transmission services.

(10) Federal Obligation Certification on Delinquent Debt.

(a) All applications for grants must be delivered to RUS at the address listed above or postmarked no later than November 5, 2002 to be considered eligible for FY 2002 grant funding. RUS will review each application for conformance with the provisions of this Notice. RUS may contact the applicant for additional information or clarification.

(b) Incomplete applications as of the deadline for submission will not be considered. If an application is determined to be incomplete, the applicant will be notified in writing and the application will be returned with no further action.

(c) Applications conforming with this Notice will then be evaluated competitively by a panel of RUS employees selected by the Administrator, RUS, and be awarded points as described in the scoring criteria section below. The applications will be ranked and grants awarded in rank order until all grant funds are expended.

(d) Regardless of the score an application receives, if RUS determines that the project is technically or financially infeasible, RUS will notify the applicant, in writing, and the application will be returned with no further action.

(a) All eligible applications will receive points for the following scoring criteria:

(1) The rurality of the project;

(2) The economic need of the project's service area (up to 20 points); and

(3) The benefits derived from the proposed service (up to 30 points).

(b) Scoring criteria:

(1) The rurality of the project —up to 40 points.

(i) This criterion will be used to evaluate the rurality of the community served by the project, in accordance with the following method of scoring. Rurality shall be determined by the 2000 population data contained in the U.S. Bureau of the Census at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet. The following categories are used in the evaluation of rurality:

(A) Level 1 means any community having a population of less than 500 inhabitants.

(B) Level 2 means any community having a population of at least 500 and not in excess of 1,000 inhabitants.

(C) Level 3 means any community having a population over 1,000 and not in excess of 2,000 inhabitants.

(D) Level 4 means any community having a population over 2,000 and not in excess of 3,000 inhabitants.

(E) Level 5 means any community having a population over 3,000 and not in excess of 4,000 inhabitants.

(F) Level 6 means any community having a population over 4,000 and not in excess of 5,000 inhabitants.

(G) Level 7 means any community having a population over 5,000 and not in excess of 10,000 inhabitants.

(H) Level 8 means any community having a population over 10,000 and not in excess of 20,000 inhabitants.

(ii) Each application will receive points based on the location of the facilities financed using the definitions above.

(A) For a service area that includes a Level 1 community, it will receive 40 points.

(B) For a service area that includes a Level 2 community, it will receive 35 points.

(C) For a service area that includes a Level 3 community, it will receive 30 points.

(D) For a service area that includes a Level 4 community, it will receive 25 points.

(E) For a service area that includes a Level 5 community, it will receive 20 points.

(F) For a service area that includes a Level 6 community, it will receive 15 points.

(G) For a service area that includes a Level 7 community, it will receive 10 points.

(H) For a service area that includes a Level 8 community, it will receive 5 points.

(2) The economic need of the project service area —up to 30 points.

(i) This criterion will be used to evaluate the economic need of the service area. Applicants must utilize the per capita personal income by County, as determined by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, at www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis/ . Applicants will be awarded points as outlined below for service provided in each county where the per capita personal income (PCI) is less than 70 percent of the national average per capita personal income (NAPCI):

(A) PCI is 75 percent or greater of NAPCI; 0 points;

(B) PCI is less than 75 percent and greater than or equal to 70 percent of NAPCI; 5 points;

(C) PCI is less than 70 percent and greater than or equal to 65 percent of NAPCI; 10 points;

(D) PCI is less than 65 percent and greater than or equal to 60 percent of NAPCI; 15 points;

(E) PCI is less than 60 percent and greater than or equal to 55 percent of NAPCI; 20 points;

(F) PCI is less than 55 percent and greater than or equal to 50 percent of NAPCI; 25 points;

(G) PCPI is less than 50 percent of NAPCPI; 30 points;

(ii) If an applicant proposes service in more than one county, an average score will be calculated based on each county's individual scores.

(3) The benefits derived from the proposed service —up to 30 points.

(i) This criterion will be used to score applications based on the documentation in support of the need for services, benefits derived from the services proposed by the project, and local community involvement in planning and implementation of the project. Applicants may receive up to 30 points for documenting the need for services and benefits derived from service as explained in this section.

(ii) RUS will consider:

(A) The extent of the applicant's documentation explaining the economic, education, health care, and public safety issues facing the community and the applicant's proposed plan to address these challenges on a community-wide basis;

(B) The extent of the project's planning, development, and support by local residents, institutions, and community facilities will be considered. This includes evidence of community-wide involvement, as exemplified in community meetings, public forums, and surveys. In addition, applicants should provide evidence of local residents' participation in the project planning and development;

(C) The extent to which the community center will be used for instructional purposes including Internet usage, Web-based curricula, and Web page development; and

(D) Web-based community resources enabled or provided by the applicant, such as community bulletin boards, directories, public web-hosting, notices, etc.

The terms and conditions of grants shall be set forth in grant documents prepared by RUS. The documents shall require the applicant to own all equipment and facilities financed by the grant. Among other matters, RUS may prescribe conditions to the advance of funds that address concerns regarding the project feasibility and sustainability. RUS may also prescribe terms and conditions applicable to the construction and operation of the project and the delivery of broadband transmission services to rural areas.

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 of Commerce (the Department) regulations refer to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (April 2002).

We preliminarily determine that ferrovanadium from the Republic of South Africa (South Africa) is being sold, or is likely to be sold, in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733 of the Act. The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the Suspension of Liquidation section of this notice.

The investigation was initiated on December 17, 2001. See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Ferrovanadium from the People's Republic of China and the Republic of South Africa , 66 FR 66398 (December 26, 2001) ( Initiation Notice ). 1 Since the initiation of the investigation, the following events have occurred.

The Department set aside a period for all interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. See Initiation Notice , at 66 FR 66398. On January 3, 10, and 17, 2002, the petitioners submitted comments on product coverage. On January 7, 15, and 17, 2002, Highveld Steel and Vanadium Corporation (Highveld) and Xstrata South Africa (Proprietary) Limited (Xstrata) submitted product coverage comments.

On December 27, 2002, the Department solicited comments from interested parties regarding model-matching criteria. See Letter from Holly Kuga (December 27, 2001). The petitioners and respondents submitted model-matching comments to the Department on January 9, 2002. The petitioners also submitted rebuttal model-matching comments on January 10, 2002.

On January 14, 2002, Xstrata submitted comments to the Department regarding the sales below cost investigation the Department initiated on December 17, 2001. The Department received a rebuttal to Xstrata's comments from the petitioners on January 17, 2002. On January 17, 2002, the Department received comments regarding the sales below cost investigation from Highveld.

On January 10, 2002, the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports from South Africa of ferrovanadium that are alleged to be sold in the United States at LTFV. See Ferrovanadium From China and South Africa , 67 FR 2236 (January 16, 2002).

After reviewing the comments on product coverage and characteristics, on January 18, 2002, the Department issued the antidumping duty questionnaire 2 to Highveld and Xstrata. The Department issued an abridged Section A questionnaire, requesting quantity and value (Q&V) data, to Vametco Minerals Corporation (Vametco) on January 29, 2002, for the purpose of including Vametco in the Department's respondent selection analysis. See Selection of Respondents section below. We received responses to our questionnaire from all respondents. We issued supplemental questionnaires, pertaining to sections A, B, C, and D of the antidumping questionnaire, to Highveld and Xstrata in February, March, April, and May 2002. Highveld and Xstrata responded to these supplemental questionnaires in February, March, April, May, and June 2002. On February 11, 2002, Xstrata provided information demonstrating that the home market was not viable and submitted Q&V data for its largest third-country markets. On March 1, 2002, the Department designated Germany as the appropriate third-country market for which to calculate Xstrata's normal value (NV). See Memorandum from Howard Smith to the File, “The Appropriate Comparison Market for Xstrata South Africa (Proprietary) Limited in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Ferrovanadium from the Republic of South Africa,” dated March 1, 2002 ( Xstrata Third Country Market Selection Memorandum ). On March 12 and 15, 2002, the petitioners submitted amendments to the cost allegation contained in the petition for this investigation to include German-specific price and cost information placed on the record by Xstrata. The Department, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, concluded that there was a reasonable basis to suspect that Xstrata is selling ferrovanadium in Germany at prices below the cost of production (COP) and initiated a cost investigation on ferrovanadium sales in Germany on March 26, 2002. See the Cost of Production Analysis section below.

On April 24, 2002, pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation 50 days, from May 6, 2002, until June 25, 2002. See Ferrovanadium from the People's Republic of China and the Republic of South Africa: Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Antidumping Duty Determinations ; 67 FR 20089 (April 24, 2002).

Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioners. The Department's regulations, at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), require that requests by respondents for postponement of a final determination be accompanied by a request for an extension of the provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six months.

On June 21, 2002, Xstrata requested that, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final determination until 135 days after the publication of the preliminary determination. Xstrata also included a request to extend the provisional measures to not more than six months after the publication of the preliminary determination.. Accordingly, since we have made an affirmative preliminary determination, and the requesting party accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, we have postponed the final determination until not later than 135 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination, and are extending the provisional measures accordingly. See Xstrata's letter to the Secretary, dated June 21, 2002.

The period of investigation (POI) is October 1, 2000, through September 30, 2001. This period corresponds to the four most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition ( i.e. , November 2001). See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

The scope of these investigations covers all ferrovanadium regardless of grade, chemistry, form, shape, or size. Ferrovanadium is an alloy of iron and vanadium that is used chiefly as an additive in the manufacture of steel. The merchandise is commercially and scientifically identified as vanadium. It specifically excludes vanadium additives other than ferrovanadium, such as nitride vanadium, vanadium-aluminum master alloys, vanadium chemicals, vanadium oxides, vanadium waste and scrap, and vanadium-bearing raw materials such as slag, boiler residues and fly ash. Merchandise under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 2850.00.2000, 8112.40.3000, and 8112.40.6000 are specifically excluded. Ferrovanadium is classified under HTSUS item number 7202.92.00. Although the HTSUS item number is provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the Department's written description of the scope of this investigation remains dispositive.

Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the subject merchandise. Where it is not practicable to examine all known producers/exporters of subject merchandise, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act permits the Department to investigate either: (1) a sample of exporters, producers, or types of products that is statistically valid based on the information available at the time of selection, or (2) exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume of the subject merchandise from the exporting country that can reasonably be examined. The petition identified three South African producers of ferrovanadium that export to the United States: Highveld, Vametco, and Xstrata. Due to limited resources, we determined that we could investigate only the two South African producers/exporters that accounted for the largest volume of exports to the United States during the POI. See the Memorandum from Howard Smith to Holly A. Kuga, “Selection of Respondents for the Antidumping Investigation of Ferrovanadium from South Africa,” which is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building. Therefore, we designated Highveld and Xstrata as mandatory respondents and sent them the antidumping questionnaire.

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, all products produced by the respondents in the home market and covered by the description in the Scope of Investigation section, above, and sold in the home market or designated third-country market ( i.e. , the comparison market) during the POI are considered to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We have relied upon product grade and maximum and minimum product size to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to NV.

To determine whether sales of ferrovanadium from South Africa were made in the United States at LTFV, we compared the constructed export price (CEP) to the NV, as described in the Constructed Export Price and Normal Value sections of this notice, below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we compared POI weighted-average CEPs to NVs.

During the course of this investigation, the Department issued seven supplemental questionnaires to Highveld requesting that the company provide certain information necessary for our determination. Despite the fact that the Department provided Highveld with repeated opportunities to provide the requested information, Highveld withheld certain information and failed to provide other information in the form and manner requested by the Department. As a result, the Department has determined to use facts available to calculate certain sales adjustments. These adjustments include U.S. commission/indirect selling expenses, home and U.S. market packing costs, U.S. warehousing expenses, and financing expenses associated with U.S. sales.

Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of a party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available if the Department finds that the party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability. In this case the Department has found that Highveld failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability with respect to these sales adjustments. Therefore, for the preliminarily determination, we have made an inference that is adverse to Highveld in selecting from among the facts available to calculate the sales adjustment noted above. For a detailed discussion of this issue, see the Memorandum from Howard Smith to Holly A. Kuga, “Application of Partial Adverse Facts Available for the Preliminary Determination: Highveld Steel & Vanadium Limited,” dated June 25, 2002.

For both Highveld and Xstrata, we calculated CEP, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, for all sales to unaffiliated purchasers that took place after importation into the United States. Highveld and Xstrata reported only CEP sales in the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we calculated CEP for all U.S. sales by Highveld and Xstrata on the packed FOB or delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States and made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Movement expenses included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight, international freight, marine insurance, foreign and U.S. brokerage and handling charges, U.S. customs duties (including harbor maintenance fees and merchandise processing fees), U.S. inland insurance, U.S. inland freight expenses, and warehousing expenses. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted from the starting price those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct and indirect selling expenses. Also, we made an adjustment for CEP profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.

Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price at which the foreign like product is sold in the home market, provided that the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or has sufficient aggregate value, if quantity is inappropriate) and that there is no particular market situation in the home market that prevents a proper comparison with the EP or CEP transaction. The statute contemplates that quantities (or value) will normally be considered insufficient if they are less than five percent of the aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the subject merchandise to the United States. For this investigation, we found that Highveld had a viable home market for ferrovanadium. Thus, the home market is the appropriate comparison market for Highveld in this investigation, and we used the respondent's submitted home market sales data for purposes of calculating NV.

Xstrata did not have a viable home market in South Africa. Therefore, the Department considered the Q&V of Xstrata's POI sales of subject merchandise in the United States and the three largest third-country markets. In selecting the appropriate comparison market for Xstrata's U.S. sales, we applied the criteria listed in section 351.404(e) of the Department's regulations, which direct the Department to consider the similarity of the foreign like product exported to the third-country market to the subject merchandise exported to the United States; the volume of export sales to the third-country market; and such other factors as the Secretary considers appropriate.

After comparing Xstrata's U.S. market sales with the three third-country market sales of subject merchandise, the Department selected Germany as the appropriate comparison market for Xstrata. See Xstrata Third Country Market Selection Memorandum.

In deriving NV, we made adjustments as detailed in the Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value section below.

For reporting purposes, Highveld used the last day of the month in which the merchandise was picked up or delivered as the home market date of sale even though it indicated that the sales terms are finalized on the invoice date ( see Highveld's April 19, 2002, supplemental at pages 5 and 6). The Department's practice is to consider the invoice date as the date of sale unless a different date better reflects the date on which the material terms of sale are established, or the invoice date is after the shipment date ( see Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bulk Aspirin From the People's Republic of China , 65 FR 33805 (May 25, 2000) and accompanying “Decision Memorandum” at Comment 15). Because the invoice date for Highveld's home market sales is subsequent to the shipment date, we have considered the shipment date that Highveld reported to be the date of sale.

Xstrata initially reported the date of sale as the contract date. On May 8, 2002, Xstrata reported that the invoice date is the more appropriate date to use as the date of sale because certain material terms of the sale are not set until the invoice date. Xstrata provided additional discussion of how the terms of sale changed after the contract date on April 17, May 8, and June 13, 2002. Because of this information, we have considered the invoice date to be the date of sale for Xstrata.

During the POI, Highveld made home market sales to affiliated customers. We applied the arm's-length test to sales from Highveld to its affiliated customers by comparing them to sales of identical merchandise from Highveld to unaffiliated home market customers. If these affiliated party sales satisfied the arm's-length test, we used them in our analysis.

To test whether these sales were made at arm's-length prices, we compared on a model-specific basis the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all discounts and rebates, movement charges, direct selling expenses, commissions, and home market packing. Where, for the tested models of subject merchandise, prices to the affiliated party were on average 99.5 percent or more of the price to the unaffiliated parties, we determined that sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's-length. See 19 CFR 351.403(c) and 62 FR at 27355, Preamble - Department's Final Antidumping Regulations (May 19, 1997). Sales to affiliated customers in the home market which were not made at arm's-length prices were excluded from our analysis because we considered them to be outside the ordinary course of trade. See 19 CFR 351.102.

Xstrata had no comparison market sales to affiliated customers during the POI.

On November 26, 2001, in the petition for the imposition of antidumping duties, the petitioners alleged that sales of ferrovanadium in the home market were made at prices below the fully absorbed COP. Accordingly, the petitioners requested that the Department conduct a country-wide sales-below-cost investigation. Based upon the comparison of adjusted home market prices to the COP for South African producers, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, we found reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that home market sales of ferrovanadium produced in South Africa were made at prices below the COP and initiated a country-wide cost investigation. See Initiation Notice .

On February 11, 2002, Xstrata provided information demonstrating that the home market was not viable and submitted Q&V data for its largest third-country markets. On February 21, 2002, the petitioners submitted a country-specific cost allegation for each of the third-country markets presented by Xstrata. On March 1, 2002, the Department designated Germany as the appropriate third-country market for which to calculate NV. See Xstrata Third Country Market Selection Memorandum . On March 12 and 15, 2002, the petitioners filed amendments to the cost allegation contained in their February 21, 2002, submission to include Germany-specific price and cost information placed on the record by Xstrata. The Department, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, concluded that there was a reasonable basis to suspect that Xstrata is selling ferrovanadium in Germany at prices below the COP and initiated a cost investigation on ferrovanadium sales in Germany. See Memorandum to Holly Kuga from the Team, “Analysis of Petitioner's Allegations of Sales Below Cost of Production for Xstrata South Africa (Proprietary) Limited (Xstrata),” dated March 26, 2002. As a result, the Department initiated, on March 26, 2002, a COP investigation with respect to Xstrata's sales in Germany.

The Department has conducted an investigation to determine whether the respondents made sales in the home market or third-country market at prices below their respective COPs during the POI within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. We conducted the COP analysis described below.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a weighted-average COP for each respondent based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for the home market or third country market general and administrative (G&A) expenses and interest expenses. We relied on the COP data submitted by Highveld and Xstrata in their respective cost questionnaire responses, except, as noted below, in specific instances where the submitted costs were not appropriately quantified or valued.

a. Highveld. Highveld calculated the reported net interest expense ratio based on its own consolidated financial statements, rather than on the consolidated financial statements of its parent corporation. In accordance with the Department's longstanding practice, we recalculated the interest expense ratio by dividing the full-year interest expense by the cost of sales reported on the audited fiscal-year financial statements which correspond most closely to the POI at the highest level of consolidation (i.e., we used the financial statements of Highveld's corporate parent). See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Structural Steel Beams from South Africa , 67 FR 35485 (May 20, 2002) and accompanying “Decision Memorandum” at Comment 7; see also the Memorandum from Timothy P. Finn to the File, “Calculation Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination of the Investigation of Highveld Steel and Vanadium Corp. Ltd. (Highveld),” dated June 25, 2002 (Highveld Calculation Memorandum).

b. Xstrata. We made no modifications to Xstrata's reported COP.

We compared the adjusted weighted-average COP to the comparison market sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time ( i.e. , a period of one year) in substantial quantities and whether such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. On a model-specific basis, we compared the COP to the comparison market prices, less any applicable discounts and rebates, movement charges, selling expenses, commissions, and packing.

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

Section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act provides that if, after disregarding all sales made at prices below the COP, there are no comparison market sales made in the ordinary course of trade, NV shall be based on constructed value (CV). Pursuant to section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act, because both respondents made all of their comparison market sales at prices below the COP, we disregarded all comparison market sales and based NV on CV. We calculated CV as the sum of each respondent's cost of materials, fabrication, selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, profit and U.S. packing costs. In addition, because all comparison market sales were made at prices below the COP, we calculated selling expenses and profit in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act. We based the selling expenses and profit for Highveld and Xstrata on figures obtained from each company's financial statements and available information regarding the selling expenses incurred by each. Section 773(a)(8) of the Act directs the Department to make certain adjustments to CV, as appropriate ( i.e. , circumstance of sale adjustments). Pursuant to section 773(a)(8) of the Act, we have included, where possible, the appropriate adjustments in our calculation of CV. For further information, see the Memorandum from Mark Manning and Crystal Crittenden to the File, “Calculation Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination of the Investigation of Xstrata South Africa (Proprietary) Limited (Xstrata),” ( Xstrata Calculation Memorandum ) and the Highveld Calculation Memorandum , both dated June 25, 2002.

Since all of Highveld's home market sales and Xstrata's third country sales failed the cost test, we are unable to use these sales as the basis of NV and instead must calculate NV based on CV. The selling expenses and profit for CV, as noted above, were obtained from Highveld's financial records, therefore, we have no basis for attributing a level of trade (LOT) to this CV. As such, we are unable to conduct a LOT analysis. For this reason, we made no LOT adjustment or CEP offset to either Highveld's or Xstrata's NV.

We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with section 773A of the Act based on exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as obtained from the Federal Reserve Bank, the Department's preferred source for exchange rates.

In accordance with section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify all information relied upon in making our final determination.

Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides for the use of an “all others” rate, which is applied to non-investigated firms. See Statement of Administrative Actions, Uruguay Round Agreements Act , Pub. L. 103-465, 103rd Cong. 2d Sess., H. Doc. 103-316, vol. I (1994) (SAA) at 873. This section states that the all others rate shall generally be an amount equal to the weighted average of the weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins based entirely upon the facts available. Therefore, we have preliminarily assigned to all other exporters of ferrovanadium from South Africa a margin that is based on the weighted-average margins calculated for Highveld and Xstrata.

In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we are directing the U.S. Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of ferrovanadium from South Africa that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . We will instruct the Customs Service to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds the U.S. price, as indicated in the chart below. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties to the proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our preliminary sales at LTFV determination. If our final antidumping determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine whether the imports covered by that determination are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the U.S. industry. The deadline for that ITC determination would be the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the date of our final determination.

Case briefs for this investigation must be submitted no later than one week after the issuance of the last verification report. Rebuttal briefs must be filed within five days after the deadline for submission of case briefs. A list of authorities used, a table of contents, and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. Further, the Department respectfully requests that all parties submitting written comments also provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette.

Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will hold a hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a hearing is requested by an interested party. If a request for a hearing is made in an investigation, the hearing normally will be held two days after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs, at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.

Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request within 30 days of the publication of this notice. Requests should specify the number of participants and provide a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs.

As noted above, the Department will make its final determination within 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination.

This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

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

On November 21, 2001, the Department published a notice of initiation of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on barium chloride from the People's Republic of China, covering the period October 1, 2000, through September 30, 2001. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part , 66 FR 58432. The preliminary results are currently due no later than July 3, 2002.

We determine that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of this review within the original time limit. Therefore, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results until no later than August 3, 2002. See Decision Memorandum from Holly A. Kuga to Bernard T. Carreau, dated concurrently with this notice, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Department's main building. We intend to issue the final results no later than 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results notice.

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

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce (the Department) regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (April 2002).

We preliminarily determine that ferrovanadium from the People's Republic of China (PRC) is being sold, or is likely to be sold, in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733 of the Act. The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Suspension of Liquidation” section of this notice.

This investigation was initiated on December 17, 2001. See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Ferrovanadium from the People's Republic of China and the Republic of South Africa , 66 FR 66398 (December 26, 2001) ( Initiation Notice ). 1 Since the initiation of the investigation, the following events have occurred.

On January 10, 2002, the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of ferrovanadium imports from the PRC and the Republic of South Africa. See Ferrovanadium From China and South Africa , 67 FR 2236 (January 16, 2002). During January 2002, the Department provided participating parties with an opportunity to comment on scope and product characteristics. Only the petitioners submitted comments.

After reviewing the comments on product coverage and characteristics, on January 18, 2002, the Department issued its antidumping questionnaire 2 to the PRC's Ministry of Foreign Trade & Economic Cooperation (MOFTEC), the Embassy of the PRC in Washington D.C., and the companies identified in the petition, Jinzhou Ferroalloy (Group) Co, Ltd., Chengde Xinghua Vanadium Chemical Co., Ltd., and Pangang Group International Economic and Trading Corporation (Pangang). The Department requested that MOFTEC send the questionnaire to all companies that manufacture and export ferrovanadium to the United States, as well as all manufacturers that produce ferrovanadium for companies engaged in exporting subject merchandise to the United States, and the companies that export ferrovanadium to the United States, during the period of investigation (POI). Only Pangang responded to the Department's questionnaire. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Pangang, where appropriate.

On April 24, 2002, pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation 50 days, from May 6, 2002, until June 25, 2002. See Ferrovanadium from the People's Republic of China and the Republic of South Africa: Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Antidumping Duty Determinations ; 67 FR 20089 (April 24, 2002).

Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioners. The Department's regulations, at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), require that requests by respondents for postponement of a final determination be accompanied by a request for an extension of the provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six months.

On June 21, 2002, Pangang requested that, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final determination until 135 days after the publication of the preliminary determination. Pangang also included a request to extend the provisional measures to not more than six months after the publication of the preliminary determination. Accordingly, since we have made an affirmative preliminary determination, and the requesting party accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, we have postponed the final determination until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination determination, and are extending the provisional measures accordingly. See Pangang's letter to the Secretary, dated June 21, 2002.

The POI is April 1, 2001 through September 30, 2001. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition ( i.e. , November, 2001). See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

The scope of this investigation covers all ferrovanadium produced in the PRC, regardless of grade, chemistry, form, shape or size. Ferrovanadium is an alloy of iron and vanadium that is used chiefly as an additive in the manufacture of steel. The merchandise is commercially and scientifically identified as ferrovanadium. The scope of this investigation specifically excludes vanadium additives other than ferrovanadium, such as nitrided vanadium, vanadium-aluminum master alloys, vanadium chemicals, vanadium oxides, vanadium waste and scrap, and vanadium-bearing raw materials such as slag, boiler residues and fly ash. Merchandise under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 2850.00.2000, 8112.40.3000 and 8112.40.6000 is specifically excluded. Ferrovanadium is classified under HTSUS item number 7202.92.00. Although the HTSUS item number is provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the Department's written description of the scope of this investigation remains dispositive.

