The marketing structure of the U.S. food and feed industry is undergoing significant change as it moves from a supply-driven to a consumer-driven market. The emergence of value-enhanced commodities and a niche market for non-biotechnology-derived commodities have created a greater need to differentiate products in the handling system. In light of these changes, USDA sought public comment, through an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), on how USDA can best foster the marketing of grains, oilseeds, and other commodities in this evolving marketplace. The ANPR, which USDA's GIPSA and AMS published on November 30, 2000, in the Federal Register (65 FR 71272), closed on April 16, 2001. As a result of that ANPR, many respondents expressed a clear need for USDA to facilitate the marketing of products, not through the traditional grades and standards, but through the exchange of information and services concerning analytical testing and various marketing mechanisms, such as identity preservation and process verification. In response to market needs, USDA's AMS and GIPSA have begun to provide and are planning to develop a variety of programs and services to facilitate the marketing of agricultural products, as discussed below.

The rising importance of value-enhanced products with specific quality attributes and the emergence of a non-biotech niche market have created a need in the marketplace for additional testing and standardization procedures. USDA's experience in providing testing, weighing, and inspection services provides a strong foundation to enhance the accuracy, standardization, and availability of tests for new value-enhanced products. To this end, USDA's AMS and GIPSA have begun to provide a variety of programs and services to meet market needs.

Recognizing that sampling is the single largest source of error in the analysis of grains, GIPSA developed and offered sampling guidelines to the grain-handling industry. As industry interest develops, AMS will provide a similar service for seed, fruit, and vegetable markets.

At the Agency's Technical Center in Kansas City, Missouri, GIPSA conducted a Proficiency Study to assess the capability and reliability of DNA-based testing for U.S. commercialized biotechnology events in corn. This study provided evidence of a need for standardization and quality assurance tools in biotechnology analysis. On February 7, 2002, GIPSA began offering a voluntary Proficiency Program for organizations testing for biotechnology-derived grains and oilseeds to help improve the reliability of testing. As industry interest develops, AMS will provide a similar service for seed, fruit, and vegetable markets.

At GIPSA's Technical Center, the Agency also evaluates the performance of rapid tests developed to detect biotechnology-derived grains and oilseeds, and confirms the tests operate in accordance with manufacturers' claims. As industry interest develops, AMS will provide a similar service for seed, fruit, and vegetable markets at its laboratory facility in Gastonia, North Carolina.

AMS and GIPSA intend to provide voluntary testing services using rapid test kits and other testing technology whose performance the Agencies have verified.

AMS and GIPSA continue to develop methods and evaluate commercial test instrumentation to measure end-use value attributes that are meaningful to the marketplace. Examples of such attributes include oil concentration in soybeans and corn and protein concentration in wheat and soybeans.

USDA will continue to monitor market trends and needs and will continue to expand its testing and standardization programs in response to market need. If new regulations are necessary, USDA will propose them when appropriate. At this time, USDA is not proposing any rulemaking or regulatory actions.

Many of the ANPR respondents also described a wide variety of differing identity preservation and marketing systems used in the private sector. Given the growing importance of these marketing systems as more value-enhanced grains enter the commercial market and the non-biotech niche market continues, USDA is exploring options for expanding its process verification programs to include seeds and bulk commodities such as grains and oilseeds. USDA's experience in providing voluntary, audit-based programs for fruits, vegetables, and livestock products provides a strong foundation upon which to expand.

Under the authority of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627, USDA's AMS anticipates that it will propose a voluntary, audit-based system of process verification for the production and labeling of seed. This program would be based on existing seed certification (or equivalent) standards and procedures, and existing AMS process verification programs, with additional quality assurance criteria as needed to substantiate label claims regarding seed quality, including genetic purity. This program will be based on market need and is expected to be of particular benefit to participants who intend to market seeds that have regulatory restrictions or concerns with transgenic event(s) that have been deregulated and commercialized in the United States but not in certain other markets.

Under this program, AMS would verify that minimum criteria for seed production and handling have been followed, thus providing a reasonable assurance that claims regarding seed quality and genetic purity are truthful. AMS will use auditing documentation and onsite monitoring in the process verification program for seeds. AMS will certify that the seed lots produced under this program have met established quality assurance criteria. A statement could be included on a seed label to the effect that USDA-approved quality assurance procedures have been followed. Seed buyers will be assured that appropriate production and handling practices were followed to ensure the accuracy of seed quality claims.

Further, minimum seed certification standards and procedures, as well as labeling requirements, are published in the Federal Seed Act regulations (7 CFR 201). The Federal Seed Act, 7 U.S.C. 1592 et seq., is a truth-in-labeling law that applies to agricultural and vegetable seed in interstate commerce. In addition to labeling requirements of the Federal Seed Act, additional information is allowed on the seed label, provided the claims are truthful. Additional label claims could include information pertaining to identity preservation of the seed lot, specific claims regarding genetic purity or maximum level of occurrence of transgenic material. Under the Federal Seed Act, techniques similar to those under the prospective 1946 Act program, could be used to support any additional claims.

Under the authority of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, USDA's GIPSA anticipates that it will propose a voluntary, audit-based system of process verification for grains, oilseeds, rice, pulses, and products derived from these products. The proposed system will involve defining minimum requirements for process-based programs to provide assurances through third party process verification services. This program will be based on internationally-recognized quality management system standards. The program will verify existing quality system plans developed by the private sector. It will be flexible enough to incorporate, where appropriate, already existing standards and procedures such as those developed by private organizations. At the same time, the program will have sufficient safeguards to ensure the integrity of its results. This program will be based on market need and is expected to be of particular benefic to participants who intend to market commodities with specific end-use attributes or that have regulatory restrictions or concerns with transgenic event(s) that have been deregulated and commercialized in the United States but not in certain other markets.

Under this prospective program, GIPSA would verify that minimum requirements for commodity production, handling, and processing have been followed. GIPSA will verify compliance with the requirements by reviewing required process documentation plans and auditing the performance adherence to the prescribed plan to ensure the plan is followed. GIPSA will certify as to the market partipants' adherence to their processes, when applicable.

GIPSA and AMS plan to propose process verification service programs in the Federal Register in the near future.

On November 30, 2001 (66 FR 59775-59777), the Chief of the Forest Service, as required by the Land and Resource Management Planning Rule adopted in November 2000, published in plan revision schedule for National Forest System units that have not completed revisions of their plans. This notice set out the schedule for revisions and an explanation of some of the factors that affected scheduling decisions. This schedule indicates a revision initiation date for the Tonto National Forest of 2005. A new notice of intent to revise will be published with the initiation of the plan revision process.

Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Continue project proposal review from July 15 meeting; (2) Committee members interview project proponents regarding project specifies (3) Finalize project selection criteria for 2002 funds; (4) Public Comments; (5) Discuss purpose of upcoming August 12, 2002 meeting. This meeting is open to the public.

Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Continue project proposal review focusing on final clarification; (2) Determine agreement on top projects (3) Public comments; (4) Take final vote on projects to recommend for funding; (5) Discuss purpose of upcoming August 19, 2002 meeting. This meeting is open to the public.

Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Take final vote on any remaining projects to recommend for funding; (2) Public comments; (3) Discuss purpose of upcoming September 9, 2002 meeting. This meeting is open to the public.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to Department of Commerce (Department) regulations refer to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 353 (1996).

On April 18, 1996, the Department initiated an antidumping investigation to determine whether imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) (61 FR 18377, April 25, 1996). On May 16, 1996, the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) notified the Department of its affirmative preliminary injury determination.

On October 10, 1996, the Department and Mexican tomato growers/exporters initialed a proposed agreement suspending the antidumping investigation, and on October 28, 1996, the Department preliminarily determined that imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico are being sold at LTFV in the United States. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Fresh Tomatoes from Mexico , 61 FR 56607 (November 1, 1996) ( Preliminary Determination ). On the same day the Preliminary Determination was signed, the Department and certain growers/exporters of fresh tomatoes from Mexico signed the final suspension agreement. See Suspension of Antidumping Investigation: Fresh Tomatoes from Mexico , 61 FR 56618 (November 1, 1996).

On May 31, 2002, Mexican tomato growers/exporters accounting for a significant percentage of all fresh tomatoes imported into the United States from Mexico submitted to the Department a notice of their withdrawal from the agreement suspending the antidumping investigation on fresh tomatoes from Mexico. Because the suspension agreement would no longer cover substantially all imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico when the withdrawals became effective, on June 19, 2002, the Department issued a notice of intent to terminate the suspension agreement, intent to terminate the five-year sunset review of the suspended investigation, and intent to resume the antidumping investigation. The Department also invited interested parties to submit comments on whether it should use updated information to complete the antidumping investigation. See Notice of Intent to Terminate Suspension Agreement, Intent to Terminate the Five-Year Sunset Review, Intent to Resume Antidumping Investigation, and Request for Comments on the Use of Updated Information , 67 FR 43278 (June 27, 2002).

Interested parties filed comments and rebuttal comments on the use of updated information. Upon consideration of these comments, we have determined that, for completion of this particular investigation, we will use the original information submitted by the original respondents for the original period of investigation. See July 30, 2002, memorandum entitled “Resumed Antidumping Investigation on Fresh Tomatoes from Mexico; Respondent Selection and Period of Investigation.

On July 3, 2002, the California Tomato Commission filed letters of accession from twenty-four Baja California growers/exporters of fresh tomatoes, asserting that these growers/exporters represent new signatories and, when added to the existing Baja California signatories, represent 94.8 percent of exports of fresh tomatoes from Baja California to the United States. The California Tomato Commission suggested that, with the accession of these Baja California growers/exporters, the Department should reevaluate participation in the suspension agreement and determine whether it now covers substantially all imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico.

The products covered by this investigation are all fresh or chilled tomatoes (fresh tomatoes) except for cocktail tomatoes and those tomatoes which are for processing. For purposes of this investigation, cocktail tomatoes are greenhouse-grown tomatoes, generally larger than cherry tomatoes and smaller than Roma or common round tomatoes, and are harvested and packaged on-the-vine for retail sale. For purposes of this investigation, processing is defined to include preserving by any commercial process, such as canning, dehydrating, drying or the addition of chemical substances, or converting the tomato product into juices, sauces or purees. Further, imports of fresh tomatoes for processing are accompanied by an “Importer's Exempt Commodity Form” (FV-6) (within the meaning of 7 CFR 980.501(a)(2) and 980.212(I)). Fresh tomatoes that are imported for cutting up, not further processed ( e.g. , tomatoes used in the preparation of fresh salsa or salad bars), and not accompanied by an FV-6 form are covered by the scope of this investigation.

All commercially grown tomatoes sold in the United States, both for the fresh market and for processing, are classified as Lycopersicon esculentum. Important commercial varieties of fresh tomatoes include common round, cherry, plum, and pear tomatoes, all of which, with the exception of cocktail tomatoes, are covered by this investigation. Tomatoes imported from Mexico covered by this investigation are classified under the following subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States (HTSUS), according to the season of importation: 0702 and 9906.07.01 through 9906.07.09. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

The period of investigation (POI) is March 1, 1995, through February 29, 1996.

The agreement suspending the antidumping investigation on fresh tomatoes from Mexico is an agreement to eliminate injury under section 734(c) of the Act. Under this type of suspension agreement the Department may suspend an investigation based upon an agreement with exporters accounting for substantially all of the imports of the subject merchandise. The regulations in turn define “substantially all” as exporters (growers and resellers) which have accounted for not less than 85 percent by value or volume of the merchandise during the period for which the Department is measuring dumping in the investigation or such other period that the Secretary considers representative. See 19 CFR 353.18(c).

On May 31, 2002, signatory growers/exporters accounting for a large percentage of all fresh tomatoes imported into the United States from Mexico provided written notice to the Department of their withdrawal from the agreement suspending the antidumping investigation on fresh tomatoes from Mexico. Pursuant to the terms of the suspension agreement, signatory growers/exporters may withdraw from the agreement upon 60 days written notice to the Department. Therefore, these withdrawals from the suspension agreement become effective on July 30, 2002.