The Department has treated the PRC as a nonmarket economy (NME) country in previous antidumping investigations ( e.g., see Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bulk Aspirin From the People's Republic of China , 65 FR 33805 (May 25, 2000); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate from the People's Republic of China , 65 FR 19873 (April 13, 2000); and the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value Certain: Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the People's Republic of China , 66 FR 49632 (September 28, 2001)). In accordance with section 771(18)(C) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is a NME country shall remain in effect until revoked. No party to this investigation has sought revocation of the NME status of the PRC. Therefore, pursuant to section 771(18)(C) of the Act, the Department will continue to treat the PRC as a NME country.

When the Department is investigating imports from a NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base normal value (NV) on the NME producer's factors of production, valued in a comparable market economy that is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. The sources of individual factor prices are discussed under the “Normal Value” section, below.

In a NME proceeding, the Department presumes that all companies within the country are subject to governmental control and should be assigned a single antidumping duty rate unless the respondent demonstrates the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over its export activities. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the People's Republic of China , 61 FR 19026, 19027 (April 30, 1996). Pangang has provided the requested company-specific separate rates information and has indicated that there is no element of government ownership or control over its operations. We have considered whether Pangang is eligible for a separate rate as discussed below.

The Department's separate-rates test is not concerned, in general, with macroeconomic/border-type controls ( e.g. , export licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices), particularly if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping. Rather, the test focuses on controls over the export-related investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the individual firm level. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Ukraine , 62 FR 61754, 61757 (November 19, 1997); Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997); and Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Honey From the People's Republic of China , 60 FR 14725, 14726 (March 20, 1995).

To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each exporting entity under a test arising out of the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as modified 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 this test, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if an exporter can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over its export activities. See Silicon Carbide and the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China , 60 FR 22545 (May 8, 1995).

The Department considers the following de jure criteria in determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.

Pangang has placed on the record a number of documents to demonstrate the absence of de jure control, including its business license, and the “Company Law of the People's Republic of China.” Other than limiting Pangang's operations to the activities referenced in the license, we noted no restrictive stipulations associated with the license. In addition, in previous cases, the Department has analyzed the “Company Law of the People's Republic of China” and found that it establishes an absence of de jure control. See, e.g., Notice of Final 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 54472, 54474 (October 24, 1995). We have no information in this proceeding which would cause us to reconsider this determination. Therefore, based on the foregoing, we have preliminarily found an absence of de jure control.

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 its management; and (4) whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses.

With regard to the issue of de facto control, Pangang has reported the following: (1) there is no government participation in setting export prices; (2) its managers have authority to bind sales contracts; (3) it does not have to notify any government authorities of its management selection, and (4) there are no restrictions on the use of its export revenue and it is responsible for financing its own losses. Additionally, Pangang's questionnaire response does not suggest that pricing is coordinated among exporters. Furthermore, our analysis of Pangang's questionnaire response reveals no other information indicating governmental control of export activities. Therefore, based on the information provided, we preliminarily determine that there is an absence of de facto government control over Pangang's export functions. Consequently, we preliminarily determine that the respondent has met the criteria for the application of a separate rate.

In all NME cases, the Department makes a rebuttable presumption that all exporters located in the NME country comprise a single exporter under common government control, the “NME entity.” The Department assigns a single NME rate to the NME entity unless an exporter can demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate. Although the Department provided all PRC exporters of ferrovanadium with the opportunity to respond to its questionnaire, only Pangang submitted a response thereto. However, our review of U.S. import statistics reveals that there are other PRC companies, in addition to Pangang, that exported ferrovanadium to the United States during the POI. Because these exporters did not submit a response to the Department's questionnaire, and thus did not demonstrate their entitlement to a separate rate, we have implemented the Department's rebuttable presumption that these exporters constitute a single enterprise under common control by the PRC government, and we are applying adverse facts available to determine the single antidumping duty rate, the PRC-wide rate, applicable to all other PRC exporters comprising this single enterprise. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Synthetic Indigo from the People's Republic of China , 65 FR 25706, 25707 (May 3, 2000).

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party withholds information that has been requested by the Department, fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested, significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute, or provides information which cannot be verified, the Department shall use, subject to sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. As explained above, some exporters of the subject merchandise failed to respond to the Department's request for information. The failure of these exporters to respond also significantly impedes this proceeding. Thus, pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, in reaching our preliminary determination, we have based the PRC-wide rate on total facts available.

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

An adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from the petition, the final determination in the investigation, any previous review, or any other information placed on the record. See section 776(b) of the Act. However, section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation or review, the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. The SAA states that the independent sources may include published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation or review. See SAA at 870. The SAA clarifies that “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. Id . As noted in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews , 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996), to corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information used.

For our preliminary determination, as adverse facts available, we have used as the PRC-wide rate the recalculated dumping margin from the petition (see below). In the petition, the petitioners based export price (EP) on import values declared to the U.S. Customs Service. For the NV calculation, the petitioners based the factors of production, as defined by section 773(c)(3) of the Act (raw materials, labor, energy, and representative capital costs) on the quantities of inputs used by the petitioners.

With regard to the EP calculation in the petition, the information relied upon was based on publicly available sources, that is, official U.S. government statistics; therefore, we find that the U.S. price from the petition margin is sufficiently corroborated. To corroborate the petitioners' NV calculations, we compared the petitioners' factor consumption data to that data on the record of this investigation. As discussed in a separate memorandum to the file, we found that the factors consumption data in the petition were reasonable and of probative value. See the memorandum to the file regarding corroboration of the petition data for the PRC-wide entity, dated June 25, 2002. The values for the factors of production in the petition were based on publicly available information for comparable inputs; therefore, we find that these surrogate values are sufficiently corroborated.

During the course of this investigation, several of the surrogate values used in the petition are new or have been revised. In order to take into account the more recent information, we recalculated the petition margin using, where possible, the new or revised surrogate values to value the petitioners' consumption rates. As a result of this recalculation, the PRC-wide rate is, for the preliminary determination, 78.52 percent. For the final determination, the Department will consider all margins on the record at the time of the final determination for the purpose of determining the most appropriate final PRC-wide margin.

To determine whether Pangang's sales of ferrovanadium to customers in the United States were made at LTFV, we compared EP to NV, calculated using our NME methodology, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated weighted-average EPs.

We used EP methodology in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act because Pangang sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated U.S. customers prior to importation and because constructed export price (CEP) methodology was not otherwise warranted. At the time of sale, Pangang knew that its reported sales of the subject merchandise were destined for the United States.

We calculated EP based on the packed, delivered prices charged to the first unaffiliated customer for exportation to the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for foreign inland freight, brokerage and handling, international freight, and marine insurance. Where foreign inland freight, marine insurance, and brokerage and handling were provided by NME companies, we used surrogate values from South Africa to value these expenses ( see the Factors of Production Valuation Memorandum dated June 25, 2002, on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU) located in B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building). For sales with international freight provided by NME shipping companies we used as the surrogate value a freight cost obtained from U.S. customs import statistics (see the Factors of Production Valuation Memorandum).

Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires that the Department value the NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, on the prices or costs of factors of production in one or more market economy countries that are 1) at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country; and 2) significant producers of comparable merchandise. The Department's Office of Policy initially identified five countries that are at a level of economic development comparable to the PRC in terms of per capita GNP and the national distribution of labor. Those countries are India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and the Philippines ( see the memorandum from Jeffrey May to Holly Kuga dated February 28, 2002). However, we could find no evidence that any of these countries are significant producers of “comparable merchandise.” Where the countries normally considered at a level of economic development similar to that of the country in question do not produce comparable merchandise, the Department's practice is to find the most comparable surrogate country that is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. See Initiation Notice , 66 FR 66398, 66400. Therefore, we requested and received from the Office of Policy a list of additional potential surrogate countries. We examined export and import statistics for each country on this list to determine if any of them are significant producers of “comparable merchandise.” 3 We found evidence of significant production of “comparable merchandise” by only one of these countries, South Africa ( see the memorandum from Karine Gziryan to the file regarding identification of significant producers of comparable merchandise dated June 25, 2002). Therefore, we have preliminarily calculated NV by applying South African values to Pangang's factors of production.Pangang's factors of production.

In its questionnaire responses, Pangang reported factors of production for two companies which it identified as producers of the subject merchandise. After examining the record regarding the production process for ferrovanadium, we have preliminarily determined that one of the companies which Pangang identified as a producer of the subject merchandise in fact produces an input used in the production of subject merchandise, rather than the subject merchandise. Therefore, we have not relied upon the factors of production reported for this company. Rather, we have valued the input obtained from this company using South African surrogate values, and in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on the factors of production utilized by the producer of the ferrovanadium during the POI.

Factors of production include: (1) hours of labor required; (2) quantities of raw materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and (4) representative capital costs. See section 773(c) of the Act. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit quantities by publicly available surrogate values from South Africa.

In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the surrogate values. For those values not contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted the values to account for inflation using wholesale price indices published in the International Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics. As appropriate, we included freight costs in input prices to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to the surrogate values a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States , 117 F. 3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

We valued material inputs and packing materials (including vanadium slag, limestone, sulfuric acid, ammonium sulfuric acid, calcium chloride, soda, aluminum, inferior iron, paper bags, wooden pallets, wooden boxes, iron drums and plastic woven bags) using values from the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) number, from 2000 and 2001 South African imports and exports statistics reported in the United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics and the World Trade Atlas Import and Export Statistics. In accordance with the Department's practice, we used export values to calculate NV when import values for like products were not

available. See Sebacic Acid from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 64 FR 69503, (December 13, 1999).

We valued coke oven gas based on the value of natural gas published in the Energy Prices and Taxes quarterly statistics, III Quarter, 2001. Specifically, we calculated the value for coke oven gas by multiplying the value for natural gas by the ratio of the BTU equivalent of coke oven gas to the BTU equivalent of natural gas. We valued blast furnace gas based on the value of natural gas published in the Energy Prices and Taxes quarterly statistics, III Quarter, 2001. Specifically, we calculated the value for blast furnace gas by multiplying the value for natural gas by the ratio of the BTU equivalent of blast furnace gas to the BTU equivalent of natural gas.

We valued labor using the method described in 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).

We valued electricity using the published prices for industrial electricity obtained from the South African Statistics.

To value truck freight rates, we used price quotes received from Freight Tainer, a South African transportation company. We valued rail rates using the surrogate value from South Africa employed in pure magnesium from the Russian Federation. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From the Russian Federation , 66 FR 21319 (April 30, 2001). See also the Factors of Production Valuation Memorandum.

We based our calculation of selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, overhead, and profit on the 2001 financial statement of Highveld Steel and Vanadium Corporation Limited, a South African producer of the subject merchandise.

For a complete analysis of surrogate values used in the preliminary determination, see the Factors of Production Valuation Memorandum.

In accordance with section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify all information relied upon in making our final determination.

We are directing the U.S. Customs Service (Customs Service) to suspend liquidation of all entries of ferrovanadium from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date on which this notice is published in the Federal Register . In addition, we are instructing the Customs Service to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds the EP, as indicated in the chart below. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins exist for the POI:

Monday, July 22, 2002, 9:30 a.m. —Monkfish Oversight Committee Meeting.

Location: DoubleTree Hotel, 1230 Congress Street, Portland, ME 04102; telephone: (207) 774-5611.

The Committee will review the report of the Plan Development Team on options for revising the overfishing definition reference points and status determination criteria. The Committee will finalize its recommendations to the New England and Mid-Atlantic Councils for management alternatives to be analyzed in the Amendment 2 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Alternatives designed to achieve the approved goals and objectives include, but are not limited to: permit qualification criteria for vessels fishing south of 38ºN; management program for a deepwater directed fishery in the Southern Fishery Management Area (SFMA); separation of monkfish days-at-sea (DAS) from multispecies and sea scallop DAS programs, including counting of monkfish DAS as 24-hour days; measures to minimize impacts of the fishery on endangered sea turtles; measures to minimize bycatch in directed in non-directed fisheries, including mesh size and other gear requirements; an exemption program for vessels fishing for monkfish outside of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (in the NAFO Regulated Area); alternative measures to minimize impacts of the fishery on essential fish habitat (EFH); measures to improve data collection and research on monkfish, including mechanisms for funding cooperative research programs. The Committee may develop and recommend other management alternatives not included in the list above.

Monday, July 22, 2002, 9:30 a.m. —Skate Oversight Committee Meeting.

Location: Sheraton Ferncroft, 50 Ferncroft Road, Danvers, MA 01923; telephone: (978) 777-2500.

The committee will include a discussion of outstanding issues identified by NMFS related to the Council’s submission of the Draft Skate Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The committee will review and discuss PDT progress towards resolving the issues identified by NMFS. Also on the agenda will be a review of the revised sections of the Draft Skate FMP/EIS related to establishing a concrete link between skates and management measures in other fisheries and develop recommendations for Council consideration. They will review revised sections of the Draft Skate FMP/EIS related to specifications of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY)/Optimum Yield (OY) and rebuilding programs for overfished species and develop recommendations for Council consideration. There will also be a discussion of timing and location of public hearings for the Draft Skate FMP/EIS. The committee will also review progress towards development of a Skate Species Identification Guide.