On July 3, 2002, the California Tomato Commission filed letters of accession from twenty-four Baja California growers/exporters of fresh tomatoes, asserting that these companies represent new signatories and, when added to the existing Baja California signatories, represent 94.8 percent of the Baja California fresh tomatoes imported into the United States during 2001. With the accession of these Baja California growers/exporters, the California Tomato Commission suggests that the Department reevaluate participation in the suspension agreement and determine whether the suspension agreement covers substantially all imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico.

To ensure that termination of this suspension agreement is not premature, we have reevaluated participation in the suspension agreement as of July 30, 2002, the date on which the May 31, 2002, withdrawals become effective. Based on our analysis of import data from the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) and given the large percentage of imports which these growers/exporters represent, the signatories remaining in the agreement will not account for substantially all of the imports of the subject merchandise after these withdrawals become effective. See July 30, 2002, memorandum entitled “Analysis of Whether Signatories Account for Substantially All Imports.”

Because the suspension agreement does not cover substantially all imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico without the participation of the growers/exporters which provided notice of their withdrawal on May 31, 2002, the Department determines that terminating the suspension agreement effective July 30, 2002, is appropriate.

On October 1, 2001, the Department initiated a five-year sunset review of the suspended antidumping investigation on fresh tomatoes from Mexico pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (66 FR 49926, October 1, 2001). On January 29, 2002, the Department published its preliminary results of the sunset review (67 FR 4237) ( Preliminary Results ). In the Preliminary Results , the Department preliminarily found that termination of the suspended antidumping duty investigation on fresh tomatoes from Mexico would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping. On May 13, 2002, the Department extended the deadline for the final results of sunset review until August 27, 2002 (67 FR 35099, May 17, 2002).

Because the Department is terminating the suspension agreement, there is no longer a suspended investigation for which to perform a sunset review. Therefore, the Department hereby announces its termination of the sunset review of the suspended LTFV investigation on fresh tomatoes from Mexico, effective July 30, 2002.

With the termination of the suspension agreement on July 30, 2002, in accordance with section 734(i)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department hereby resumes the underlying antidumping investigation. Pursuant to section 734(i)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department resumes the investigation as if it had published the affirmative preliminary determination under section 733(b) of the Act on July 30, 2002.

As explained in the Preliminary Determination at 61 FR 56609, the Department postponed the final determination until the 135th day after the date of the preliminary determination. The Department therefore intends to make its final determination in the resumed investigation by December 12, 2002.

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the Department will verify all information determined to be acceptable for use in making the final determination.

The Department will instruct Customs to suspend liquidation of entries of fresh tomatoes from Mexico that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the termination of the suspension agreement, which is July 30, 2002. Customs shall require antidumping duty cash deposits or bonds for entries of the subject merchandise based on the preliminary dumping margins, which are as follows:

The Department will notify the ITC of its termination of the suspension agreement, termination of the sunset review of the suspended investigation, and resumption of the LTFV investigation. If the Department makes a final affirmative determination, the ITC is scheduled to make its final determination concerning injury within 45 days after publication of the Department's final determination. If both the Department's and the ITC's final determinations are affirmative, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order.

Administrative protective orders previously granted in the original investigation will remain in effect. Parties must submit any necessary amendments for changes in staff promptly.

We are issuing and publishing this determination under section 733(f) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.15.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the provisions codified at 19 CFR part 351 (2001).

On September 4, 2001, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review (66 FR 46257). On September 28, 2001, the Department received a timely request from the Crawfish Processors Alliance, petitioner in this case, and the Louisiana Department of Agriculture & Forestry and Bob Odom, Commissioner, for an administrative review covering the period from September 1, 2000, through August 31, 2001, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1). The petitioner requested a review of the following companies: China Everbright; China Kingdom Import & Export Co., Ltd., aka China Kingdoma Import & Export Co., Ltd., aka Zhongda Import & Export Co., Ltd. (China Kingdom); Coastal (Jiang Su) Foods Co., Ltd. (Coastal Foods); Fujian Pelagic Fishery Group Co. (Fujian Pelagic); Hefei Zhongbao Aquatic Co., Ltd. (Hefei Zhongbao); Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corporation (5), aka Jiangsu Hilong International Trading (Huaiyin 5); Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corporation (30) (Huaiyin 30); Jiangsu Cereals, Oils, & Foodstuffs Import & Export Corp. (Jiangsu Cereals); Nantong Delu Aquatic Food Co., Ltd. (Nantong Delu); Nantong Shengfa Frozen Food Co., Ltd. (Nantong Shengfa); Ningbo Nanlian Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. (Ningbo Nanlian); North Supreme Seafood (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd. (North Supreme); Qingdao Rirong Foodstuff Co., Ltd., aka Qingdao Rirong Foodstuffs (Qingdao Rirong); Qingdao Zhengri Seafood Co., Ltd., aka Qingdao Zhengri Seafoods (Qingdao Zhengri); Rizhao Riyuan Marine and Food Products Co., Ltd. (Rizhao Riyuan); Shanghai Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd. (Shanghai Taoen); Shantou SEZ Yangfeng Marine Products Co. (Shantou SEZ); Shouzhou Huaxiang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (Shouzhou Huaxiang); Suqian Foreign Trade Corp., aka Suqian Foreign Trading (Suqian Foreign Trade); Taizhou Tianhe Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. (Taizhou Tianhe); Weishan Fukang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (Weishan Fukang); Yancheng Baolong Biochemical Products Co., Ltd. (Yancheng Baolong); Yancheng Foreign Trade Corp., aka Yancheng Foreign Trading, aka Yang Cheng Foreign Trading (Yancheng Foreign Trade); Yancheng Haiteng Aquatic Products & Foods Co., Ltd. (Yancheng Haiteng); Yancheng Yaou Seafoods (Yancheng Yaou); Yangzhou Lakebest Foods Co., Ltd. (Yangzhou Lakebest); and Yixing Ban Chang Foods Co., Ltd. (Yixing Ban Chang).

On September 28, 2001, China Kingdom and Qingdao Zhengri, which were included in the petitioner's request for review, also requested review of their own shipments. The Department published a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review on October 26, 2001. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part , 65 FR 54195 (October 26, 2001).

On December 10, 2001, petitioner withdrew its request for review of the following companies: China Everbright, China Kingdom, Coastal Foods, Huaiyin 30, Hefei Zhongbao, Jiangsu Cereals, North Supreme, Rizhao Riyuan, Shouzhou Huaxiang, Taizhou Tianhe, Yancheng Baolong, Yancheng Yaou, and Yixing Ban Chang. On January 24, 2002, petitioner withdrew its request for review of the following companies: Nantong Delu, Nantong Shengfa, Weishan Fukang, and Yancheng Haiteng.

On November 27, 2001, Huaiyin 5 informed the Department that it did not export the subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review. On November 28, 2001, Ningbo Nanlian informed the Department that it did not export the subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review, and that its affiliated importer, Louisiana Packing Company, did not import the subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review. In addition, on December 27, 2001, Shanghai Taoen informed the Department that it did not produce, sell, or export the subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review. The Department reviewed data on entries under the order during the period of review from the U.S. Customs Service, and requested further information regarding certain entries from Huaiyin 5 and Ningbo Nanlian. Based on the March 18, 2002 responses to its inquiries, the Department is satisfied that those companies had no reportable U.S. entries or exports of subject merchandise during the period of review. The Department's review of U.S. Customs data regarding Shanghai Taoen revealed no reportable U.S. entries or exports of subject merchandise by that company during the period of review.

Pursuant to our regulations, the Department will rescind an administrative review, “if a party that requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review.” See 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). Since petitioner submitted timely withdrawals of its request for review of China Everbright, China Kingdom, Coastal Foods, Huaiyin 30, Hefei Zhongbao, Jiangsu Cereals, Nantong Delu, Nantong Shengfa, North Supreme, Rizhao Riyuan, Shouzhou Huaxiang, Taizhou Tianhe, Weishan Fukang, Yancheng Baolong, Yancheng Haiteng, Yancheng Yaou, and Yixing Ban Chang, the Department is rescinding its antidumping administrative review of those companies, with the exception of China Kingdom and Yancheng Yaou, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). On September 28, 2001, China Kingdom requested review of its own shipments. Therefore, the Department cannot rescind the review of that company. In the previous administrative review, covering the period September 1, 1999, through August 31, 2000, Yancheng Yaou and Qingdao Zhengri were treated as a single entity. In the current review, Qingdao Zhengri and Yancheng Yaou have not reported any changes with respect to their ownership and operations. Therefore, although petitioner withdrew its request for review of Yancheng Yaou, the Department is still considering whether it is appropriate to rescind the review for that company.

In addition, the Department's regulations provide that the Secretary “may rescind an administrative review, in whole or only with respect to a particular exporter or producer, if the Secretary concludes that, during the period covered by the review, there were no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise, as the case may be.” See 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). The Department reviewed data on entries under the order during the period of review from the U.S. Customs Service, and, after further inquiries, is satisfied that Huaiyin 5, Ningbo Nanlian, and Shanghai Taoen had no reportable U.S. entries or exports of the subject merchandise during the period of review. Therefore, the Department is rescinding the administrative review with respect to those companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).

On June 3, 2002, the Department issued a memorandum stating our intent to rescind, in part, the administrative review of the antidumping order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC. See Memorandum to the File from Adina Teodorescu, Case Analyst, through Barbara E.Tillman, Director, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VII: Intent to Partially Rescind the Antidumping Administrative Review (on file in the Department's Central Records Unit in Room B-099). We provided copies of the memorandum to all the parties which had received a questionnaire in this review. See Memorandum to the File, through Maureen Flannery, from Adina Teodorescu: Partial Rescission Memorandum for the Antidumping Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China (June 3, 2002); Memorandum to the File, through Maureen Flannery, from Adina Teodorescu: Partial Rescission Memorandum for the Administrative Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's republic of China (June 21, 2002); Memorandum to the File, through Maureen Flannery, from Adina Teodorescu: Attempts to Contact Parties about the Partial Rescission Memorandum for the Administrative Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China (July 11, 2002). Since none of the parties commented on our intent to rescind, the Department is rescinding, in part, the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC for the period September 1, 2000, through August 31, 2001. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions to the Customs Service. Although the Department is rescinding the administrative review of Shouzhou Huaxiang and North Supreme, those companies are still subject to new shipper reviews for the period September 1, 2000, through August 31, 2001.

Based on these rescissions, the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC, for the period September 1, 2000, through August 31, 2001, now covers the following companies: China Kingdom, Fujian Pelagic, Qingdao Rirong, Qingdao Zhengri/Yancheng Yaou, Shantou SEZ, Suqian Foreign Trade, Yancheng Foreign Trade, and Yangzhou Lakebest.

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

This determination and notice are issued and published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4) and sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

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

The Department has received timely requests from Chengdu-Dujiangyan Dubao Bee Industrial Co., Ltd (“Dubao”) and Wuhan Bee Healthy Co., Ltd. (“Wuhan Bee”), in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), for new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on honey from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), which has a December annual anniversary month and a June semiannual anniversary month. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order; Honey from the People's Republic of China , 66 FR 63670 (December 10, 2001). As required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i) and (iii)(A), each of the companies identified above, which are also producers, has certified that it did not export honey to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”), and that it has never been affiliated with any exporter or producer which did export honey during the POI. Each company has further certified that its export activities are not controlled by the central government of the PRC, satisfying the requirements of 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B). Pursuant to the Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(A), Dubao and Wuhan Bee each submitted documentation establishing the date on which it first shipped the subject merchandise to the United States, the volume of that first shipment, and the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States.

In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(i), and based on information on the record, we are initiating new shipper reviews for Dubao and Wuhan Bee. It is the Department's usual practice in cases involving non-market economies to require that a company seeking to establish eligibility for an antidumping duty rate separate from the country-wide rate provide de jure and de facto evidence of an absence of government control over the company's export activities. Accordingly we will issue a questionnaire to Dubao and Wuhan Bee, including a separate rates section. If the response from each respondent provides sufficient indication that it is not subject to either de jure or de facto government control with respect to its exports of honey, each review will proceed. If, on the other hand, a respondent does not demonstrate its eligibility for a separate rate, then it will be deemed to be affiliated with other companies that exported during the POI and that it did not establish entitlement to a separate rate, and the review of that respondent will be rescinded.