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

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

This document gives notice of revisions in per diem rates prescribed by the Per Diem Travel and Transportation Allowance Committee for non-foreign areas outside the continental United States. It supersedes Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletin Number 225. Distribution of Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletins by mail was discontinued. Per Diem Bulletins published in the Federal Register now constitute the only notification of revisions in per diem rates to agencies and establishments outside the Department of Defense. For more information or questions about per diem rates, please contact your local travel office. The text of the Bulletin follows.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g., new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) title; (3) summary of the collection; (4) description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) reporting and/or recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: New.

Title: Preschool Curricula Evaluation Research (PCER) Program.

Frequency: Semi-Annually.

Affected Public: Individuals or household.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

  Responses: 7,217.

  Burden Hours: 5,281.

Abstract: The primary objective of the PCER Program is to evaluate the effectiveness of selected preschool curricula on child development outcomes such as language skill, pre-reading and pre-math abilities, cognition, general knowledge, and social competence. Although there is a need for preschool programs to enhance their instructional content, there is weak evidence regarding the effectiveness of classroom curricula. These data will provide critical data to allow government agencies to recommend and preschool providers to choose among the array of available curricula. The respondents include children, teachers and parents.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2078. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washingotn, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail address vivian_reese@ed.gov. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or collection activity requirements should be directed to Kathy Axt at her Internet address Kathy.Axt@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

We invite you to submit comments regarding this proposed action. During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments in room 6E312, FB-6, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.

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. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

The claim in question arose when the Department's Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education (Assistant Secretary) issued a program determination letter (PDL) on March 26, 1997. The PDL demanded a refund of $1,846,718 of funds provided to the PRDE for school years 1991-92 and 1992-93 under Chapter 1 of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 2701 et seq. (1988)). Specifically, the Assistant Secretary found that the PRDE had used Chapter 1 funds to assess the educational needs of all public and private school children in violation of statutory and regulatory requirements that permitted the use of those funds only for programs designed to meet the special educational needs of low-achieving children. Accordingly, the Assistant Secretary disallowed the percent of the total assessment contract costs for 1991-92 and 1992-93 attributable to non-Chapter 1 students.

The PRDE filed a timely appeal with the OALJ. In response to a motion for partial summary judgment filed by the PRDE, the OALJ held that $1,017,440 of the Assistant Secretary's claim was barred from recovery by the statute of limitations in 20 U.S.C. 1234a(k). As a result, $829,278, representing costs incurred in school year 1992-93, remains at issue. The Administrative Law Judge assigned to the appeal granted the parties' joint motion to stay proceedings pending settlement negotiations.

During settlement discussions, the PRDE submitted substantial documentation to demonstrate that additional assessment costs were allowable Chapter 1 costs. For example, the PRDE demonstrated that certain fixed costs for in-service workshops and the preparation of required reports were necessary to meet Chapter 1 requirements, irrespective of the number of students assessed. Moreover, the PRDE demonstrated that it had properly assessed additional students no longer receiving Chapter 1 services in order to meet certain Chapter 1 requirements. After conducting a thorough review of this documentation, the Assistant Secretary has decided to accept the PRDE's documentation and withdraw $414,733 from the remaining claim, thereby reducing the claim to $414,545.

The Department proposes to compromise this remaining claim to $214,545. Based on litigation risks and costs of proceeding through the administrative and, possibly, court process for this appeal, the Department has determined that it would not be practical or in the public interest to continue this proceeding. In addition, in light of subsequent changes in the Chapter 1/Title I assessment requirements that permit testing all students, there is little or no likelihood of a recurrence of this problem. As a result, under the authority in 20 U.S.C. 1234a(j), the Department has determined that compromise of this claim for $214,545 is appropriate.

The public is invited to comment on the Department's intent to compromise this claim. Additional information may be obtained by calling or writing to Kay Rigling, Esq. at the telephone number and address listed at the beginning of this notice.

You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the Federal Register , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister.

To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at 202-512-1530.

You may also view this document in text or PDF at the following site: http://www.ed.gov.

The Federal government established the Hanford Site, near Richland, Washington, in 1943, to produce plutonium for national defense as part of the Manhattan Project. Metallic uranium fuel was irradiated in nuclear reactors, and then the fuel was chemically processed to recover plutonium. Plutonium production at the Hanford Site stopped in 1988.

Processing reactor fuel and related activities at the Hanford Site created a wide variety of radioactive wastes that have been stored in 177 underground tanks. Typically, the tank wastes are highly radioactive and mixed with hazardous waste.

There are 149 single-shell tanks storing about 125.7 million liters (ML) (33.2 million gallons (Mgal)) of waste at the Hanford Site. Single shell tanks have one steel wall, surrounded by reinforced concrete; they were constructed between 1944 and 1964 with a design life of 20 to 30 years. The single-shell tanks received waste from chemical processing until 1980. The capacity of most single-shell tanks is 1.9 ML to 3.8 ML (0.5 Mgal to 1.0 Mgal). The tanks are located under ground and are covered with 1.8 to 3 meters (6 to 10 feet) of earth. These tanks contain radioactive liquids, saltcake, and sludge. About half of the single-shell tanks have leaked or are assumed to have leaked. Approximately 3.9 ML (1.0 Mgal) of waste has leaked or spilled into the nearby soil. Over the years, much of the liquid stored in single-shell tanks has been evaporated or pumped to double-shell tanks as part of DOE's Interim Tank Stabilization Program to prevent further leakage.

There are twenty-eight 3.9 ML (1.0 Mgal) double-shell tanks at Hanford. The double-shell tanks were constructed between 1970 and 1986. Most of these tanks are designed for up to 50 years of storage. They are similar to the single-shell tanks, but double-shell tanks have a second steel containment wall. The space between the two walls is monitored for leaks, and none of the double-shell tanks has been known to leak. The double-shell tanks are used to treat and store a variety of liquid radioactive wastes from the single-shell tanks and from various Hanford Site processes. The double-shell tanks now contain about 79.5 ML (21.0 Mgal) of waste.

The TWRS EIS addressed the management, treatment, storage, and disposal of the waste currently stored in the existing tanks and other wastes that may be generated during future decontamination and decommissioning activities at Hanford. The scope of the EIS included safe operations, waste retrieval, and treatment and disposal of tank waste. The EIS also addressed the management of approximately 1930 radioactive cesium and strontium capsules. The EIS evaluated 10 tank waste alternatives and 4 alternatives for managing the cesium and strontium capsules. The tank waste alternatives included a No Action Alternative and a range of action alternatives that involved varying degrees of tank waste retrieval and chemical separation of high-level and low-activity wastes. In all of the alternatives involving chemical separation of tank wastes, the high-level waste would be vitrified and stored until it could be shipped to a potential geologic repository. The low-activity waste would be immobilized and placed into near-surface concrete (grout) vaults on site.

The TWRS EIS Record of Decision (TWRS ROD) selected the Department's Preferred Alternative, the Phased Implementation Alternative, and deferred a decision on the cesium and strontium capsules. During Phase I (demonstration phase) of the Phased Implementation Alternative, DOE would retrieve a portion of the waste from the tanks and chemically separate the low-activity and high-level wastes. Demonstration-scale waste treatment facilities would be designed, constructed, and operated to immobilize tank waste. DOE also decided that immobilized low-activity waste would be prepared for future on site disposal in existing grout vaults. The phased approach would allow DOE to use the lessons learned from the demonstration phase to improve the design, construction, and operations of full-scale facilities constructed during Phase II.

In accordance with the TWRS ROD, DOE has continued to evaluate new information pertinent to Hanford tank waste remediation and is now reconsidering aspects of Phase I implementation for low-activity waste. Specifically, DOE is now considering a different type of disposal facility, a different on-site disposal location, and a different physical form of the vitrified low-activity waste product than were originally analyzed in the TWRS EIS. Accordingly, DOE has decided to prepare a Supplemental EIS.

DOE proposes to dispose of immobilized low-activity waste generated from the retrieval and treatment of tank wastes at the Hanford Site in near-surface trenches located in the 200 East Area of the Hanford Site. This proposal represents a change in DOE's decision in the TWRS ROD to retrievably dispose of low-activity wastes in concrete vaults.

The proposed low-activity waste form also is different from the Phased Implementation Alternative, under which tank waste would be immobilized in vitrified cullet, produced by quenching the molten glass in water following vitrification, resulting in gravel-sized pieces of glass. DOE proposes instead to immobilize low-activity waste in monoliths, produced by casting the molten glass into a canister, resulting in a single encased piece of glass.

In accordance with the TWRS ROD, DOE will continue to evaluate new information relative to the tank waste remediation program. As this information becomes available, DOE may consider new treatment technologies and would conduct further NEPA review as appropriate.

This alternative reflects current DOE planning for disposal of immobilized low-activity waste generated from tank waste retrieval and chemical separation. The immobilized low-activity waste would be placed in sealed containers, and disposed of in lined trenches with leachate collection systems in the 200 East Area of the Hanford Site. DOE will evaluate the impacts associated with the disposal of immobilized low-activity waste in trenches and closing and capping the trenches with a range of barriers.

Under this alternative, the immobilized low-activity waste would be placed in sealed containters and disposed of in lined trenches with leachate collection systems at a representative site in the 200 West Area of the Hanford Site. DOE will evaluate the impacts associated with the disposal of the low-activity waste in trenches and closing and capping the trenches with a range of barriers.

In the Supplemental EIS, the No Action Alternative will be the Phased Implementation Alternative selected in the TWRS EIS ROD. Under this alternative, DOE would implement its previous decision concerning immobilized low-activity waste: retrievable disposal of the low-activity waste in concrete vaults located at the Hanford Site. The analysis of this alternative would be updated with information that has become available since the TWRS EIS was published to ensure an appropriate comparison among alternatives.

The following issues have been preliminarily identified for analysis in the Supplemental EIS. This list is presented to facilitate public comment on the scope of the Supplemental EIS and is not intended to be all-inclusive or to predetermine the potential impacts of any of the alternatives.

(1) Potential effects on the public and onsite workers from releases of radiological and nonradiological materials during normal operations and from reasonably forseeable accidents;

(2) Pollution prevention and waste minimization;

(3) Potential effects on air and water quality and other environmental consequences of normal operations and potential accidents;

(4) Potential cumulative effects of operations at the Hanford Site, including relevant impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities at the Site;

(5) Potential effects on endangered species, floodplain/wetlands, archaeological/historical sites;

(6) Potential long-term effects on groundwater, surface water, and human health;

(7) Effects from normal transportation and postulated transportation accidents;

(8) Potential socioeconomic impacts on surrounding communities;

(9) Unavoidable adverse environmental effects;

(10) Short-term uses of the environment versus long-term productivity;

(11) Potential irretrievable and irreversible commitment of resources.

The Hanford Communities, a Washington State intergovernmental group representing the local communities of Richland, West Richland, Kennewick, and Pasco, Benton County, and the Port of Benton, is a cooperating agency in the preparation of this Supplemental EIS.

DOE invites the public to attend a scoping meeting at which comments may be presented on the scope of the Supplemental EIS. Oral and written comments will be considered equally in preparation of the Supplemental EIS. Oral and written comments will be received at the public scoping meeting as stated under DATES above.

DOE will begin the scoping meeting with a short presentation on the Supplemental EIS process, the proposed action, preliminary alternatives, and other related information. Individuals and organizations will then be invited to present comments. Requests to speak at the public meetings may be made by calling or writing to the DOE document manager (see ADDRESSES above). Registered speakers will be heard on a first-come, first-served basis. Requests to speak made at the meeting will be honored as time permits. Written comments will be accepted at the meeting. Speakers are encouraged to provide written versions of their oral comments for the record.

A moderator will conduct the meeting. DOE staff and the moderator may ask speakers clarifying questions. Individuals speaking on behalf of an organization must identify the organization. Each speaker will be allowed five minutes to present comments unless more time is available. Comments will be recorded by a court reporter and will become part of the scoping meeting record. A question and answer period will be held after speakers have had an opportunity to speak.

Other NEPA documents that may be relevant to the Supplemental EIS include:

(1) Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Tank Waste Remediation System, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, DOE/EIS-0189, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, 1996, Record of Decision issued February 1997, and Supplement Analyses 1 (June 1997), 2 (May 1998), and 3 (March 2001).

(2) Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Safe Interim Storage of Hanford Tank Wastes, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, DOE/EIS-0212, 1995, Record of Decision issued November 1995, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington.

(3) Final Environmental Impact Statement for Disposal of Hanford Defense High-Level Transuranic and Tank Wastes, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, DOE/EIS-0113, 1987, Record of Decision issued April 1988, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.

(4) Final Environmental Statement for Waste Management Operations, Hanford Reservation, Richland, Washington, ERDA-1538, 1975. U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration, Washington, DC.

(5) Final Environmental Impact Statement for Hanford Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, DOE/EIS-0222, 1999, Record of Decision issued November 1999, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.

(6) Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0200, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, May 1997. DOE published Records of Decision: TRU Treatment January 1998; Hazardous Waste Treatment August 1998; High-Level Waste Storage August 1999; Low-Level and Mixed Low-Level Waste, February 2000.

(7) Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive and Hazardous) Waste Program, DOE/EIS-0286, April 2002, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington.

(8) Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition, DOE/EIS-0287, January 2001, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.

(9) Draft SEPA Environmental Impact Statement for Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site (US Ecology) on the Hanford Site, August 2000, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington.

(10) Environmental Assessments.

• Trench 33 Widening in 218-W-5 Low-Level Burial Ground, DOE/EA-1203, FONSI July 1997;

• Widening Trench 36 of the 218-E-12B Low-Level Burial Ground, DOE/EA-1276, FONSI February 1999;

• Use of Existing Borrow Areas, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, DOE/EA-1403, FONSI October 2001;

• Transuranic Waste Retrieval from the 218-W-4B and 218-W-4C Low-Level Burial Grounds, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, DOE/EA-1405, FONSI March 2002.

The solicitation will be available on the Internet on or about July 1, 2002 at the following web site: http://e-center.doe.gov/. Applications must be prepared and submitted in accordance with the instructions and forms contained in the solicitation. For profit and not-for-profit organizations, state and local governments, Indian tribes, and institutions of higher learning are eligible for awards under this solicitation. Collaboration between industry, industry organizations, and universities are encouraged.

Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are those laboratories that participate in Performance Evaluation (PE) studies, the private sector companies who offer these studies, and those who use the data generated from their participation to determine the certification status of laboratories involved in producing environmental monitoring measurements in water. This includes EPA and state certifying authorities for the Drinking Water, Wastewater, and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) programs.

Title: Performance Evaluation Studies of Water and Wastewater Laboratories (OMB Control No. 2080-0021; EPA ICR No. 0234.08.). Expiring 10/31/2002.

Abstract: Performance Evaluation (PE) studies provide an objective demonstration that participating laboratories are capable of producing valid data for monitored pollutants. Participation in the Water Pollution (WP) studies that relate to wastewater analyses and Water Supply (WS) studies that relate to drinking water analyses are only mandated by the USEPA for those laboratories that receive federal funds to perform these analyses. However, states that certify laboratories for drinking water and wastewater analyses also often require successful participation in these studies for certification. Participation in the Discharge Monitoring Report-Quality Assurance (DMR-QA) studies is mandatory for those designated wastewater dischargers who are conducting self-monitoring analyses required under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. EPA initiated these studies and originally administered them as part of the Agency's mandate to assure the quality of environmental monitoring data. Subsequently, all of these studies have been privatized. Private sector companies manufacture and distribute samples to the participating laboratories who then will submit their analytical results to these PE venders for evaluation. The PE venders then send evaluations of the submitted data to the laboratory and any other designated certifying/accrediting authority. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

The EPA is soliciting comments to:

(i) 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;

(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 9.6 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Estimated number of Respondents: 17,168.

Frequency of Response: Annual.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 165,179 hours.

Estimated Total Annualized Capital, Operating and Maintenance Cost Burden: $9,938,880.

The Commission solicits public comment to enable it to:

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

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the Commissions estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(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, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Collection Title: Elementary-Secondary Staff Information Report EEO-5.

OMB-Number: 0346-0003.

Frequency of Report: Biennial.

Type of Respondent: Public elementary and secondary school districts with 100 more employees.

Description of Affected Public: State and Local Government.

Number of Responses: 5,000.

Reporting Hours: 10,000 (revised).

Federal Cost: $80,000.

Number of Forms: 1.

The EEOC received no comment in response to that solicitation.

Abstract: Section 709(c) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-8(c), requires employers to make and keep records relevant to a determination of whether unlawful employment practices have been or are being committed and to make reports therefrom as required by the EEOC. Accordingly, the EEOC has issued regulations which set forth the reporting requirement for various kinds of employers. Public elementary and secondary schools systems and districts have been required to submit EEO-5 reports to EEOC since 1974 (biennially in even numbered years since 1982). Since 1996 each school district or system has submitted all of the district data on a single form, EEOC Form 168A. The individual school form, EEOC Form 168B, was discontinued in 1996, greatly reducing the respondent burden and cost.

EEO-5 data are used by the EEOC to investigate charges of employment discrimination against public elementary and secondary school districts. The data are used to support EEOC decisions and conciliations, and for research. The data are shared with the Department of Education (Office for Civil Rights and the National Center for Education Statistics) and the Department of Justice. Pursuant to Section 709(d) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, EEO-5 data are also shared with 86 State and Local Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs).

Burden Statement: The estimated number of respondents included in the EEO-5 collection is 5,000 public elementary and secondary school districts. The number of responses per respondent is one report. The annual number of responses is approximately 5,000 and the total hours per response is between one (1) and five (5) hours. Based upon the large number of school districts responding via diskette, the total response burden has been re-estimated to equal 10,000 hours each time the survey is conducted (i.e. biennially). Respondents are continued to be encouraged to report data electronic media such as magnetic tapes and diskettes.

Beginning immediately, and until further notice, the Federal Communications Commission (“Commission”) will not accept for filing television modification applications that would increase a station's analog or DTV service area in channels 52-59 in one or more directions beyond the combined area resulting from the station's parameters as defined in the following: (1) The DTV Table of Allotments; (2) Commission authorizations (license and/or construction permit); and (3) applications on file with the Commission prior to release of this Notice. We will continue to process applications on file as of June 18, 2002, the date this Notice was released. The Media Bureau may consider, on a case by case basis and consistent with the public interest, amendments to those applications to, for example, resolve interference with other stations or pending applications or resolve mutual exclusivity with other pending applications.

The Bureau will consider, on a case-by-case basis, requests for waiver of this freeze where the modification application: (1) Would permit co-location of transmitter sites in a market in circumstances consistent with the Commission's policy of encouraging co-location to reduce the cost of construction, particularly of DTV facilities, or to achieve more efficient spectrum use; or (2) is necessary or otherwise in the public interest for technical or other reasons to maintain quality service to the public, such as where zoning restrictions preclude tower construction at a particular site or where unforeseen events, such as extreme weather events or other extraordinary circumstances, require relocation to a new tower site. In particular, we would be inclined to grant waivers of the freeze for broadcast stations that seek new tower sites due to the events of September 11, 2001.

As with any request for waiver of our rules, a request for waiver of the freeze imposed in this Notice will be granted only upon a showing of good cause and where grant of the waiver will serve the public interest.

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated June 26, 2002, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (Stafford Act), as follows:

The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.

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

I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of Alaska to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:

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

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Alaska is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 26, 2002:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Indiana is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 13, 2002:

Perry County for Individual and Public Assistance.

Clay County for Individual Assistance.

Greene, Jefferson, Johnson, Knox, Montgomery, Owen, Parke, Putnam, and Washington Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance).

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective June 25, 2002.

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Missouri is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 6, 2002: Pemiscot County for Public Assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance).

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

The mission of the CDC is to promote health and quality of life by preventing and controlling disease, injury and disability. CDC accomplishes its mission by working with partners throughout the United States and the world to monitor health, detect and investigate health problems, conduct applied research to enhance prevention, develop and advocate sound public health policies, implement prevention strategies, promote healthy behaviors, foster safe and healthful environments, and provide leadership and training. CDC's priorities are: Strengthen science for public health action, Collaborate with health care partners for prevention, Promote healthy living at all stages of life, and Work with partners to improve global health.

The CDC will honor the sovereignty of American Indian/Alaska Native Governments, respect the inherent rights of self-governance and commit to work on a government-to-government basis. The CDC will confer with Tribal Governments, Alaska Native Organizations and AIAN communities, before taking actions and/or making decisions that affect them. Consultation will include all AI/AN governments and organizations.

As does the Department of Health and Human Services, CDC considers consultation to be “an enhanced form of communication which emphasizes trust, respect and shared responsibility. It is an open and free exchange of information and opinion among parties which leads to mutual understanding and comprehension. Consultation is integral to a deliberative process which results in effective collaboration and informed decision-making.”

Once all Regional Tribal Consultations National meetings are completed, a draft implementation document will be prepared and submitted to the National Indian Health Board, the National Congress of American Indians, and tribal governments for review and final comments. Thereafter, the finalized document will be published in the Federal Register , posted on appropriate federal and AI/AN websites, and made available to AI/AN governments and organizations.

The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the CDC and the ATSDR.

In the Federal Register of March 27, 2002 (67 FR 14719), the agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0389. The approval expires on June 30, 2005. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets.

In the Federal Register of February 7, 2002 (67 FR 5828), the agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0331. The approval expires on December 31, 2003. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets.

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Section 12.22 (21 CFR 12.22), issued under section 701(e)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 371(e)(2)), sets forth the instructions for filing objections and requests for a hearing on a regulation or order under § 12.20(d) (21 CFR 12.20(d)). Objections and requests must be submitted within the time specified in § 12.20(e). Each objection, for which a hearing has been requested, must be separately numbered and specify the provision of the regulation or the proposed order. In addition, each objection must include a detailed description and analysis of the factual information and any other document, with some exceptions, supporting the objection. Failure to include this information constitutes a waiver of the right to a hearing on that objection. FDA uses the description and analysis to determine whether a hearing request is justified. The description and analysis may be used only for the purpose of determining whether a hearing has been justified under 21 CFR 12.24 and do not limit the evidence that may be presented if a hearing is granted.

Respondents to this information collection are those parties that may be adversely affected by an order or regulation.

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

The burden estimate for this collection of information is based on past filings. Agency personnel responsible for processing the filing of objections and requests for a public hearing on a specific regulation or order, estimate approximately 10 requests are received by the agency annually, with each requiring approximately 20 hours of preparation time.

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act), cosmetic products that are adulterated under section 601 of the act (21 U.S.C. 361) or misbranded under section 602 of the act (21 U.S.C. 362) cannot legally be distributed in interstate commerce. To assist FDA in carrying out its responsibility to regulate cosmetics, FDA requests under part 720 (21 CFR part 720), but does not require, that firms that manufacture, pack, or distribute cosmetics file with the agency an ingredient statement for each of their products (§ 720.4). Ingredient statements for new submissions (§ 720.4) are reported on Form FDA 2512, “Cosmetic Product Ingredient Statement,” and on Form FDA 2512a, a continuation form. Changes in product formulation (§ 720.6) are also reported on Forms FDA 2512 and FDA 2512a. When a firm discontinues the commercial distribution of a cosmetic, FDA requests that the firm file Form FDA 2514, “Discontinuance of Commercial Distribution of Cosmetic Product Formulation” (§ 720.6). If any of the information submitted on or with these forms is confidential, the firm may submit a request for confidentiality under § 720.8.

FDA uses the information received on these forms as input for a computer-based information storage and retrieval system. These voluntary formula filings provide FDA with the best information available about cosmetic product formulations, ingredients and their frequency of use, businesses engaged in the manufacture and distribution of cosmetics, and approximate rates of product discontinuance and formula modifications. FDA's database also lists cosmetic products containing ingredients suspected to be carcinogenic or otherwise deleterious to the public health. The information provided under the Cosmetic Product Voluntary Reporting Program assists FDA scientists in evaluating reports of alleged injuries and adverse reactions to the use of cosmetics. The information also is utilized in defining and planning analytical and toxicological studies pertaining to cosmetics.

FDA shares nonconfidential information from its files on cosmetics with consumers, medical professionals, and industry. For example, by submitting a Freedom of Information Act request, consumers can obtain information about which products do or do not contain a specified ingredient and about the levels at which certain ingredients are typically used. Dermatologists use FDA files to cross-reference allergens found in patch test kits with cosmetic ingredients. The Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association, which is conducting a review of ingredients used in cosmetics, has relied on data provided by FDA in selecting ingredients to be reviewed based on frequency of use.

The Cosmetic Product Voluntary Reporting Program was suspended during fiscal year (FY) 1998 due to a lack of budgetary funding and was reinstated at the beginning of FY 1999. The estimated hour burden is 60 percent of the previous level reported in 1999. In general, the larger cosmetic companies have resumed participating in the program, whereas the smaller companies are lagging.

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

In the Federal Register of February 21, 2002 (67 FR 8030), the agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0492. The approval expires on December 31, 2002. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets.

FDA issued the CPG entitled “Sec. 315.200 Status of Dental Supplies such as Denture Cleaners, Adhesives, Cushions, and Repair Materials as a Device or Cosmetic (CPG 7124.05)” on April 26, 1976. This CPG, as revised on August 9, 1988, considered these products to be devices within the meaning of section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 321(h)).