In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), we are initiating new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on honey from the PRC. Therefore, we intend to issue the preliminary results of these reviews not later than 180 days after the date on which the reviews are initiated. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews within 90 days after the date on which the preliminary results were issued.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(B) of the Department's regulations, the period of review (“POR”) for a new shipper review initiated in the month immediately following the semiannual anniversary month will be the six-month period immediately preceding the semiannual anniversary month. Therefore, the POR for this new shipper review is:

We will instruct the Customs Service to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting, until the completion of the review, of a single entry bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for each entry of the merchandise exported by the above-listed companies. This action is in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(e). Interested parties that need access to proprietary information in these new shipper reviews should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306. This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.214(d).

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, as amended (the Act) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are references to the provisions codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (2001).

On July 17, 1986, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of the antidumping duty order on certain in-shell pistachios from Iran. See Antidumping Duty Order; Certain In-Shell Pistachios from Iran, 51 FR 25922 (July 17, 1986). On July 31, 2001, Tehran Negah Nima Trading Company, Inc., an exporter of subject merchandise during the period of review (POR), requested that the Department conduct a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order. We initiated the review on October 10, 2001 (66 FR 51638). On October 11, 2001, the Department issued the antidumping questionnaire. On November 15, 2001, the respondent submitted section A of the questionnaire. On December 10, 2001, the respondent submitted sections B-C of the questionnaire. On January 25, 2002, the Department issued the first supplemental questionnaire. On March 20, 2002, the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire. On May 3, 2002, the Department issued a third supplemental questionnaire. On February 22, 2002, the respondent submitted its response to the first supplemental questionnaire. On April 4, 2002 and May 15, 2002, respondent submitted its responses to the second and third supplemental questionnaires. On May 3, 2002, the Department sought information from Fallah Pistachio. On May 6, 2002, the Department issued Section D of its questionnaire to Maghousdi Farm. On June 3, 2002, Fallah Pistachio submitted its response to the Department's request for information. On June 20, 2002, Maghousdi Farm submitted its response to Section D. Under section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, the Department may extend the deadline for completion of a new shipper review if it determines that the case is extraordinarily complicated. On April 2, 2002, the Department fully extended the time limit for the preliminary results of this new shipper review by 120 days until July 29, 2002. See Certain In-Shell Raw Pistachios From Iran: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping New Shipper Review , 67 FR 15530 (April 2, 2002).

The POR is July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001.

Imports covered by this review are raw, in-shell pistachio nuts from which the hulls have been removed, leaving the inner hard shells and edible meats, from Iran. The merchandise under review is currently classifiable under item 0802.50.20.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced by the respondents covered by the description in the “Scope Review” section above and sold in the comparison market during the POR, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. If there were no home market foreign like products to compare to a U.S. sale, we used constructed value (CV).

In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, export price is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States. In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, constructed export price is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter. For purposes of this review, Nima classified its sales as EP sales. See Section C response, at 5. Nima identified one channel of distribution for its U.S. sales during the POR. Id . at 6. With respect to Nima's sale dated June 25, 2001, based on Nima's description of the sale, the Department preliminarily determines that the goods were sold directly to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States and as such the transaction constitutes an EP sale. We calculated EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. We based EP on the FOB price to the unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We made deductions for freight charges ( i.e. , foreign inland freight) to the customer in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

With respect to Nima's sale dated January 25, 2001, the Department has preliminarily determined to exclude this sale for purposes of this new shipper review. According to information submitted by respondent on the record, this sale was not conducted by Tehran Negah Nima Trading Company, Inc.

Tehran Negah Nima Trading Company, Inc., trading as Nima Trading Company, the requester of this new shipper review, was incorporated and registered as a limited liability company in Iran on January 3, 2001. On February 10, 2001, the sole proprietor of Nima Trading Company, an entity established in November 2000, agreed to transfer all of his interest in Nima Trading Company and to allow Tehran Negah Nima Trading Company, Inc. to trade as “Nima Trading Company.” Evidence on the record indicates that the January 25, 2001, U.S. sale reported by Tehran Negah Nima Trading, Inc., was actually concluded by the former sole proprietorship of Nima Trading Company. As of the date of sale, January 25, 2001, the entity requesting this review, Tehran Negah Nima Trading, Inc., did not have the authority to trade as Nima Trading Company. As noted above, that authority was not granted until February 10, 2001.

Since Tehran Negah Nima Trading Company Inc., trading as Nima Trading Company, is the entity which requested the new shipper review, the Department has determined to limit this review to sales made by Tehran Negah Nima Trading Company, Inc. The Department does not have sufficient information available on the record to conduct a successorship analysis to determine whether Tehran Negah Nima Trading Company, Inc., is the successor to the sole proprietorship of Nima Trading Company. Referencing the January 25, 2001, U.S. sale, respondent stated on the record that it “does not have any objection to have this sale removed from the file.” See February 22, 2002 response at 8. The Department therefore has preliminary determined to exclude the January 25, 2001, sale by Nima Trading Company for purposes of this review.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, the normal value shall be the price at which the foreign like product is first sold (or, in the absence of a sales, offered for sale) for consumption in the exporting country, in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade as the export price or constructed export price. Nima reported one sale of subject merchandise in the home market during the POR. See December 10, 2001, response at 10. Nima reported no sales of subject merchandise to any third country market. See November 15, 2001, response at 19. Regarding Nima's home market sale, Nima stated “the sole purpose of establishing Nima...was to be able to exploit business opportunities in the US market for Iranian pistachios. Therefore, Nima's home market sale to Bakhshie was certainly a deviation from the company's main objective....” Nima also stated that “the sale of raw in-shell pistachios in the home market is not part of Nima's ordinary course of business.” Furthermore, Nima stated that it “does not have any plans for selling pistachios in the Iranian market in the future.” See April 4, 2002, response at 7. Based on this information, the Department preliminarily finds that Nima's sale in the home market during the POR was not in the ordinary course of trade as defined in the statute and Departmental regulations.

Where sales of the foreign like product sold for consumption in the exporting country are determined not to be in ordinary course of trade, section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act directs the Department to employ the price of sales to a third country as the basis for NV. However, as noted above, Nima reported no sales of subject merchandise to any third country markets during the POR. Section 773(a)(4) of the Act states that if the administering authority determines that the normal value of the subject merchandise cannot be determined under paragraph 773(a)(1)(B)(i), and there are no third country sales, the normal value of the subject merchandise may be based on the constructed value of that merchandise. Therefore, the Department determines that the use of constructed value in determining NV is appropriate in this review.

In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV based on the COP plus the exporter's SG&A expenses and an amount for profit. For COP, we included the producer's cost of production and the middleman's operational costs. Because the exporter's G&A costs were not separately reported from its selling expenses, and were included as such, we did not include them again in calculating CV.

Because there are no viable home market sales or third country sales made by Nima during the POR, we cannot calculate CV profit under sections 773(e)(2)(A). Section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act allows the Department to use amounts incurred and realized for profits, based on any other reasonable method as long as that profit does not exceed the amount normally realized by exporters or producers in connection with the sale, for consumption in the foreign country, of merchandise that is in the same general category of products as the subject merchandise. We based profit on the profit the middleman reported for the sale of subject merchandise to the exporter. We believe that the use of the middleman's profit meets the requirements of section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act. First, the profit calculated is based on the middleman's sale of in-shell raw pistachios. Second, the sale took place in Iran. Third, the sale occurred during the POR. Thus, the profit rate is a profit realized in connection with the sale, for consumption in the foreign country, of subject merchandise. Finally, there is no evidence on the record that indicates this profit rate is aberrational or not representative of home market profit rates of subject merchandise. See Constructed Value Adjustments for Preliminary Determination, Memorandum from Gina K. Lee through Michael P. Martin to Neal M. Halper dated July 29, 2002. The Department is currently seeking additional information on CV and may adjust its CV calculation for the Final Results. If the CV calculation is substantially altered based on additional information, the Department will allow interested parties an opportunity to comment before the Final Results.

Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states that the Department will normally use the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business, as the date of sale, but may use a date other than the date of invoice if it better reflects the date on which the material terms of sale are established. Nima stated that, for the U.S. market, date of sale is based on invoice date. See February 22, 2002, response at 11. Therefore, the Department is using the date of invoice as the dale of sale.

According to the International Monetary Fund's 2001 Annual International Monetary Report, as of March 20, 2000, Iran had a dual exchange rate system. The two officially-approved rates are:1) the effective Tehran Stock Exchange (TSE) which is applied to all transactions, except for 2) government imports of essential goods, and services of public and publicly guaranteed debt (the exchange rate for which is approximately 1750Rls/$US.) There is a separate TSE rate for “oil exports” and “non-oil exports”, but both are within the first category of official exchange rates for private rather than public transactions.

The Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the Federal Reserve Bank. When the Federal Reserve Bank does not provide exchange rates for a certain currency, the Department's practice has been to use exchange rates obtained from the Dow Jones News/Retrieval Service. The Federal Reserve Bank does not provide exchange rates for the Iranian rial. Exchange rates for the Iranian rial published in the Dow Jones News/Retrieval Service appear to be official rates for public rather than private transactions and are not reflective of the actual exchange rates at which Nima converted foreign exchange earnings in the POR. Nima has documented on the record the dual exchange rate system in Iran, utilizing Iranian government reports and bank statements. The record shows clearly that the exchange rates Nima realized during the POR are dramatically different from the rates listed in the Dow Jones. For this reason and because there are no other appropriate exchange rates on the record, the Department used the actual exchange rates at which respondent converted its foreign exchange earnings during the POR.

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period July1, 2000, through June 30, 2001:

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit written comments on these preliminary results. Case briefs must be submitted no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties submitting arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, an interested party may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs, or the first working day thereafter. The Department will issue the final results of this new shipper review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief, within 90 days of these preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b), we have calculated exporter/importer-specific assessment rates. We calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates on a unit value per kilogram basis and then dividing this sum by the entered value for that sale. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct Customs to assess antidumping duties on the merchandise subject to review. Upon completion of this review, the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to Customs.

The Department is currently conducting a new shipper review of the countervailing duty order on raw in-shell pistachios from Iran involving Nima. The Department will adjust both the antidumping duty assessment rate and cash deposit rate resulting from this review for any duties imposed to offset export subsidies found at the conclusion of the countervailing new shipper review.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this new shipper review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this new shipper review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate established in the final results of this new shipper review (except that no deposit will be required if the rate is zero or de minimis, i.e. , less than 0.5 percent); (2) for previously investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review or the original LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the “all others” rate of 184.28 percent established in the LTFV investigation. This rate reflects the amount of export subsidies found in the final countervailing duty determination in the investigation subtracted from the dumping margin found in the less than fair value determination. See 51 FR 8344. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next review.

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This new shipper review and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) 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 Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the regulations at 19 CFR part 351 (2002).

Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act, requires the Department of Commerce (the Department) to issue the preliminary determination of an antidumping duty investigation within 140 days after the date of initiation. However, if the petitioner makes a timely request for an extension of the period, section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act allows the Department to postpone the preliminary determination until not later than 190 days after the date of initiation.

On March 13, 2002, the Department initiated an antidumping duty investigation of non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings from the People's Republic of China. See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Investigation : Non-malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 12966 (March 20, 2002). The notice stated that the Department would issue its preliminary determination no later than 140 days after the date of initiation. The preliminary determination currently is due no later than July 31, 2002.

On July 5, 2002, the Department received a timely request for postponement of the preliminary determination from Anvil International Inc. and Ward Manufacturing Inc., (hereinafter, the petitioners), in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(e). Petitioners requested an extension to provide themselves and the Department with more time to review respondents' submissions and to allow the Department to request and analyze additional information from respondents, if needed. There are no compelling reasons for the Department to deny the petitioners' request. Therefore, pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department is postponing the preliminary determination until September 19, 2002.

This notice of postponement is in accordance with section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f).