In accordance with section 513 of the act (21 U.S.C. 360c), the agency has classified dental products as devices by regulation, including but not limited to:

1. Karaya and sodium borate with or without acacia denture adhesive (21 CFR 872.3400)

2. Ethylene oxide homopolymer and/or carboxymethylcellulose sodium denture adhesive (21 CFR 872.3410)

3. Carboxymethylcellulose sodium and cationic polyacrylamide polymer denture adhesive (21 CFR 872.3420)

4. Ethylene oxide homopolymer and/or karaya denture adhesive (21 CFR 872.3450)

5. Polyacrylamide polymer (modified cationic) denture adhesive (21 CFR 872.3480)

6. Carboxymethylcellulose sodium and/or polyvinylmethylether maleic acid calcium-sodium double salt denture adhesive (21 CFR 872.3490)

7. Polyvinylmethylether maleic anhydride (PVM-MA), acid copolymer, and carboxymethylcellulose sodium (NACMC) denture adhesive (21 CFR 872.3500)

8. Over-the-counter (OTC) denture cleanser (21 CFR 872.3520)

9. Mechanical denture cleaner (21 CFR 872.3530)

10. OTC denture cushion or pad (21 CFR 872.3540)

11. OTC denture repair kit (21 CFR 872.3570)

12. Denture relining, repairing, or rebasing resin (21 CFR 872.3760)

Given these device classifications, FDA is revoking CPG 7124.05, in its entirety, to eliminate unnecessary compliance policy.

Prior to August 7, 2002, a copy of the CPG may also be downloaded to a personal computer with access to the Internet. The Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA) home page includes the referenced document that may be accessed at http://www.fda.gov/ora/compliance_ref/cpg/cpgdev/cpg315-200.html.

The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) has available $158,600,000 in FY 2002 refugee social service funds as part of the FY 2002 appropriation for the Department of Health and Human Services (Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002, Public Law 107-116).

The FY 2002 House Appropriations Committee Report (H.R. Rept. No. 107-229) reads as follows with respect to social services funds:

The FY 2002 Conference Report on Appropriations (H.R. Conf. 107-342) reads as follows concerning social services:

ORR will use the $158,600,000 appropriated for FY 2002 social services as follows:

• $71,910,000 will be allocated under the three-year population formula, as set forth in this notice for the purpose of providing employment services and other needed services to refugees.

• $12,690,000 will be awarded as new and continuation social service discretionary grants under new and prior year competitive grant announcements issued separately from this notice.

• $19,000,000 will be awarded to serve communities most heavily affected by recent Cuban and Haitian entrant and refugee arrivals. These funds will be awarded through continuation awards under a separate prior year announcement.

• $26,000,000 will be awarded through discretionary grants for communities with large concentrations of refugees whose cultural differences make assimilation especially difficult justifying a more intense level and longer duration of Federal assistance. A combination of new and continuation awards will be made through new and prior year separate announcements.

• $14,000,000 will be awarded to address the needs of refugees and communities impacted by recent changes in Federal assistance programs relating to welfare reform. Awards will be made through a separate announcement.

• $15,000,000 will be awarded to increase educational support to schools with a significant proportion of refugee children, consistent with previous support to schools heavily impacted by large concentrations of refugees. New awards will be made through a separate announcement.

In addition, we are adding $11.5 million in prior year funds to the FY 2002 formula social services allocation as two set-aside allocations as follows: (1) $3 million for support for healthy families through community-based organizations, and (2) $8.5 million for planned upgrading of employment, employment retraining, and subsidized employment tied to a labor market need leading to unsubsidized employment, increasing the total amount available in FY 2002 through this announcement to $83,410,000.

Congress provided ORR with broad carry-over authority of FY 2000 refugee funds in a supplemental appropriations law (Emergency Supplemental Act, 2000, Pub.L. No. 106-246) as follows:

The population figures for the formula social services allocation include refugees, Cuban/Haitian entrants, and Amerasians from Vietnam. (A State must, however, have an approved State plan for the Cuban/Haitian Entrant Program or indicate in its refugee program State plan that Cuban/Haitian entrants will be served in order to use funds on behalf of entrants as well as refugees.)

The Director is allocating $71,910,000 to States on the basis of each State's proportion of the national population of refugees who had been in the United States three years or less as of October 1, 2001 (including a floor amount for States which have small refugee populations).

The use of the three-year population base in the allocation formula is required by section 412(c)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which states that the “funds available for a fiscal year for grants and contracts [for social services] . . . shall be allocated among the States based on the total number of refugees (including children and adults) who arrived in the United States not more than 36 months before the beginning of such fiscal year and who are actually residing in each State (taking into account secondary migration) as of the beginning of the fiscal year.”

As established in the FY 1991 social services notice published in the Federal Register of August 29, 1991, section I, “Allocation Amounts” (56 FR 42745), a variable floor amount for States which have small refugee populations is calculated as follows: If the application of the regular allocation formula yields less than $100,000, then —

(1) A base amount of $75,000 is provided for a State with a population of 50 or fewer refugees who have been in the U.S. 3 years or less; and

(2) for a State with more than 50 refugees who have been in the U.S. 3 years or less: (a) a floor has been calculated consisting of $50,000 plus the regular per capita allocation for refugees above 50 up to a total of $100,000 (in other words, the maximum under the floor formula is $100,000); (b) if this calculation has yielded less than $75,000, a base amount of $75,000 is provided for the State.

As mentioned in the previous section, the Director is also allocating an additional total of $11.5 million from prior year carry-over funds as two set-aside allocations, increasing the total amount available in FY 2002 through this announcement to $83,410,000.

Regarding the $3 million set-aside allocation, ORR is interested in supporting programs to promote healthy families. The refugee experience—fleeing one's homeland, leaving family and friends, sometimes living for an extended period of time in a camp setting in a country of first asylum, and adapting to life in a new country—places considerable stress on the family. Most refugee families are unfamiliar with the culture, language, roles, and responsibilities of individuals and families in the United States. Both parents may now be required to work in order to sustain the family economically and may have to work different shifts so that one parent is at home to care for the children. Communication becomes more difficult. As a result, refugee families also may encounter severe inter-generational strains. Children are caught between the demand of their traditional culture (presented by their parents and grandparents) and American culture (represented by schools, peers, and the media).

In order to maintain the well-being of the family, guidance and support may be needed to assist these families to know how to better deal with the changing circumstances and choices they face.

Through this set-aside, ORR is looking to support orientation, education, and counseling to help maintain healthy marriages, promote responsible fatherhood, and maintain the well-being of families. States should use the set-aside funds to support programs which focus on a range of subjects to promote family well-being, such as: increasing the recognition of the critical contributions that fathers make to children's development; parental roles in U.S. schools—increasing both parents', particularly fathers', participation in the children's education and in school activities; family literacy programs; family conflict resolution; child-nurturing techniques including positive ways to discipline children; dealing with anger and depression in the family; and substance abuse and other problems facing young adults and the family in the United States.

The organizations funded by the set-aside amount are expected to have ties to the ethnic communities they serve and to conduct outreach into the community to identify refugee families in need of services. The opportune time frame for providing these services to families, we believe, is within the first three years after a refugee family's arrival. We strongly encourage States to fund, to the extent possible, Mutual Assistance Associations (MAAs), ethnic community-based organizations, and indigenous faith-based organizations with refugee experience, to the extent possible, to provide family support, outreach, education, orientation, and counseling. ORR defines an MAA as an organization with the following qualifications: (a) The organization is legally incorporated as a nonprofit organization; and (b) not less than 51% of the composition of the Board of Directors or governing board of the mutual assistance association is comprised of refugees or former refugees, including both refugee men and women.

Regarding the $8.5 million set-aside, there continues to be a need to focus funding on planned employment upgrading of refugees. While early employment for refugees is being achieved in many areas across the country, refugees who continue in language and employment training programs, or access additional training several months after placement in employment, do so on a random or ad hoc basis with varying amounts of formal assistance from refugee services providers. During their first few years in the country, refugees often appear to be revolving through a series of entry level placements. To be self-sufficient, refugees need to be in a position to market their experience and skills to employers. Funding provided through this set-aside is to assist States to implement programs which tie early employment to planned job up-grading services, including vocational training, professional and skills recertification, assistance with courses leading to certification (for example, courses leading to State certification to teach, to work as a nurse or medical aide, to become a draftsman, or become certified in the information technology field).

States and employment services providers are strongly encouraged to work in partnership with the MAAs, ethnic or community-based organizations, including faith-based organizations, funded through the $3 million set-aside, if possible, and to encourage MAA partnerships with other non-profit organizations and funded social service providers.

For activities funded with the two set-aside allocations, the Director is utilizing his authority, pursuant to 45 CFR 400.300, to waive the five-year (60) month limitation on social services (400.152(b)). Refugees who have been in the United States longer than 60 months (five years), but have not attained U.S. citizenship, may receive social services funded by the set-aside allocations. There are limited exceptions to this citizenship rule for certain U.S. born minor children in refugee families (45 CFR 400.208) and certain Amerasians from Vietnam who are U.S. citizens (Pub. L. 100.461).

Eligibility for refugee social services includes persons who meet all requirements of 45 CFR 400.43 (as amended by 65 FR 15409 (March 22, 2000)). In addition, persons granted asylum are eligible for refugee benefits and services from the date that asylum was granted (See ORR State Letter No. 00-12, effective June 15, 2000). Victims of a severe form of trafficking who have received a certification or eligibility letter from ORR are eligible from the date on the certification letter (See ORR State letter No. 01-13, May 3, 2001).

Services to refugees must be provided in accordance with the rules of 45 CFR Part 400 Subpart I—Refugee Social Services. Although the allocation formula is based on the three-year refugee population, States may provide services to refugees who have been in the country up to 60 months (5 years), with the exception of referral and interpreter services and citizenship and naturalization preparation services for which there is no time limitation (45 CFR 400.152(b)). On December 5, 2001, however, the Director of ORR, using the authority in 45 CFR 400.300, issued a blanket waiver of the time-in-country limit for services (ORR State Letter 01-31). This waiver, in effect until September 30, 2002, was issued to assist States in providing services to refugees following the events of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent cessation of refugee arrivals during most of the first quarter, FY 2002. In addition, as discussed in a section above, the five-year limitation on services has been waived for refugees served with the two set-aside allocations in this announcement.

Allowable social services are those indicated in 45 CFR 400.154 and 400.155. Additional services not included in these sections which the State may wish to provide must be submitted to and approved by the Director of ORR (§ 400.155(h)).

Priorities for provision of services are specified in 45 CFR 400.147. In order for refugees to move quickly off Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), States should, to the extent possible, ensure that all newly arriving refugees receive refugee-specific services designed to address the employment barriers that refugees typically face.

We encourage States to re-examine the range of services they currently offer to refugees. Those States that have had success in helping refugees achieve early employment may find it to be a good time to expand beyond provision of basic employment services and address the broader needs that refugees have in order to enhance their ability to maintain financial security and to successfully integrate into the community. Other States may need to reassess the delivery of employment services in light of local economic conditions and develop new strategies to better serve the currently arriving refugee groups.

States should also be aware that ORR will make social services formula funds available to pay for social services which are provided to refugees who participate in Wilson/Fish projects. Section 412(e)(7)(A) of the INA provides that:

This provision is generally known as the Wilson/Fish Amendment. The Department has already issued a separate notice in the Federal Register with respect to applications for such projects (64 FR 19793 (April 22, 1999)).

Four comments were received in response to the proposed notice published on April 9, 2002 (67 FR 17079-17082).

Comment: Two comments were received from individuals representing the same agency, who opposed the cut in funds allocated for Social Services in the proposed notice of allocations.

Response: The difference between the final formula amount for social services in FY 2001 and the amount in the FY 2002 proposed formula allocation was a little more than $17,000, not a relatively significant amount. The commenters were most likely concerned that the total funding allocated to the State was less in the proposed notice of FY 2002 allocations because a set-aside amount was not included. For the final notice of FY 2002 allocations, the Director has included $11.5 million in set-aside funds. While the formula amount has been approximately the same during the last three years, set-aside funds have been possible as a result of authority to spend prior year surplus funds and the availability of surplus funds.

Comment: One comment was received from a State Refugee Coordinator who opposed ORR's methodology for making adjustments to population estimates for persons granted asylum and victims of a severe form of trafficking. This commenter suggested that a State should be given credit for all eligible asylees and certified victims of a severe form of trafficking in their State, not just the eligible asylees and trafficking victims who had received services in the State during the past year. Citing the burden placed upon the State to respond within a short notice, the Coordinator believed that ORR was in the best position to have data on these populations. The commenter also noted that the potential exists for the unserved populations to apply for services in the near future and therefore a State should be given credit for all persons granted asylum and certified as victims of a severe form of trafficking, not just those who received services.

Response: In the Final Notice of Allocations to States of FY 2001 Funds for Refugee Social Services, $10 million in set-aside funding was provided for States to set up systems to identify, bring into services, and provide services to those asylees in need of services.

ORR strongly believes that it is important to have data which show the extent to which States have now established outreach systems to bring asylees into services and are now serving them. Unlike refugees, individuals granted asylum and certified victims of a severe form of trafficking do not have voluntary agency caseworkers assigned to them upon arrival. These caseworkers, funded through the U.S. Department of State's Reception and Placement Cooperative Agreement, are required to refer refugees into the network of refugee program and benefits.

Over the past 20 years, through regulations, funding, and monitoring of the refugee program, ORR has sought to ensure that newly arrived refugees are served through a network of refugee specific, bilingual and bicultural services. We are confident that there is the strongest possible link between the number of refugees arriving in a state and the number of refugees receiving services in that State. This is not true, however, for persons granted asylum. We do not know the extent to which asylees need services, the extent to which they are able to access services and assistance, and the extent to which their needs mirror the needs of newly arriving refugees. Many asylees have been in the United States for more than one year before they receive a grant of asylum. It may be that they are already integrated into communities and are not in need of transitional assistance and services. Likewise, we do not have data supporting an assumption that the address provided on the asylum application directly corresponds to the location where asylees choose to reside after asylum is granted. For these reasons, it makes greater sense to adjust the allocations to States based upon the number of asylees who were granted asylum during the past three years and who have actually been served in the State refugee program.

While we concur that ORR knows the number of victims of a severe form of trafficking who have been certified, Section 107(b)(1)(D) (“Annual Report”) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (Pub.L. 106-386) requires that HHS report information annually on the number of victims who received benefits or other services.

Comment: One commenter noted that the proposed announcement did not extend the Director's waiver of the 60-month time-in-country limit for services that was issued by the Director on December 5, 2001. The State encouraged the Director to continue the waiver through 2003. This commenter noted the downturn in the service industry and other sectors in the State in which refugees and entrants tend to work. The commenter also expressed concern about the effect on newly enrolled social services clients (presumably those in the country for more than 60 months) when services were stopped at the expiration of the waiver (September 30, 2002).

Response: For the formula allocation, the Director has decided not to extend a blanket waiver at this time. However, pursuant to 45 CFR 400.300, States may submit individual waiver requests for requirements in part 400, and the Director may issue a waiver if it is determined that the waiver will advance the purposes of the regulations and is consistent with Federal refugee policy objectives.

States may allow clients who have been in the country for more than 60 months and who were enrolled in a social services funded component before October 1, 2002 and who have not yet completed that component to remain in that component until completion.

As noted in an earlier section of this announcement, the Director has waived the five-year limitation on services to clients served with the two set-aside allocations in this announcement.

Of the funds available for FY 2002 for social services, $71,910,000 is to be allocated to States in accordance with the formula specified in A. below.

A. A State's allowable formula allocation is calculated as follows:

1. The total amount of funds determined by the Director to be available for this purpose; divided by—

2. The total number of refugees, Cuban/Haitian entrants, and Amerasians from Vietnam, who arrived in the United States not more than three years prior to the beginning of the fiscal year for which the funds are appropriated, as shown by the ORR Refugee Data System; and

3. The total number of asylees and certified victims of a severe form of trafficking who were served by the State in the prior year, as identified by the State. Certified victims of a severe form of trafficking include minors who have been provided eligibility letters by ORR. These individuals must have been granted asylum or certified no more than three years prior to the beginning of the fiscal year for which the funds are appropriated, as identified by States.

The resulting per capita amount is multiplied by—

4. The number of persons in items 2 and 3, above, in the State as of October 1, 2001, adjusted for secondary migration.

The calculation above yields the formula allocation for each State. Minimum allocations for small States are taken into account.

B. A State's allowable two set-aside allocations are calculated as follows:

1. The total amount of funds determined by the Director to be available for this purpose; divided by—

2. The total number of refugees, Cuban/Haitian entrants, and Amerasians from Vietnam who arrived in the United States not more than three years prior to the beginning of the fiscal year for which the funds are appropriated, as shows by the ORR Refugee Data System; and

3. The total number of asylees and certified victims of a severe form of trafficking served by the State in the prior year, as identified by the State. “Certified” victims of a severe form of trafficking include minors who have been provided eligibility letters by ORR. These individuals must have been granted asylum or certified no more than three years prior to the beginning of the fiscal year for which the funds are appropriated, as identified by States.

The resulting per capita amount is multiplied by—

4. The number of persons in items 2 and 3 above, in the State as of October 1, 2001, adjusted for secondary migration.

The calculation above yields the basis for the set-aside allocations for each State. A minimum allocation of $5,000 was provided to States that would have received less than this amount based upon the formula.

The population estimates for the allocation of funds in FY 2002 for the formula social service allocation are based on data on refugee arrivals from the ORR Refugee Data System, adjusted as of October 1, 2001, for secondary migration. The data base includes refugees of all nationalities, Amerasians from Vietnam, Cuban and Haitian entrants.

For fiscal year 2002, ORR's formula social service allocations for the States are based on the numbers of refugees, Amerasians, and entrants in the ORR data base. The numbers are based upon the arrivals during the preceding three fiscal years: 1999, 2000, and 2001.

The estimates of secondary migration are based on data submitted by all participating States on Form ORR-11 on secondary migrants who have resided in the United States for 36 months or less, as of September 30, 2001. The total migration reported by each State is summed, yielding in- and out-migration figures and a net migration figure for each State. The net migration figure is applied to the State's total arrival figure, resulting in a revised population estimate.

Estimates are developed separately for refugees and entrants and then combined into a total estimated three-year refugee/entrant population for each State. Eligible Amerasians are included in the refugee figures. Havana parolees (HP's) are enumerated in a separate column in Table 1, below, because they are tabulated separately from other entrants. Havana parolee arrivals for all States are based on actual data.

Table 1, below, shows the estimated three-year populations, as of October 1, 2001, of refugees (col. 1), entrants (col. 2), Havana parolees (col. 3); asylees and certified victims of a severe form of trafficking (col. 4); total population, (col.5); the final formula amounts which the population estimates yield, (col. 6); the final allocation amount (col 7); the first set-aside allocation amount (col. 8); the second set-aside allocation (col. 9); and the total allocation (col. 10).

Funding subsequent to the publication of this notice will be contingent upon the submittal and approval of a State annual services plan that is developed on the basis of a local consultative process, as required by 45 CFR 400.11(b)(2) in the ORR regulations.

The following amounts are for allocation for refugee social services in FY 2002:

Individuals wishing copies of the HCP and associated documents for review should immediately contact the above office. Documents also will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation prohibit the “take” of a species listed as endangered or threatened. Take is defined under the Act, in part, as to kill, harm, or harass a federally listed species. However, the Service may issue permits to authorize “incidental take” of listed species under limited circumstances. Incidental take is defined under the Act as take of a listed species that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity under limited circumstances. Regulations governing permits for threatened species are promulgated in 50 CFR 17.32.

The Lefever Property is located at 12715 Kaibab Court, Abert Estates Lot 4, along Black Squirrel Creek, in the Town of Black Forest, El Paso County, State of Colorado. The project site is 5.4 acres, but the proposed project will directly impact a maximum of 0.56 acre that may result in incidental take of the Preble's. Of the total amount of impacted acreage, 0.215 acre will be temporarily disturbed and will be revegetated. An HCP has been developed as part of the preferred alternative. The proposed HCP will allow for the incidental take of the Preble's by permitting a single family residence to be constructed in an area that may be periodically used as foraging or hibernation habitat.

Alternatives considered in addition to the Proposed Action, included waiting for the approval of the El Paso County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan, and no action. The draft EA analyzes the onsite, offsite, and cumulative impacts of the proposed project and all associated development and construction activities and mitigation activities on the Preble's, other threatened or endangered species, vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, geology/soils, land use, water resources, air and water quality, or cultural resources. None of the proposed impacts occur within the riparian corridor. All of the proposed impacts are in upland areas outside of the 100-year floodplain. The Applicant, using the Service's definition of Preble's habitat, has determined that the proposed project would impact approximately 0.56 acre of potential Preble's habitat. The mitigation will likely provide a net benefit to the Preble's mouse and other wildlife by improving or creating new riparian areas, planting of native shrubs, and protecting existing habitat along Black Squirrel Creek from any future development.

Only one federally listed species, the threatened Preble's, occurs on site and has the potential to be adversely affected by the project. To mitigate impacts that may result from incidental take, the HCP provides mitigation for the residential site by protection of the Black Squirrel Creek corridor onsite and its associated riparian areas from all future development through the replanting of 0.215 acre of temporarily disturbed grassland and the protection of an additional 4.3 acres on an existing conservation easement with enhancement of 0.89 acre through native shrub planting. Measures will be taken during construction to minimize impact to the habitat, including the use of silt fencing to reduce the amount of sediment from construction activities that reaches the creek. All of the proposed mitigation area is within the boundaries of the Lefever property, all of which is included in the drainage basin of Black Squirrel Creek.

This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the Act. We will evaluate the permit application, the EA/HCP, and comments submitted therein to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the Act. If it is determined that those requirements are met, a permit will be issued for the incidental take of the Preble's in conjunction with the construction and occupation of a single-family residential lot on the Lefever Property. The final permit decision will be made no sooner than 60 days from the date of this notice.

The purpose of the 1989 North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 4401 et seq. ) is, through partnerships, to promote long-term conservation of North American wetland ecosystems and the waterfowl and other migratory birds, fish and wildlife that depend upon such habitats. Principal conservation actions supported by NAWCA are acquisition, enhancement and restoration of wetlands and wetlands-associated uplands habitat.

Initiated in 1996, the underlying objective of the NAWCA-based Small Grants program is to promote long-term wetlands conservation activities through encouraging participation by new grantees and partners who may not otherwise be able to compete in the Standard Grants program. We also hope that successful participants in the Small Grants program will be encouraged to participate as a grantee or partner in the Standard Grants program. Over the first seven years of the Small Grants program, 553 proposals requesting a total of approximately $19.8 million competed for funding. Ultimately, 164 projects were funded over this period for about $6.7 million. For 2003, with the approval of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, we have made the Small Grants program operational at a base level of $1.0 million. Between $1.0 and $2.0 million in Small Grants projects may be funded. However, ultimately, the level of Small Grant funding depends upon the quality of the pool of grant proposals.

To be considered for funding in the 2003 cycle, proposals must have a grant request no greater than $50,000. We will accept all wetland conservation proposals that meet the requirements of the Act. However, considering appropriate proposal resource values, we will give funding priority to projects from new grant applicants (individuals or organizations who have never received a NAWCA grant) with new partners, where the project ensures long-term conservation benefits. This priority system does not preclude former NAWCA grant recipients from receiving Small Grants funding; ultimately, project resource value is the critical factor in deciding which projects receive funding. Also, projects are likely to receive a greater level of attention if they are part of a broader related or unrelated effort to bring or restore wetland or wetland-associated upland conservation values to a particular area or region.

In addition, proposals must represent on-the-ground projects, and any overhead in the project budget must constitute 10 percent or less of the grant amount. The anticipated magnitude of wetlands and wildlife resources benefits that will result from project execution is an important factor in proposal evaluation, and there should be a reasonable balance between acreages of wetlands and wetland-associated uplands. Mitigation-related projects may be precluded from consideration, depending upon the nature of the mitigation.

Please keep in mind that NAWCA and matching funds may be applied only to wetlands acquisition, creation, enhancement, and/or restoration; they may not be applied to signage, displays, trails or other educational features, materials and equipment, even though the goal of the project may ultimately be to support wetland conservation education curricula. Projects oriented toward education are not ordinarily eligible for NAWCA funding because education is not a primary purpose of the Act. However, acceptable project outcomes can include educational benefits resulting from conservation actions. Research is also not a primary purpose of the Act, and research proposals are not considered for funding.

Even though we require less total application information for Small Grants than we do for the Standard Grants program, Small Grant proposals must have clear explanations and meet the basic purposes given above and the 1:1 or greater non-Federal matching requirements of the NAWCA. Small Grants projects must also be consistent with Council-established guidelines, objectives and policies. All non-Federal matching funds and proposed expenditures of grant funds must be consistent with Appendix A of the Small Grants instructions, “Eligibility Requirements for Match of NAWCA Grant and Non-Federal Funds.” Applicants must submit a completed Standard Form 424, Application For Federal Assistance. Hard copies of Small Grant instructions (booklets) are no longer provided, except under special circumstances. However, the NAWCA Program website, http://birdhabitat.fws.gov, contains instructions for completing and submitting a Small Grant application, as well as forms and instructions for the Standard Form 424.

Small Grant proposals may be submitted prior to the due date but must be postmarked no later than Friday, November 29, 2002. Address submitted proposals as follows: Division of Bird Habitat Conservation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 110, Arlington, VA 22203, Attn: Small Grants Coordinator.

Applicants must submit complete grant request packages to the Division of Bird Habitat Conservation (DBHC), including all of the documentation of partners (partner letters) with funding pledge amounts. Information on funding in partner letters, i.e., amounts and description regarding use, must correspond with budget amounts in the budget table and any figures provided in the narrative.

With the volume of proposals received, we are not usually able to contact proposal sources to verify and/or request supplemental data and/or materials. Thus, those proposals lacking required information or containing conflicting information are subject to being declared ineligible and not further considered for funding.

For more information, call the DBHC office secretary at 703.358.1784, facsimile 703.358.2282, or send e-mail to R9ARW_DBHC@FWS.GOV. Small Grant application instructions may be available by E-mail as a WordPerfect© file, upon special request.

In conclusion, we require that, upon arrival in the DBHC, proposal packages must be: complete with regard to the information requested, presented in the format requested, and be presented according to the established deadline.