On July 2, 2001, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of “Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on persulfates from the People's Republic of China (PRC) covering the period July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review , 66 FR 34910 (July 2, 2001).

On July 31, 2001, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), the petitioner, FMC Corporation, requested an administrative review of Shanghai Ai Jian Import & Export Corporation (Ai Jian). We published a notice of initiation of this review on August 20, 2001. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part , 66 FR 43570 (Aug. 20, 2001) ( Persulfates Initiation ). In this notice, we also initiated an administrative review for an additional company for which no review had been requested by any interested party. For further discussion, see the “Partial Recission of Review” section of this notice, below.

On August 3, 2001, we issued an antidumping questionnaire to Ai Jian. We received Ai Jian's timely responses to section A of the questionnaire on September 24, 2001, and to sections C and D on October 9, 2001. We issued a supplemental questionnaire to Ai Jian on October 29, 2001. We received Ai Jian's response to this supplemental questionnaire on November 29, 2001.

On November 30, 2001, Ai Jian and the petitioner submitted publicly available information for consideration in valuing the factors of production. On December 7, 2001, the parties submitted rebuttal comments.

On February 15, 2002, we issued an additional supplemental questionnaire to Ai Jian. Ai Jian submitted a response to this supplemental questionnaire on March 7, 2002.

In June 2002, we conducted verification of the sales and factor information provided by Ai Jian.

In Persulfates Initiation, we inadvertently initiated an administrative review for Sinochem Jiangsu Wuxi Import and Export Corp. (Wuxi). However, no administrative review for this exporter had been requested by any interested party in this proceeding. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(2), we have rescinded this administrative review with respect to Wuxi.

The products covered by this review are persulfates, including ammonium, potassium, and sodium persulfates. The chemical formula for these persulfates are, respectively, (NH 4 ) 2 S 2 O 8 , K 2 S 2 O 8 , and Na 2 S 2 O 8 . Ammonium and potassium persulfates are currently classifiable under subheading 2833.40.60 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Sodium persulfate is classifiable under HTSUS subheading 2833.40.20. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this review is dispositive.

It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of the merchandise subject to review in non-market-economy (NME) countries a single rate, unless an exporter can demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to exports. To establish whether an exporter is sufficiently independent of government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes the exporter in light of the criteria established in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) ( Sparklers ), as amplified 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 ). Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure absence of government control over export activities includes: (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. With respect to evidence of a de facto absence of government control, the Department considers the following four factors: (1) Whether the respondent sets its own export prices independently from the government and other exporters; (2) whether the respondent can retain the proceeds from its export sales; (3) whether the respondent has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts; and (4) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. See Silicon Carbide , 59 FR at 22587; see also Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.

With respect to Ai Jian, for purposes of our preliminary results covering the period of review (POR) July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001, the Department determined that there was an absence of de jure and de facto government control of its export activities and determined that it warranted a company-specific dumping margin. See Persulfates From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 42628 (Aug. 14, 2001) ( Persulfates Third Review Final ). For purposes of this POR, Ai Jian has responded to the Department's request for information regarding separate rates. We have found that the evidence on the record is consistent with the final results in Persulfates Third Review Final and continues to demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to Ai Jian's exports, in accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide.

For Ai Jian, we calculated export price (EP) in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We calculated EP based on packed, cost-insurance-freight (CIF) U.S.-port, or free-on-board, PRC-port prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States, as appropriate. We made deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for ocean freight services which were provided by market economy suppliers. We also deducted from the starting price, where appropriate, an amount for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, and marine insurance expenses. As these movement services were provided by NME suppliers, we valued them using Indian rates. For further discussion of our use of surrogate data in an NME proceeding, as well as selection of India as the appropriate surrogate country, see the “Normal Value” section of this notice, below.

For foreign inland freight we used price quotes obtained by the Department from Indian truck freight companies in November 1999. These price quotes were used in Persulfates Third Review Final, and were also used in the investigation of bulk aspirin from the PRC. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bulk Aspirin From the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 116, 118 (Jan. 3, 2000) ( Bulk Aspirin Prelim ). For foreign brokerage and handling expenses, we used public information reported in the new shipper review of stainless steel wire rod from India. See Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod From India; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews, 63 FR 48184, 48185 (Sept. 9, 1998). With respect to marine insurance, Ai Jian asserted that it used a market-economy supplier for its shipments of persulfates. However, based on the submitted information, we could not establish that the insurance charges Ai Jian paid reflect prices set by market-economy carriers. Due to the proprietary nature of the facts underlying our analysis, we cannot discuss them in this forum. For further discussion, see the July 31, 2002, memorandum from the team to the file entitled “U.S. Price and Factors of Production Adjustments for the Preliminary Results.” Therefore, in accordance with our practice, we based the marine insurance charges on surrogate values. See, e.g., Persulfates from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 18439, 18441 ( Persulfates Third Review Prelim ); 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 (Apr. 13, 2000) and accompanying decision memorandum at Comment 3 ; and Sebacic Acid From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 49537 (Aug. 14, 2000) and accompanying decision memorandum at Comment 8.

Accordingly, we valued marine insurance using price quotes obtained from Roanoke Trade Services, Inc., a provider of marine insurance. See the memorandum to the File from Gregory Kalbaugh entitled “Marine Insurance Rates,” in the administrative review of sebacic acid from the PRC, dated July 9, 2002, and the memorandum to the File from Michael Strollo entitled “Preliminary Valuation of Factors of Production for the Preliminary Results of the 2000-2001 Administrative Review of Persulfates from the People's Republic of China,” dated July 31, 2002 ( FOP Memo ), which are on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B099 of the main Commerce building (CRU).

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine the normal value (NV) using a factors-of-production methodology if: (1) The merchandise is exported from an NME country; and (2) the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value (CV) under section 773(a) of the Act.

The Department has treated the PRC as an NME country in all previous antidumping cases. Furthermore, available information does not permit the calculation of NV using home market prices, third country prices, or CV under section 773(a) of the Act. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. None of the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment in this review. Therefore, we treated the PRC as an NME country for purposes of this review and calculated NV by valuing the factors of production in a surrogate country.

Section 773(c)(4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408 direct us to select a surrogate country that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC. On the basis of per capita gross domestic product (GDP), the growth rate in per capita GDP, and the national distribution of labor, we find that India is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC. 1 See the Surrogate Country Selection Memorandum from Jeffrey May to Luis Apple Re: Administrative Review of Persulfates from the People's Republic of China, dated September 24, 2001, which is on file in the CRU.

Section 773(c)(4) of the Act also requires that, to the extent possible, the Department use a surrogate country that is a significant producer of merchandise comparable to persulfates. For purposes of the most recent segment of this proceeding, we found that India was a producer of persulfates based on information submitted by the respondent. See Persulfates Third Review Prelim, 66 FR at 18442. 2 For purposes of this administrative review, we continue to find that India is a significant producer of persulfates based on information submitted by both the respondent and the petitioner. We find that India fulfills both statutory requirements for use as the surrogate country and continue to use India as the surrogate country in this administrative review. We have used publicly available information relating to India, unless otherwise noted, to value the various factors of production.

For purposes of calculating NV, we valued PRC factors of production in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act. Factors of production include, but are not limited to: (1) Hours of labor required; (2) quantities of raw materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and (4) representative capital cost, including depreciation. In examining surrogate values, we selected, where possible, the publicly available value which was“ (1) An average non-export value; (2) representative of a range of prices within the POR or most contemporaneous with the POR; (3) product-specific; and (4) tax-exclusive. For a more detailed explanation of the methodology used in calculating various surrogate values, see the FOP Memo , which is on file in the CRU. In accordance with this methodology, we valued the factors of production as follows:

To value ammonium sulfate, caustic soda, and sulfuric acid, we used public information from the Indian publication Chemical Weekly, as provided by both petitioner and the respondent in their November 30, 2001, submissions. For caustic soda and sulfuric acid, because price quotes reported in Chemical Weekly are for chemicals with a 100 percent concentration level, we made chemical purity adjustments according to the particular concentration levels of caustic soda and sulfuric acid used by Shanghai Ai Jian Reagent Works (AJ Works), Ai Jian's PRC supplier. Where necessary, we adjusted the values reported in Chemical Weekly to exclude sales and excise taxes. For potassium sulfate and an hydrous ammonia, we relied on import prices contained in the January 2001 issue of Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India ( Monthly Statistics ), as provided by the respondent in its November 2001 submission. For those values not contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted for inflation using the WPI published by the IMF.

During the POR, AJ Works self-produced ammonium persulfates, which is a material input in the production of potassium persulfates and sodium persulfates. In order to value ammonium persulfates, we calculated the sum of the materials, labor, and energy costs based on the usage factors submitted by AJ Works in its questionnaire responses. Consistent with our methodology used in Persulfates Third Review Final, we then applied this value to the reported consumption amounts of ammonium persulfates used in the production of potassium and sodium persulfates.

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

For electricity, we derived a surrogate value based on 1998/1999 electricity price data published by Data Energy Research Institute. These data were used in the antidumping duty administrative review of manganese metal from the PRC. See Persulfates Third Review Final; and Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Manganese Metal from the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 15076 (Mar. 15, 2001) and accompanying decision memorandum at Comment 10. We adjusted the values to reflect inflation up to the POR using the electricity-specific price index published by the Reserve Bank of India.

To value water, we relied on public information reported in the October 1997 publication of Second Water Utilities Data Book: Asian and Pacific Region. To value coal, we relied on import prices contained in the March 2001 annual volume of Monthly Statistics. We adjusted the values to reflect inflation up to the POR using the WPI published by the IMF.

For the reported packing materials—polyethylene bags, woven bags, polyethylene sheet/film and liner, fiberboard, and paper bags—we relied upon Indian import data from the March 2001 annual volume of Monthly Statistics. For wood pallets, we relied upon Indonesian import data from the 1998 issues of Indonesian Foreign Trade Statistics, because the submitted Indian data on this material were unreliable as a surrogate value. See the FOP Memo at page 5. The data for wood pallets was submitted by the respondent in its November 30, 2001, submission, and used in the previous administrative review of See Persulfates Third Review Final. We adjusted the Indian rupee values to reflect inflation up to the POR using the WPI published by the IMF. We also adjusted the U.S. dollar value for wood pallets to reflect inflation (or deflation, as appropriate) using the producer price indices published by the IMF.

We made adjustments to account for freight costs between the suppliers and AJ Works' manufacturing facilities for each of the factors of production identified above. In accordance with out practice, for inputs for which we used CIF import values from India or Indonesia, we calculated a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distances either from the closet PRC ocean port to the factory or from the domestic supplier to the factory. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 61964, 61977 (Nov. 20, 1997) and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States. 7 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

For foreign inland freight we used price quotes obtained by the Department from Indian truck freight companies in November 1999. These price quotes were used in Persulfates Third Review Final, and were also used in Bulk Aspirin Prelim. See the FOP Memo.

For factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A), and profit, we relied on the experience of two producers of identical merchandise, Gugarat Persalts (P) Lts. (Gujarat) and Calibre Chemicals Pvt., Ltd. (Calibre), as reflected in their fiscal year 2000 financial statements. See the FOP Memo. Consistent with our practice, we did not rely on the financial statements of an additional producer of comparable merchandise ( i.e., National Peroxide Ltd.) because it did not produce persulfates during the POR. See Persulfates Third Review Final and accompanying decision memorandum at Comment 5.

We note that the financial statements of Gujarat and Calibre indicate that both produce persulfates and both are equally contemporaneous ( i.e., these financial statements cover the fiscal period April 1999 through March 2000). We disagree with the petitioner's argument that Gujarat's financial statements are not publicly available because Gujarat is not a public corporation. Gujarat's financial statements were submitted as public information. In addition, we note that these statements were audited. Therefore, for these preliminary results, we have relied upon the financial statements of both Gujarat and Calibre in order to calculate the surrogate factory overhead, SG&A, and profit ratios.