The Service has submitted information collection requirements to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. On May 26, 1999, OMB gave its approval for this information collection and confirmed the approval number as 1018-0100. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The information collection solicited: is necessary to gain a benefit in the form of a grant, as determined by the North American Wetlands Conservation Council and the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission; is necessary to determine the eligibility and relative value of wetland projects; results in an approximate paperwork burden of 80 hours per application; and does not carry a premise of confidentiality. The information collections in this program will not be part of a system of records covered by the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552(a)).

North American Wetlands Conservation Act: Request for Small Grants Proposals for Year 2003.

The RAC meets in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), 5 U.S.C. All meetings are open to the public. Each formal council meeting has time allocated for hearing public comments, and the public may present written or oral comments. Individuals who plan to attend and need further information about the meetings, or need special assistance such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the address below.

Title: Form MMS-128, Semiannual Well Test Report.

OMB Control Number: 1010-0017.

Abstract: The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act (Act), as amended (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq. and 43 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ), authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to prescribe rules and regulations to administer leasing of the OCS. Such rules and regulations will apply to all operations conducted under a lease. Operations on the OCS must preserve, protect and develop oil and natural gas resources in a manner which is consistent with the need to make such resources available to meet the Nation's energy needs as rapidly as possible; to balance orderly energy resource development with protection of human, marine, and coastal environments; to ensure the public a fair and equitable return on the resources of the OCS; and to preserve and maintain free enterprise competition.

This notice pertains to a form used to collect information required under 30 CFR 250, subpart K, on production rates. Section 250.1102(b) requires respondents to submit form MMS-128. Responses are mandatory. No questions of a “sensitive” nature are asked. MMS will protect proprietary information according to 30 CFR 250.196 (Data and information to be made available to the public), 30 CFR part 252 (OCS Oil and Gas Information Program), and the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR 2). Regional Supervisors use information submitted on form MMS-128 to evaluate the results of well tests to find out if reservoirs are being depleted in a way that will lead to the greatest ultimate recovery of hydrocarbons. We designed the form to present current well data on a semiannual basis to allow the updating of permissible producing rates and to provide the basis for estimates of currently remaining recoverable gas reserves. We are proposing no changes to the data elements on form MMS-128. However, we are reducing the number of copies respondents must submit to only an original and “one” copy.

Frequency: Semiannual.

Estimated Number and Description of Respondents: Approximately 130 Federal OCS oil and gas lessees.

Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden: The burden for submitting semiannual well test reports does not include the time to test the well or the pre-stabilization period. Respondents generally conduct tests even more frequently than required by our regulations. We only consider the burden to be the time to submit the information to MMS. We estimate respondents submit the results of approximately 13,000 well tests each year in the GOMR and about 600 in the POCSR, with an estimated annual hour burden of 1,336 hours. Based on $50 per hour, the hour burden cost to respondents is $66,800. The burden varies only slightly for electronic versus paper form submission, and is calculated as follows:

In the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region:

25% of 13,000 well tests via electronic submission = 3,250 reports x 5 minutes/60 = 271 hours.

75% of 13,000 via paper form/average 5 wells/form = 1,950 forms x 30 minutes/60 = 975 hours.

In the Pacific OCS Region:

100% of 600 well tests via paper form/average 20 wells/form = 30 forms x 3 hours = 90 hours.

Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden: We have identified no “non-hour cost” burdens associated with the subject form.

Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. ) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond.

Comments: Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. ) requires each agency ”* * * to provide notice * * * and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information * * *.” Agencies must specifically solicit comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

To comply with the public consultation process, on April 1, 2002, we published a Federal Register notice (67 FR 15408) announcing that we would submit this ICR to OMB for approval. The notice provided the required 60-day comment period. In addition, 30 CFR 250.199 and the PRA statement on the form explain that the MMS will accept comments at any time on the information collection burden of our regulations and associated forms. We display the OMB control number and provide the address for sending comments to MMS. We have received no comments in response to these efforts.

If you wish to comment in response to this notice, you may send your comments to the offices listed under the ADDRESSES section of this notice. OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collection but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, to ensure maximum consideration, OMB should receive public comments by August 7, 2002.

Public Comment Policy: Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the record a respondent's identity, as allowable by the law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

MMS Information Collection Clearance Officer: Jo Ann Lauterbach, (202) 208-7744.

This investigation is being instituted in response to a petition filed on June 28, 2002, by the Catfish Farmers of America, a trade association of U.S. catfish farmers and processors, and by individual U.S. catfish processors.

Persons (other than petitioners) wishing to participate in the investigation as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in sections 201.11 and 207.10 of the Commission's rules, not later than seven days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Industrial users and (if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level) representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to this investigation upon the expiration of the period for filing entries of appearance.

Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in this investigation available to authorized applicants representing interested parties (as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)) who are parties to the investigation under the APO issued in the investigation, provided that the application is made not later than seven days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register . A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

The Commission's Director of Operations has scheduled a conference in connection with this investigation for 9:30 a.m. on July 19, 2002, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC. Parties wishing to participate in the conference should contact Larry Reavis (202-205-3185) not later than July 17, 2002, to arrange for their appearance. Parties in support of the imposition of antidumping duties in this investigation and parties in opposition to the imposition of such duties will each be collectively allocated one hour within which to make an oral presentation at the conference. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the conference.

As provided in sections 201.8 and 207.15 of the Commission's rules, any person may submit to the Commission on or before July 24, 2002, a written brief containing information and arguments pertinent to the subject matter of the investigation. Parties may file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the conference no later than three days before the conference. If briefs or written testimony contain BPI, they must 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 rules, each document filed by a party to the investigation must be served on all other parties to the investigation (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.

In May 1998, the Commission determined, by a four-to-two vote, that an industry in the United States was not being materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of cold-rolled stainless steel plate in coils from Belgium and Canada. On August 28, 2000, the Court of International Trade affirmed this determination as being in accordance with law and supported by substantial evidence. Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States , 116 F.Supp. 2d 1276 (CIT 2000). On April 19, 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated lower court's ruling, finding that the Commission's volume and impact findings with respect to cold-rolled stainless steel plate were not in accordance with law and that its pricing finding for cold-rolled plate was unsupported by substantial evidence. Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States , Appeal No. 01-1223 (April 19, 2002). On June 18, 2002, in accordance with the Federal Circuit's decision, the Court of International Trade vacated its earlier decision and remanded to the Commission its final negative determination with respect to cold-rolled stainless steel plate. In its order, the Court of International Trade remands the determination to the Commission “for proceedings not inconsistent with the Federal Circuit's decision in Appeal No. 01-1223.” It also directs the Commission to issue a remand determination within sixty days of the date of the order, i.e. , by August 19, 2002.

The Commission will vote on the remand determination at a public meeting to be held on Monday, August 12, 2002. The meeting is tentatively scheduled for 2 p.m.

In order to assist it in making its determination on remand, the Commission is reopening the record on remand in this investigation to seek additional data with respect to the impact of the subject imports from Belgium and Canada on the domestic industry producing cold-rolled stainless steel plate in coils.

Only those persons who were interested parties to the original administrative proceedings ( i.e. , persons listed on the Commission Secretary's service list) may participate in this remand proceeding.

Information obtained during the remand investigation will be released to parties under the administrative protective order (“APO”) in effect in the original investigation. Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make business proprietary information gathered in the final investigation and this remand investigation available to additional authorized applicants, that are not covered under the original APO, provided that the application is made not later than seven (7) days after publication of the Commission's notice of reopening the record on remand in the Federal Register . Applications must be filed for persons who are on the Judicial Protective Order in the related CIT case, but are not currently covered under the original APO. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO in this remand investigation.

Each party who is an interested party in this remand proceeding may submit a written brief to the Commission. The brief must be concise and be limited to comments on how the data obtained in this remand proceeding affect the Commission's original determination with respect to cold-rolled stainless steel plate products. Any material in the comments not addressing this limited issue will be stricken from the record. The brief must be double-spaced, single-sided, and on stationary measuring 8 1/2 inches. The comments will be limited to thirty (30) pages, and must be filed no later than the close of business on August 7, 2002.

All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain business proprietary information (BPI) must also conform with the requirements of §§ 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigation must be served on all other parties to the investigation (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 14(b)(3) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) authorizes the Secretary of Labor to provide certificates authorizing the employment of full-time students at subminimum wages in institutions of higher education to the extent necessary to prevent curtailment of opportunities for employment. This section also sets limits on such employment and protects the full-time employment opportunities of other workers. Th WH-201 is used by employers seeking such authorization. This information collection is currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for use through January 2003.

The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which:

• 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;

• evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

• minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. , permitting electronic submissions of responses.

The Department of Labor seeks an approval of the revision of the information collection instrument to simplify the application process for employers. The instructions have been clarified and employers are no longer requested to provide the information regarding the number of students they expect to employ at subminimum wages. The revised form will allow the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) to take advantage of new report writing capabilities available to the WHD through its automated Certificate Processing System (CPS). By standardizing the information requested about the number of full-time students being employed by employers who request certification, the CPS will generate accurate reports concerning the employment of all full-time students at subminimum wages. The reformatting of the WH-201 provides sufficient space to allow the CPS to generate preprinted renewal applications for employers prior to the expiration of each certificate. These renewal applications will be sent to employers sixty days before the expiration date of their current certificates.

Type of Review: Revision.

Agency: Employment Standards Administration.

Title: Application for Authority for an Institution of Higher Education to Employ Its Full-Time Students at Subminimum Wages Under Regulations Part 519.

OMB Number: 1215-0080.

Agency Number: WH-201.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit; Individuals or households; Not-for-profit institutions.

Total Respondents: 15.

Total Responses: 15.

Burden Hours per Response (Reporting): 15 to 30 minutes.

Burden Hours Per Response: (Recordkeeping): 1 minute.

Total Burden Hours: (Reporting and Recordkeeping): 5.

Total Burden Cost: (capital/startup): $0.

Total Burden Cost: (operation/maintenance): $5.55.

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

The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:

• Briefing on NRC Decadal Survey of Solar System Exploration

• Status reports on the Solar System Exploration Program, Mars Exploration Program, Deep Space Network (DSN), and Planetary Data System (PDS)

• Reports from Mars science working groups

• Discussion and working session for preparation of next Solar System Exploration Roadmap

• Evaluation of Solar System Exploration Program performance for Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)

It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. Visitors will be requested to sign a visitor's register.

The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:

• Division Director's Report

• Sun-Earth Connection Theme Roadmaps

• Discipline Scientists' Reports

• Status of Living with a Star Program

• FY 02 Outcomes for Government Performance and Results Act Assessment

It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. Visitors will be requested to sign a visitor's register.

The proposed meetings are for the purpose of panel review, discussion, evaluation and recommendation on applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including discussion of information given in confidence to the agency by the grant applicants. Because the proposed meetings will consider information that is likely to disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential and/or information of a personal nature the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, pursuant to authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee meetings, dated July 19, 1993, I have determined that these meetings will be closed to the public pursuant to subsections (c)(4), and (6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.

1. Date: July 22, 2002.

Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Room: 315.

Program: This meeting will review applications for Fellowships Program in American History, submitted to the Division of Research Programs at the May 1, 2002 deadline.

2. Date: July 23, 2002.

Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Room: 315.

Program: This meeting will review applications for Fellowships Program in Studies of Science and Medicine, submitted to the Division of Research Programs at the May 1, 2002 deadline.

3. Date: July 24, 2002.

Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Room: 315.

Program: This meeting will review applications for Fellowships Program in Music, submitted to the Division of Research Programs at the May 1, 2002 deadline.

4. Date: July 25, 2002.

Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Room: 315.

Program: This meeting will review applications for Fellowships Program in Religious Studies, submitted to the Division of Research Programs at the May 1, 2002 deadline.

5. Date: July 25, 2002.

Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Room: M07.

Program: This meeting will review applications for Fellowships Program in American Literature, submitted to the Division of Research Programs at the May 1, 2002 deadline.

6. Date: July 26, 2002.

Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Room: 315.

Program: This meeting will review applications for Fellowships Program in Philosophy, submitted to the Division of Research Programs at the May 1, 2002 deadline.

7. Date: July 29, 2002.

Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Room: 315.

Program: This meeting will review applications for Fellowships Program in European History I, submitted to the Division of Research Programs at the May 1, 2002 deadline.

8. Date: July 31, 2002.

Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Room: 315.

Program: This meeting will review applications for Fellowships Program in American History II, submitted to the Division of Research Programs at the May 1, 2002 deadline.

Sec. 4314(c)(1) through (5) of Title 5, U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more SES Performance Review Boards. The Board shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, along with any response by the senior executive, and make recommendations to the appointing authority relative to the performance of the senior executive.

The following persons have been selected to serve on the Performance Review Board of the National Endowment for the Arts: Eileen B. Mason, Senior Deputy Chairman, Laurence M. Baden, Deputy Chairman for Management and Budget, Alfred B. Spellman, Jr., Deputy Chairman for Guidelines, Panel, and Council Operations, Ann G. Hingston, Congressional and White House Liaison, Michael R. Burke, Chief Information Officer.