Consistent with the methodology used in Persulfates Third Review Final, we calculated factory overhead as a percentage of the total raw material costs for subject merchandise, as opposed to calculating factory overhead as a percentage of total materials, labor, and energy costs for all products. See the FOP Memo at page 7. We also reclassified certain depreciation expenses from Calibre's financial statements as SG&A expenses. We removed from the profit calculation the excise duties and sales taxes.

We preliminarily determine that the following margins exist for the period July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001:

The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice. Interested parties may request a hearing within 30 days of the publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Department will publish a notice of the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs, within 120 days of the publication of these preliminary results.

The Department will determine and the Customs Service shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service upon completion of this review. The final results of this review will be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by this review and for future deposits of estimated duties.

For assessment purposes in this case, we do not have the information to calculate entered value. Therefore, we have calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates for the merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem ratios based on the EPs.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Ai Jian will be that established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for any company previously found to be entitled to a separate rate and for which no review was requested, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the most recent review of that company; (3) the cash deposit rate for all other PRC exporters will be 119.02 percent, the PRC-wide rate established in the less than fair value investigation; and (4) the cash deposit rate for a non-PRC exporter of subject merchandise from the PRC will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

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

This administrative review is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

On July 2, 2001, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the Federal Register a notice of “Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on sebacic acid from the People's Republic of China (PRC) covering the period July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 66 FR 34910 (July 2, 2001).

On July 27, 2001, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), Guangdong Chemicals Import & Export Corp. (Guangdong) and Sinochem Tianjin Import & Export Corporation (Tianjin), exporters of the subject merchandise, requested an administrative review. On July 31, 2001, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), CasChem Inc., a U.S. producer of sebacic acid, requested an administrative review of Tianjin and one additional exporter, Sinochem International Chemicals Corp. (Sinochem International).

On July 31, 2001, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214, Hengshui Dongfeng Chemicals Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Hengshui), a foreign producer of the subject merchandise, requested a new shipper review. On August 9, 2001, Hengshui withdrew this request.

On August 20, 2001, we published a notice of initiation of this administrative review, and we issued antidumping questionnaires to Guangdong, Sinochem International, and Tianjin. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 66 FR 43570 (Aug. 20, 2001).

On October 1, 2001, we received timely responses to sections A, C and D of the questionnaires from Guangdong and Tianjin. Sinochem International did not respond to our request for information. Accordingly, the Department has based the margin for Sinochem International on facts available for purposes of these preliminary results pursuant to section 776 of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308. For further discussion, see the “Use of Facts Available for Non-Responding Companies” section of this notice.

On October 3, 2001, the Department invited interested parties to submit publicly available information for consideration in valuing the factors of production. On June 24, 2002, Guangdong and Tianjin submitted data from the Economic Times of Bombay newspaper for consideration in valuing castor oil and castor seeds.

We issued supplemental questionnaires to Guangdong and Tianjin in February 2002. We received responses to these supplemental questionnaires in March 2002.

In June 2002, we verified the information submitted by Guangdong and Tianjin.

The products covered by this review are all grades of sebacic acid, a dicarboxylic acid with the formula (CH2) 8 (COOH) 2 , which include but are not limited to CP Grade (500ppm maximum ash, 25 maximum APHA color), Purified Grade (1000ppm maximum ash, 50 maximum APHA color), and Nylon Grade (500ppm maximum ash, 70 maximum ICV color). The principal difference between the grades is the quantity of ash and color. Sebacic acid contains a minimum of 85 percent dibasic acids of which the predominant species is the C 10 dibasic acid. Sebacic acid is sold generally as a free-flowing powder/flake. Sebacic acid has numerous industrial uses, including the production of nylon 6/10 (a polymer used for paintbrush and toothbrush bristles and paper machine felts), plasticizers, esters, automotive coolants, polyamides, polyester castings and films, inks and adhesives, lubricants, and polyurethane castings and coatings. Sebacic acid is currently classifiable under subheading 2917.13.00.30 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

In its request dated July 27, 2001, Tianjin requested that the Department revoke the antidumping order on sebacic acid with respect to its sales of subject merchandise. Section 351.222(b)(2) of the Department's regulations notes that the Secretary may revoke an antidumping order in part if the Secretary concludes, inter alia, that one or more exporters or producers covered by the order have sold the merchandise at not less than normal value (NV) for a period of at least three consecutive years. Thus, in determining whether a requesting party is entitled to a revocation inquiry, the Department must determine that the party received zero or de minimis margins for the three years forming the basis for the revocation request. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke the Antidumping Duty Order: Brass Sheet and Strip From the Netherlands, 65 FR 742, 743 (Jan. 6, 2000).

Tianjin's request was accompanied by a certification that it had not sold the subject merchandise at less than NV during the current period of review (POR) and would not do so in the future. Tianjin further certified that they sold the subject merchandise to the United States in commercial quantities for a period of at least three consecutive years. The company also agreed to immediate reinstatement of the antidumping duty order, as long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the Department concludes that, subsequent to the revocation, Tianjin sold the subject merchandise at less than NV.

In this administrative review, we preliminarily find that, as indicated below, a margin of greater than 0.5 percent exists for Tianjin. As such, we preliminarily find that Tianjin does not qualify for revocation.

It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of the merchandise subject to review in non-market-economy (NME) countries a single rate, unless an exporter can demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to its exports to the United States. To establish whether an exporter is sufficiently independent of government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes the exporter in light of the criteria established in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) ( Sparklers ), as amplified by 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 ). Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure absence of government control over export activities includes: (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. With respect to evidence of a de facto absence of government control, the Department considers the following four factors: (1) Whether the respondent sets its own export prices independently from the government and other exporters; (2) whether the respondent can retain the proceeds from its export sales; (3) whether the respondent has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts; and (4) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587; see also Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.

With respect to Guangdong and Tianjin, in our final results for the most recently completed review period ( i.e., July 1, 1998, through June 30, 1999), the Department determined there was both de jure and de facto absence of government control of each company's export activities and determined that each company warranted a company-specific dumping margin. See Sebacic Acid from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 49537, 49538 (Aug. 14, 2000) ( Sebacic Acid Fifth Review ). For this review, both Guangdong and Tianjin have responded to the Department's request for information regarding separate rates. We have found that the evidence on the record is consistent with the final results in the Sebacic Acid Fifth Review and continues to demonstrate an absence of both de jure and de facto government control with respect to their exports in accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide.

With respect to Sinochem International, which did not respond to the Department's questionnaire, we preliminarily determine that this company does not merit a separate rate. The Department assigns a single rate to companies in a non-market economy, unless an exporter demonstrates an absence of government control. We preliminarily determine that Sinochem International is subject to the country-wide rate for this review because it failed to demonstrate an absence of government control.

On August 20, 2001, we issued an antidumping questionnaire to Sinochem International. Sinochem International did not respond to the questionnaire. Because we have received no response, we determine that the use of facts available is appropriate.

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

Because Sinochem International, which is part of the PRC entity ( see the “Separate Rates” section above), has failed to respond to the original questionnaire and has refused to participate in this administrative review, we find that, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, the use of facts available is appropriate.

The Department finds that by not providing the necessary responses to the questionnaire issued by the Department, Sinochem International has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, in selecting from the facts available, the Department determines that an adverse inference is warranted.

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 the party as facts otherwise available. Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” See Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, at 870 (1994). Furthermore, “an affirmative finding of bad faith on the part of the respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.” See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties: Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997) ( Final Rule ). Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available information derived from the petition, the final determination from the less than fair value (LTFV) investigation, a previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the record.

Sinochem International never attempted to respond to our questionnaire or explain why it could not respond. Without this information, the Department cannot make a determination of whether this company demonstrates an absence of government control and is therefore entitled to a separate rate. As noted above, 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 the Department's request for information, the Department may make an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from the facts available, which includes information derived from the petition. In this proceeding, in accordance with Department practice, as adverse facts available we have preliminarily assigned Sinochem International and all other exporters subject to the PRC-wide rate the petition rate of 243.40 percent, which is the PRC-wide rate established in the LTFV investigation and currently in effect, and the highest dumping margin determined in any segment of this proceeding. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sebacic Acid From the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 28053 (May 31, 1994). The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available role to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” See Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan; Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (Feb. 23, 1998). The Department also considers the extent to which a party may benefit from its own lack of cooperation in selecting a rate. See Roller Chain, Other than Bicycle, from Japan; Notice of Final Results and Partial Recision of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 60472, 60477 (Nov. 10, 1997). It is reasonable to assume that if Sinochem International could have demonstrated that its actual dumping margins were lower than the PRC-wide rate established in the LTFV investigation, it would have participated in this review and attempted to do so.

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, where the Department selects from among the facts otherwise available and relies on “secondary information,” the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at the Department's disposal. Secondary information is described in the SAA as “[i]nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” See SAA at 870. The SAA states that “corroborate” means to determine that the information used has probative value. See id. To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. Although the petition rate of 243.40 percent constitutes secondary information, the information was corroborated in the most recently completed administrative review of sebacic acid from the PRC. See See Sebacic Acid From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 18968, 18970 (April 10, 2000) (unchanged in the final results) ( Sebacic Acid Fifth Review Preliminary Results ). With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 (Feb. 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to facts available) because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been discredited. See D & L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated); see also Borden Inc. v. United States, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1221, 1246-48 (CIT 1998) (the Department may not use an uncorroborated petition margin that is high when compared to calculated margins for the POR). None of these unusual circumstances are present here; nor have we any other reason to believe that application of the rate of 243.40 percent as adverse facts available would be inappropriate for the PRC-wide rate. Moreover, the rate used is the currently applicable PRC-wide rate. Thus, the 243.40 percent margin does have relevance. Accordingly, we have used the petition rate from the LTFV investigation, 243.40 percent, because there is no evidence on the record indicating that the selected margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available.

For Guangdong and Tianjin, we calculated export price (EP) in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act because the subject merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. As appropriate, we calculated EP based on packed, free-on-board, PRC-port prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We deducted from the starting price amounts for foreign inland truck freight and foreign brokerage and handling. As these movement services were provided by NME suppliers, we valued them using surrogate values from Indian suppliers. For further discussion of our use of surrogate data in a NME proceeding, as well as the selection of India as the appropriate surrogate country, see the “Normal Value” section of this notice, below.

For calculating inland truck freight for Guangdong and Tianjin, we used information obtained from the Indian newspaper Financial Express. For further discussion, see the Memorandum to the File from Michael Strollo entitled “Preliminary Valuation of Factors of Production for the Preliminary Results of the 2000-2001 Administrative Review of Sebacic Acid from the People's Republic of China,” dated July 31, 2002 ( FOP Memo ), which is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B099 of the main Commerce building (CRU). For brokerage and handling expenses, we used information reported in the new shipper review of stainless steel wire rod from India. See Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod From India; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews, 64 FR 856 (Jan. 6, 1999).

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine the NV using a factors-of-production methodology if: (1) The merchandise is exported from a NME country; and (2) the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value (CV) under section 773(a) of the Act.

The Department has treated the PRC as a NME country in all previous antidumping cases. Furthermore, available information does not permit the calculation of NV using home market prices, third country prices, or CV under section 773(a) of the Act. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is a NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. None of the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment in this review. Therefore, we treated the PRC as a NME country for purposes of this review and calculated NV by valuing the factors of production in a surrogate country.

Section 773(c)(4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408 direct us to select a surrogate country that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC. On the basis of per capita gross domestic product (GDP), the growth rate in per capita GDP, and the national distribution of labor, we find that India is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC. See the Surrogate Country Selection Memorandum from Jeffrey May to Louis Apple Re: Administrative Review of Sebacic Acid from the People's Republic of China, dated September 24, 2001, which is on file in the CRU.

Section 773(c)(4) of the Act also requires that, to the extent possible, the Department use a surrogate country that is a significant producer of merchandise comparable to sebacic acid. We determined in prior reviews of this order that India was a significant producer of comparable merchandise ( i.e., oxalic acid). See Sebacic Acid Fifth Review Preliminary Results, 65 FR at 18970 (unchanged in the final results). For this review, we find that India was a significant producer of oxalic acid during the POR based on the Customs Service import data, and no party to this proceeding has challenged this finding. See the memorandum to the File from Gregory Kalbaugh entitled “Oxalic Acid Production in India During the Period of Review,” dated July 16, 2002. We find that India fulfills both statutory requirements for use as the surrogate country and have continued to use India as the surrogate country in this administrative review. Unless otherwise noted, we have used publicly available information relating to India to value the various factors of production.

For purposes of calculating NV, we valued PRC factors of production in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act. Factors of production include, but are not limited to: (1) Hours of labor required; (2) quantities of raw materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and (4) representative capital cost, including depreciation. In examining surrogate values, we selected, where possible, the publicly available value which was: (1) An average non-export value; (2) representative of a range of prices within the POR or most contemporaneous with the POR; (3) product-specific; and (4) tax-exclusive. For a more detailed explanation of the methodology used in calculating various surrogate values, see the FOP Memo. In accordance with this methodology, we valued the factors of production as follows:

To value caustic soda, cresol, phenol, sulfuric acid, and zinc oxide, we obtained information from the Indian publication Chemical Weekly. Where necessary, we adjusted the values reported in Chemical Weekly to exclude sales and excise taxes. To value activated carbon and macropore resin, steam coal, inner polyethylene bags, woven plastic bags, jumbo plastic bags, and bag closing thread, we obtained import prices from the March 2001 annual volume of the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India. To value castor oil and castor seed, we used information from the Economic Times of Bombay newspaper.

Consistent with the methodology employed in Sebacic Acid Fifth Review, we have determined that fatty acid, glycerine, and castor seed cake (when castor oil is self-produced) are by-products. Because they are by-products, we subtracted the sales revenue of fatty acid, glycerine, and, where applicable, castor seed cake, from the estimated production costs of sebacic acid. This treatment of by-products is also consistent with generally accepted accounting principles. See Cost Accounting: A Managerial Emphasis (1991) at pages 539-544. To value fatty acid and glycerine, we used prices published in Chemical Weekly. We valued castor seed cake using market prices quoted in the Economic Times of Bombay newspaper.

We also allocated a by-product credit for glycerine to the production cost for the co-product capryl alcohol. We deducted a by-product credit for glycerine from sebacic acid based on the ratio of the value of sebacic acid to the total value of both sebacic acid and capryl alcohol.

Consistent with the methodology employed in the previous administrative review, we have determined that capryl alcohol is a co-product and have allocated the factor inputs based on the relative surrogate values for this product and sebacic acid. Additionally, we have used the production times necessary to complete each production stage of sebacic acid as a basis for allocating the amount of labor, energy usage, and factory overhead among the co-product(s). This treatment of co-products is consistent with generally accepted accounting principles. See Cost Accounting: A Managerial Emphasis (1991) at pages 528-533. To value capryl alcohol, consistent with our methodology from the previous administrative review, we used POR market prices reported in the Chemical Weekly and adjusted the prices for sales and excise taxes.

For electricity, we derived a surrogate value based on 1998/1999 electricity price data published by Tata Energy Research Institute in The Energy Data Directory and Yearbook 1999/2000. These data were used in the antidumping duty administrative review of manganese metal from the PRC. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Manganese Metal from the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 15076 (Mar. 15, 2001) and accompanying decision memorandum at Comment 10; and Persulfates From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 42628 (Aug. 14, 2001). We adjusted the values to reflect inflation up to the POR using the electricity-specific price index published by the Reserve Bank of India.

We made adjustments to account for freight costs between the suppliers and the respective manufacturing facilities for each of the factors of production identified above. In accordance with our practice, for inputs for which we used cost-insurance-freight import values from India, we calculated a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distances either from the closest PRC ocean port to the factory or from the domestic supplier to the factory. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 61964, 61977 (Nov. 20, 1997); see also Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

For calculating foreign inland truck freight, we used information obtained from the Indian newspaper Financial Express. See the FOP Memo. To value foreign inland rail freight, we relied upon price quotes obtained from Indian rail freight companies in November 1999. These quotes were used in the investigation of bulk aspirin from the PRC and the 1999-2000 administrative review of tapered roller bearings from the PRC. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bulk Aspirin From the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 116, 119 (Jan. 3, 2000); and Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 1999-2000 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Notice of Intent Not To Revoke Order in Part, 66 FR 35937, 35941 (July 10, 2001). We averaged these quotes, then inflated this average to the POR using the wholesale price index data published in the International Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics.

To value marine insurance, we relied on price quotes obtained from Roanoke Trade Services, Inc., a provider of marine insurance. See the memorandum to the File from Gregory Kalbaugh entitled “Marine Insurance Rates,” dated July 9, 2002, which is on file in the CRU. To value ocean freight, we relied upon price quotes obtained from Maersk Sealand, a provider of ocean freight services. See the memorandum to the File from Gregory Kalbaugh entitled “Ocean Freight Rates,” dated July 9, 2002, which is on file in the CRU.

We valued labor based on a regression-based wage rate, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). This information is available on the Department's website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/9 .

To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses, and profit, we obtained data from the January 1997 Reserve Bank of India Bulletin.

We preliminarily determine that the following margins exist for the period July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001:

The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice. Interested parties may request a hearing within 30 days of the publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Department will publish a notice of the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs, within 120 days of the publication of these preliminary results.

The Department will determine and the Customs Service shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service upon completion of this review. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by this review and for future deposits of estimated duties.

For assessment purposes, we do not have the information to calculate an estimated entered value. Accordingly, we have calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates for the merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem ratios based on the EPs.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Guangdong and Tianjin will be that established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for a company previously found to be entitled to a separate rate and for which no review was requested, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the most recent review of that company; (3) the cash deposit rate for all other PRC exporters will be 243.40 percent, the PRC-wide rate established in the LTFV investigation; and (4) the cash deposit rate for a non-PRC exporter of subject merchandise from the PRC will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

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

This administrative review is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

The subject amendment to Permit No. 1245, issued on May 19, 2000 (65 FR 36666) is requested under the authority of Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ).

Permit No. 1245 authorizes the permit holder to capture, handle, flipper and PIT tag, blood and tissue sample, perform ultrasound, and release 250 loggerhead, 50 Kemp's ridley, 10 green and 1 leatherback turtle. The permit holder requests authorization to extend the permit for two more years, until October 31, 2005, and increase the take of loggerheads to 300 and leatherbacks to 3 due to the increasing numbers of turtles encountered.

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

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

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: Annual Progress Reporting Form for the American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services (AIVRS) Program.

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs; Businesses or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

  Responses: 66.

  Burden Hours: 1,056.

Abstract: This data collection will be conducted annually to obtain program and performance information from the AIVRS grantees on their project activities. The information collected will assist federal Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) staff in responding to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). Data will primarily be collected through an Internet form.

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 2064. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments “ to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail address 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 the collection activity requirements should be directed to Sheila Carey at (202) 708-6287 or via her e-mail address Sheila.Carey@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

The Act affords EPA a 45-day period to review, and object to as appropriate, operating permits proposed by State permitting authorities. Section 505(b)(2) of the Act authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator within 60 days after the expiration of this review period to object to State operating permits if EPA has not done so. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the State, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period or the grounds for the issues arose after this period.

On June 7, 2000, the EPA received a petition from NYPIRG, requesting that EPA object to the issuance of the title V operating permit to Rochdale Village. The petition raises issues regarding the permit application, the permit issuance process, and the permit itself. NYPIRG asserts that (1) NYSDEC violated the public participation requirements of 40 CFR 70.7(h) by inappropriately denying NYPIRG's request for a public hearing; (2) the permit is based on an incomplete permit application in violation of 40 CFR 70.5(c); (3) the permit lacks a statement of basis as required by 40 CFR 70.7(a)(5); (4) the permit repeatedly violates the 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) requirement that the permittee submit reports of any required monitoring at least every six months; (5) the permit distorts the annual compliance certification requirement of CAA section 114(a)(3) and 40 CFR 70.6(c)(5); (6) the permit does not assure compliance with all applicable requirements as mandated by 40 CFR 70.1(b) and 70.6(a)(1) because it illegally sanctions the systematic violation of applicable requirements during startup/shutdown, malfunction, maintenance, and upset conditions; (7) the permit does not require prompt reporting of all deviations from permit requirements as mandated by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(B); and (8) the permit does not assure compliance with all applicable requirements as mandated by 40 CFR 70.1(b) and 70.6(a)(1) because many individual permit conditions lack adequate periodic monitoring and are not practically enforceable.

NYPIRG raises each of these issues in the petitions on Tanagraphics and North Shore Towers Apartments, as well. In each of these petitions, the eighth issue is subdivided into several detailed points, some which are permit-specific and some which are shared among the other permits.

On July 3, 2002, the Administrator issued an order partially granting and partially denying the petition on Rochdale Village. The order explains the reasons behind EPA's conclusion that the NYSDEC must reopen the permit to: (1) Indicate the facility employs continuous opacity monitors, and to require quarterly reporting of opacity data; (2) require quarterly reporting of natural gas and fuel oil consumption data, as required by the approved plan for complying with the Reasonably Available Control Technology requirements for nitrogen oxides; and (3) remove a condition that improperly applies an inapplicable sulfur requirement to the facility. The order also explains the reasons for denying NYPIRG's remaining claims.

On July 7, 2000, the EPA received a petition from NYPIRG, requesting that EPA object to the issuance of the title V operating permit to Tanagraphics, on the grounds listed above. On July 3, 2002, the Administrator issued an order partially granting and partially denying the petition. The order explains the reasons behind EPA's conclusion that the NYSDEC must reopen the permit to: (1) Include periodic monitoring to assure compliance with DEC's rules on the use of open containers; (2) require testing of fountain solutions, inks, and coatings more frequently than one time; and (3) include two opacity conditions (with periodic monitoring) that were omitted from the original permit. The order also explains the reasons for denying NYPIRG's remaining claims.

On August 1, 2000, the EPA received a petition from NYPIRG, requesting that EPA object to the issuance of the title V operating permit to North Shore Towers Apartments on the grounds listed above. On July 3, 2002, the Administrator issued an order partially granting and partially denying the petition. The order explains the reasons behind EPA's conclusion that the NYSDEC must reopen the permit to: (1) Revise a nitrogen oxides monitoring provision to reference the most recently approved stack test results; and (2) revise a sulfur-in-fuel recordkeeping requirement to retain records on-site for 5-years. The order also explains the reasons for denying NYPIRG's remaining claims.

The National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) for lead and copper require all Community Water Systems (CWS) and NTNCWSs to optimize corrosion control, to minimize levels of lead and copper at consumers' taps. CWSs and NTNCWSs that exceed either the lead or copper “action level” must follow the treatment technique specified in the NPDWRs (i.e., installing corrosion control treatment (CCT)) to minimize lead levels at consumers' taps. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), which has primary enforcement responsibility for implementing the NPDWRs for lead and copper in the State of Michigan, believes that an alternative approach to CCT would be just as efficient in lowering the levels of lead and copper at consumers' taps. The alternative approach includes the replacement of fixtures contributing significant levels of lead and/or copper, and the flushing of all taps used for human consumption on a regular basis.

On May 5, 1998, USEPA and ECOS signed the “Joint EPA/State Agreement to Pursue Regulatory Innovation.” Under this Agreement, USEPA and State environmental officials agreed to explore innovative ways to implement environmental programs. MDEQ has submitted a Joint Agreement proposal under this Agreement that would allow certain NTNCWSs to use the alternative approach in lieu of complying with the treatment technique specified in the NPDWRs for lead and copper promulgated by USEPA under section 1412 of SDWA ( See 40 CFR 141.80 through 141.91). USEPA has identified a variance, under Section 1415(a)(3) of SDWA, as the potentially appropriate mechanism for allowing NTNCWSs within Michigan that qualify for the variance and comply with its terms to use an alternative approach. Section 1415(a)(3) of SDWA gives USEPA the authority to issue a variance from a treatment technique “. . .upon

a showing by any person that an alternative treatment technique not included in such requirement is at least as efficient in lowering the level of the contaminant with respect to which such requirement was prescribed.” USEPA has preliminarily determined that MDEQ has made a proper showing that the alternative approach will be as efficient in lowering the levels of lead and/or copper and therefore proposes to issue a variance. The SDWA draft variance specifies eligibility and performance criteria that NTNCWSs must satisfy to be eligible for the SDWA variance, and performance criteria that these systems must satisfy to remain eligible for the SDWA variance.

After consideration of public comments received on the SDWA draft variance, USEPA will take final action on the SDWA variance, which would include any necessary modification(s) based on comments received. USEPA and MDEQ have also signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which also contains the draft eligibility and participation criteria, and outlines the roles and responsibilities of USEPA and MDEQ in implementing this project. A copy of the MOU can also be obtained by contacting Miguel Del Toral at the addresses or phone number above.

Executive Order 12657, dated November 18, 1998, charged FEMA and other Federal agencies with the emergency planning response in cases where State and Local governments have declined or failed to prepare emergency plans. To implement Executive Order 12657, FEMA worked with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and other Federal agencies on the Federal Radiological Preparedness Coordinating Committee (FRPCC) to develop regulation 44 CFR 352, Commercial Nuclear Power Plants: Emergency Preparedness planning. This regulation establishes policies and procedures for a licensee submission of a certification of “decline or fail”, and for FEMA's determination concerning Federal assistance to the licensee. It also establishes policies and procedures for providing Federal Support for offsite planning and preparedness.

In accordance with Executive Order 12657, FEMA will need certain information from the licensee in order to form a decision as to whether or not a condition of “decline or fail” exists on the part of State or Local governments (44 CFR 352.3-4). This information will be collected by the appropriate FEMA Regional Office or Headquarters. Also, when a licensee requests Federal facilities or resources, FEMA will need information from the NRC as to whether the licensee has made maximum use of its resources and the extent to which the licensee has complied with 10 CFR 50.47(c)(1) and 44 FR 352.5. This information will be collected by the NRC and will be provided to FEMA through consultation between the two agencies.

Title: Federal Assistance for Offsite Radiological Emergency Planning.

Type of Information Collection: Reinstatement, without change of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired.

OMB Number: 3067-0201.

Form Numbers: None.

Abstract: In accordance with Executive Order 12657 and under regulation 44 CFR 352, FEMA will need certain information from the licensee in order to form a decision as to whether or not a condition of “decline or fail” exists on the part of the State or Local government. Also, when a licensee requests Federal facilities or resources, FEMA will need information from the NRC as to whether the licensee has made maximum use of its resources and the extent to which the licensee has complied with 10 CFR 50.47(c)(1).

Affected Public: Business or Other For-Profit and State, Local or Tribal Government.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 160.

Estimated Cost: 3,323.

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

The Program was created with the enactment of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 (the Act). Section 553 of the Act authorizes a mitigation assistance program which FEMA has designated Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA). Section 554 establishes the National Flood Mitigation Fund to provide assistance under Section 553. FMA regulations implement requirements of Section 553 and 554 of the Act.

FMA was developed to address concerns regarding repetitively or substantially damaged structures, or both, and the associated claims on the National Flood Insurance Fund. The overall goal of FMA is to fund cost-effective measures that reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to buildings, manufactured homes, and other insurable structures.

The purpose of the planning grants is to develop or update a Flood Mitigation Plan that FEMA must approve before approving a project grant. Native American tribes or authorized tribal organizations may submit applications to the State POC or directly to the FEMA Regional Director.

The regulations outline a basic planning process with minimum standards for the Flood Mitigation Plans. Existing plans, such as those credited through the Community Rating System or those prepared in conformance with Section 322 of the Stafford Act, as amended by Section 104 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, may meet the requirements of FMA with few or no modifications. The plan should summarize the planning process, and should be reviewed periodically by the community in order to remain a viable document. Flood Mitigation Plans must be formally adopted by the legal entity submitting the plan for FEMA approval.

Title: Flood Mitigation Assistance Program.

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

OMB Number: 3067-0271.

Form Numbers: None.

Abstract: FMA Application Package. The State will use the local government's application for grant assistance to recommend to FEMA its preference for use of limited grant funds. FEMA will use the application to determine for which projects in which communities it will provide funding from among the limited annual appropriation. The application will provide FEMA sufficient information to determine whether the project meets the minimum eligibility criteria and objectively evaluate its merits.

Affected Public: State, Local, Tribal Government.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,069.

Estimated Cost: $36,518.

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

The NFIP is authorized by Public Law 90-448 (1968) and expanded by Public Law 93-234 (1973). Communities must make application for eligibility in the program by submitting the items listed on the enclosed “prerequisites for the sale of flood insurance” which is taken from section 59.22 CFR 44 of the NFIP regulations. Section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 requires all flood-prone communities throughout the country to apply for participation one year after their flood prone identification or submit to the prohibition of certain types of Federal and Federally-related financial assistance for use in their floodplains.

Title: Application for Participation in the National Flood Insurance Program.

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

OMB Number: 3067-0020.

Form Number(s): FEMA Form 81-64.

Abstract: The NFIP provides flood insurance to communities that apply for participation and make a commitment to adopt and enforce land use control measures that are designed to protect development from future flood damages. The application form will enable FEMA to continue to rapidly process new community applications and to thereby more quickly provide flood insurance protection to the residents of the communities. Participation in the NFIP is mandatory in order for flood related Presidentially-declared communities to receive Federal disaster assistance.

Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Governments.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 400 hours.

Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to the government is $21,000 for printing and mailing the forms to regional and state offices.

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

The State Administrative Plan for the Individual and Family Grant Program was established under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Pub. L. 93-288 as amended, section 411(a), and its implementing federal regulation 44 CFR 206.131. The Governor of a State administers the grant program in a State. The plan forms an agreement between the State and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to administer Individual Family Grants (IFG) according to national criteria, standards, and procedures for determination of disaster victims eligibility. The IFG program is intended to provide funds to individuals or families with disaster-related necessary expenses or serious needs, who are unable to meet such expenses or needs through other means.

Title: State Administrative Plans for the Individual and Family Grant Program.

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

OMB Number: 3067-0146.

Form Numbers: None.

Abstract: The Governor is required by law to administer the IFG Program and FEMA is required to publish regulations and procedures. FEMA carries out its role by requiring a State Plan which conforms to the regulations while allowing individual State procedural variations.

Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government.

Estimated Cost: The average salary level for a State employee at a GS-9 to update a State Plan is estimated to be $2,773.68

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

Public Law 101-391 requires FEMA to establish and maintain a National Master List (NML) of fire safe hotels, motels and other places of public accommodation (property). This public law was enacted as a result of a number of major life-loss fires occurring in the late 1970's and 1980's. The purpose of this public law is to assure the traveling public of fire safe accommodations. Under Public Law 101-391, Federal employees on official travel are required to stay in properties approved and listed on the NML.

Title: Federal Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Declaration Form.

Type of Information Collection: Existing collection in use without OMB approval.

Form Number: No number issued at this time.

Abstract: Public Law 101-391 requires FEMA to establish and maintain a National Master List (NML) of fire safe places of public accommodation. The information collected will be available electronically to the general public identifying properties meeting the specified level of fire safety equipment as required in the public law. It is also available to Federal employees required by Public Law 101-391 to stay at properties on the NML when on official travel.

Affected Public: Business or other for-Profit, Not-For-Profit Institutions, and the Federal Government.

No. of Respondents: 2,000.

Frequency of Response: On Occasion.

Hours Per Response: 0.25.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 500.

Estimated Cost: $10,000.00 per year. Rate of first level manager at $20.00 × 0.25 hour × 2,000 respondents.

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

The community inspection report, which is the subject of this information collection submission, will be used in the implementation of the inspection procedure in the Monroe County, the City of Marathon, and the Village of Islamorada, Florida and any other community that incorporates in Monroe County on or after January 1, 1999. The inspection procedure has two major purposes: (1) To help the communities of Monroe County, City of Marathon, the Village of Islamorada, Florida, and any other communities in Monroe County that incorporate after January 1, 1999 verify that structures in their communities (those built after the effective date of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), referred to as Post-FIRM) comply with the community's floodplain management ordinance; and (2) to ensure that property owners pay flood insurance premiums commensurate with their flood risk.

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was established by the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (Public law 90-448), as amended. The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-234) and the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-325) made significant changes to the program. The primary purposes of the NFIP are to: (1) Better indemnify individuals for flood losses through insurance; (2) reduce future flood damages through state and community floodplain management regulations; and (3) reduce federal expenditures for disaster assistance and flood control. The NFIP makes Federally-backed flood insurance coverage available only in those communities that adopt and enforce a floodplain management ordinance to regulate new development in flood hazard areas. Over 19,000 communities participate in the NFIP.

The concept behind the program is that the communities would join the NFIP to make their citizens eligible to purchase subsidized flood insurance for existing buildings. It was recognized that insurance for many of these buildings would be prohibitively expensive if the premium were not subsidized. It was also recognized that most of these floodprone buildings were built by individuals that did not have sufficient knowledge of the hazard to make informed decisions.

In exchange for the availability of this subsidized insurance, communities would protect new construction through adoption and enforcement of community floodplain management ordinances. Owners of these new buildings (those built after the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had identified flood hazards in the community) would pay actuarial rates for flood insurance that fully reflect the risk to the building.

Community floodplain management regulations require that residential buildings be elevated to or above the elevation of the base flood (the flood that has a 1 percent chance of occurring during any given year, also known as the 100-year flood). Non-residential buildings can either be elevated or floodproofed (made watertight) to the base flood. Without community oversight of building activities and development in the floodplain, the best efforts of some to reduce flood losses could be undermined or destroyed by the careless building of others. Community enforcement of a floodplain management ordinance is critical in protecting a building from future flood damages, in reducing taxpayer funded disaster assistance, and also in keeping flood insurance rates affordable.

The purpose of the inspection procedures is to require owners of insured buildings (policyholders) to obtain an inspection from community floodplain management officials and submit a community inspection report as a condition of renewing the Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP) on the building. The community inspection report, which is the subject of this information collection submission, will materially assist in reducing the number of buildings at risk to flood losses. The inspection procedure has two major purposes: (1) To help the pilot communities for this inspection procedure, Monroe County, City of Marathon, and the Village of Islamorada, Florida, and any community that incorporates after January 1, 1999 verify that structures in their communities (those built after the effective date of the FIRM, or post-FIRM) comply with the community's floodplain management ordinance; and (2) to ensure that property owners pay flood insurance premiums commensurate with their flood risk. Post-FIRM construction is charged an actuarial rate that must fully reflect the risk of flooding. The community inspection report will be needed to effectively implement the inspection procedure. The community inspection report will be used to document whether the insured building is in compliance with the community's floodplain management ordinance. The inspection report will also assist FEMA to ensure that property owners are paying flood insurance premiums commensurate with their flood risk.

Under the NFIP Floodplain Management Regulations at 44 CFR 60.3, all new construction and substantial improvements of structures in A Zones on the community's FIRM must have any enclosed areas below the lowest floor of an elevated building designed to include openings to equalize hydrostatic flood pressure on exterior walls by allowing for the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters. In V Zones, new construction and substantial improvements must have the space below the lowest floor either free of obstruction or constructed with open wood lattice-work, insect screening, or non-supporting breakaway walls, intended to collapse under wind and water loads without causing collapse, displacement, or other structural damage to the elevated portion of the building or supporting foundation system. In both A and V Zones on the community's FIRM, the area below the lowest floor of an elevated building can only be used for parking of vehicles, building access, or storage.

In addition, owners must build the area below the lowest floor of an elevated building using flood resistant materials and must use construction methods and practices that minimize flood damages. Owners must also build with electrical, ventilation, plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities that are designed or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding.

FEMA conducted a Community Assistance Visit (CAV) in Monroe County, Florida, in 1982, 1987, and in 1995. The purpose of a CAV is to assess an NFIP community's floodplain management program and to provide whatever assistance the community needs to administer its floodplain management ordinance effectively when program deficiencies or violations are identified. One of the more serious problems that FEMA identified through the CAVs was the apparent widespread use of the enclosed area below the lowest floor of elevated buildings for uses other than parking of vehicles, building access, or storage. Follow-up contacts with Monroe County had indicated that it was unable to identify possible violations and remedy violations identified.

There are several factors that have limited Monroe County's ability to determine whether a building with an enclosure complies with the county's floodplain management ordinance: (1) A provision in Florida laws exempts “owner-occupied family residences” from the administrative warrant inspection procedure provided under State law for identifying building-safety issues. Under Florida State law, entry by local officials into owner-occupied single family homes without consent of the owner requires a search warrant, which is extremely difficult to obtain. (2) It is often difficult from the street to determine whether the enclosed area below an elevated building contains uses other than parking of vehicles, building access, or storage. Although the County can seek consent and approval of the owner to inspect their property, the community has had limited success in identifying violations using this method. (3) The volume of possible violations is also a contributing factor in the community's ability to address this problem. Monroe County estimated that there are several thousand buildings with illegal enclosures below the lowest floor of an elevated building. Consequently, the community has had little success in identifying possible violations so that it could then require actions to remedy the violations to the maximum extent possible.

Given these circumstances, Monroe County indicated its interest in participating in an inspection procedure. In January 1997, a Monroe County Citizen's Task Force, which was appointed by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners to address the issue of illegal enclosures below the lowest floor of an elevated building, recommended establishment of a procedure to require an inspection and a compliance report prior to the renewal of a flood insurance policy. On June 11, 1998, the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, passed a resolution that requested FEMA to establish an inspection procedure for the County as a means of verifying that insured buildings in the Special Flood Hazard Area under the NFIP comply with the County's floodplain management ordinance.

The Village of Islamorada incorporated as a separate community within Monroe County in January 1998 and became a separate participating NFIP community on October 1, 1998. The Village of Islamorada encompasses four of the Florida Keys that would have been included as part of the inspection procedure in Monroe County. Because of possible illegal enclosures in the Village of Islamorada, the community indicated its interest in participating in the pilot inspection procedure in a letter dated September 24, 1998, in its application to join the NFIP.

The City of Marathon incorporated as a separate community within Monroe County on November 2, 1999 and became a separate participating NFIP community on October 16, 2000. The City of Marathon encompasses 12 miles of the Florida Keys that would have been included as part of the inspection procedure in Monroe County. Because of possible illegal enclosures in the City of Marathon, the community indicated its interest in participating in the pilot inspection procedure in a resolution titled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Marathon, Florida, Providing for Approval of the City's Participation in the National Flood Insurance Program's Pilot Inspection Program and Providing for an Effective Date”, which was passed and adopted on September 13, 2000.

An interim final rule was published in the Federal Register on March 8, 2002 (67 FR 10631) that amended the NFIP regulations to clarify that areas of Monroe County that incorporate on or after January 1, 1999, and become eligible for the sale of flood insurance must participate in the inspection procedures as a condition of joining the NFIP. This requirement was specifically stated in the supplementary of the proposed rule (published in the Federal Register on May 5, 1999, 64 FR 24256) and in the final rule (published in the Federal Register on June 27, 2000, 65 FR 39726) establishing the inspection procedure. However, this requirement was not clearly stated in the Appendices (A)(4), (A)(5), and (A)(6) of 44 CFR part 61, the endorsements to the Standard Flood Insurance Policy. The interim final rule amended 44 CFR 59.30 and the appendices to make clearer that participation in the inspection procedures is a requirement for any area within Monroe County that incorporates on or after January 1, 1999. FEMA will publish notices in the Federal Register when communities in Monroe County incorporate, agree to implement the pilot inspection procedure, and become eligible for the sale of flood insurance.

Due to the fact that there has been widespread use of the enclosed area below the lowest floor of elevated buildings for uses other than parking of vehicles, building access or storage, the community inspection report will materially assist the communities in identifying and remedying the violation, thereby reduce the number of buildings exposed to significant flood losses. Furthermore, the collection of information will help FEMA ensure that the policyholders of buildings with illegal enclosures are paying premiums commensurate with their flood risk.

The inspection procedure will be conducted in the communities of Monroe County, City of Marathon, the Village of Islamorada, and any other community in Monroe County that incorporates after January 1, 1999. FEMA would make any decision to implement the inspection procedure in NFIP participating communities outside Monroe County only after completing the pilot inspection procedure within the selected communities and after an evaluation to determine how effective the procedure is in achieving NFIP building compliance. Implementation of the inspection procedure beyond Monroe County would require separate rulemaking and preparation of supporting materials for Paperwork Reduction Act submissions.

Title: Inspection of Insured Structures by Communities.

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

OMB Number: 3067-0275.

Abstract: The purpose of the inspection procedure and need for the community inspection report is to:

(1) To help the communities of Monroe County, City of Marathon, the Village of Islamorada, Florida, and any other community in Monroe County that incorporates after January 1, 1999 verify and document that post-FIRM structures in their communities comply with the community's floodplain management ordinance; and

(2) To ensure that property owners pay flood insurance premiums commensurate with their flood risk due to the increased exposure to flood damages.

The final rule (published in the Federal Register on June 27, 2000, 65 FR 39726) and the interim final rule (published in the Federal Register on March 8, 2002, 67 FR 10631) established an inspection procedure in Monroe County, City of Marathon, the Village of Islamorada, Florida and any other community in Monroe County that incorporates after January 1, 1999 that would be built around the flood insurance policy renewal process. The requirement that a building be inspected by the community, as a condition of renewing the flood insurance policy on the building, would only apply to NFIP insured buildings in Special Flood Hazard Areas that are identified as possible violations by the community in which the property is located. The Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) is an area that is based on a flood that would have a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year, referred to as the 100-year flood.

Policyholders that have a flood insurance policy with a renewal effective date on and after the implementation date of the pilot inspection procedure would receive, along with their policy renewal notice, an endorsement established in Appendices (A)(4), (A)(5), and (A)(6) of 44 CFR part 61. The endorsement would provide that an inspection by the community may be required before a subsequent renewal of the flood insurance policy. Policies issued as new policies after the effective date for implementing the pilot inspection procedure would also contain the endorsement established in Appendices (A)(4), (A)(5), and (A)(6). The endorsement amended all flood insurance policies (pre-FIRM and post-FIRM) on buildings in Monroe County, City of Marathon, and the Village of Islamorada, Florida (there are approximately 28,771 flood insurance policies in these communities at the time of this submission). Pre-FIRM insured buildings are included for the endorsement since there may be some policies within this category that should be rated post-FIRM because they were misrated or substantially improved after the effective date of the community's FIRM. A notice describing the purpose of the inspection procedure would accompany the new endorsement to the Standard Flood Insurance Policy regarding the inspection procedure.

Monroe County, City of Marathon, and the Village of Islamorada would identify possible violations and forward the list to FEMA. There are an estimated 2,000-4,000 number of insured buildings within the three communities that may be subject to an inspection based on the identification as possible violations. This estimate was reported to FEMA from the communities. Based on FEMA's review of floodplain development in these communities, FEMA is comfortable with this estimate.

Monroe County, City of Marathon, and the Village of Islamorada would identify possible violations through a review of the pre-FIRM and post-FIRM flood insurance policies provided by FEMA and from a visual street inspection of the building, from tax records, and through a review of other documents on file in the community pertaining to the property and through other community procedures. For buildings identified by Monroe County, City of Marathon, and the Village of Islamorada as possible violations, the insurer of the flood insurance policy would send a notice to policyholders approximately 6 months before the policy expiration date. This notice would state that the policyholder must obtain an inspection from the community and submit the results of the property inspection as part of the renewal of the flood insurance policy by the end of the renewal grade period (30 days after date of the policy expiration). The insurer would send a reminder notice to the policyholder with the Renewal Notice about 45 to 60 days before the policy expires.

The policyholder would be responsible for contacting the community to arrange for an inspection. The community would inspect the building to determine whether it complies with the community's floodplain management ordinance and document its findings in an inspection report. The community would provide two copies of the inspection report to the policyholder.

If the policyholder obtained a timely inspection and sent the community's inspection report and the renewal premium payment to the insurer by the end of the renewal grace period, the insurer would renew the flood insurance policy whether or not the building has been identified as a violation by the community. The insurer would review the insurance policy for rerating upon review of the community inspection report. If the building was not properly rated to reflect the building's risk of flooding, the policy would be rerated to reflect that risk. If the community's inspection found a violation, the community would undertake an enforcement action in accordance with its floodplain management ordinance.

If the policyholder did not obtain an inspection and submit an inspection report with the renewal premium payment by the end of the renewal grace period (30 days after date of expiration), the flood insurance policy would not be renewed. The insurer would send a notice to the insured that the flood insurance policy expired and cannot be re-issued without the community inspection report.

The communities will not be using a FEMA designed form in documenting the inspection of an insured structure. FEMA consulted with local officials from the communities participating in the inspection procedure on the type of existing building inspection reports they use to implement their floodplain management ordinance and we determined that the current community inspection documents could be used for purposes of implementing the inspection procedure and for purposes of determining whether the building's flood insurance policy needs to be rerated by insurer.

The community inspection report is critical to the effective implementation of the inspection procedure. Without the inspection procedure, the Village of Islamorada, City of Marathon, and Monroe County would continue to have limited ability to inspect properties for illegal enclosures that violate their floodplain management ordinance and as a result, both communities would be unable to undertake appropriate actions to remedy the violations. There are several potential serious consequences if these structures continue to be in violation of the community's floodplain management ordinance.

Allowing uses other than parking of vehicles, building access, or storage in the enclosed area below the Base Flood Elevation (elevation of the 100-year flood) significantly increases the flood damage potential to the area below the lowest floor of the elevated building. Improperly constructed enclosure walls and utilities can tear away and damage the upper portions of the elevated building exposing the building to greater damage. Improperly constructed enclosures can also result in flood forces being transferred to the elevated portion of the building with the potential for catastrophic damage. If a flood disaster occurs, the impact will go beyond the building itself. If the ground level enclosure is finished with living spaces, there is an increased risk to lives. Residents who live in these ground level enclosures may not be fully aware of the flood risk.

Furthermore, there is limited coverage in this area for elevated post-FIRM buildings, as provided for in the Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP) under Article 6—Property Not Covered. This provision of the SFIP, effective since October 1, 1983, limits coverage for enclosures, including personal property contained therein. FEMA does not cover such items as finished enclosure walls, floors, ceilings, and personal property such as rugs, carpets, and furniture. In 1983, FEMA limited the coverage for enclosed areas below elevated buildings due to the financial losses experienced in the NFIP when FEMA provided full coverage in these areas. Consequently, property owners and residents that may live in these lower enclosed areas may have significant uninsured losses in the event of a flood for finished items and contents below the lowest floor.

However, in spite of the limited coverage afforded for these enclosed areas, they do affect the rating of the policy. Because of the increase in flood damage potential to the building resulting from flood forces being transferred to the elevated portion of the building, the damage potential must be recognized in the rates by adding rate loadings based on the size of the enclosure. In addition, the rates must also reflect whether the enclosure contains essential building elements which are covered, namely, sump pumps, well water tanks and pumps, electrical junction and circuit breaker boxes, elevators, natural gas tanks, pumps or tanks related to solar energy, cisterns, stairways and staircases attached to the building, and foundation elements that support the building. The collection of information from the policyholder in the inspection procedure will ensure that the policyholders of buildings with enclosures are paying premiums commensurate with their flood risk.

Along with significant flood damages to the building and the potential for loss of life, the community, the State, and the Federal Government will be faced with costly outlays for flood fighting and rescue operations, response, and recovery as well as taxpayer funded disaster assistance.

Under the inspection procedure, the policyholder will be required to obtain an inspection in order to renew the policy. This will be a one-time collection of information during the period of time for which the inspection procedure is to be implemented. Since the primary purpose of the inspection is to provide communities with a mechanism to ensure compliance with the floodplain management ordinance and for FEMA to verify flood insurance rates, less frequent collection of the information through the inspection report is not possible.

Affected Public: Individuals or Households and Business or Other For-Profit.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: We expect a total of 2,000 to 4,000 respondents (policyholders) to obtain an inspection from the community in which the property is located. This is the total estimated number of insured buildings that are possible violations of the community's floodplain management ordinance in Monroe County, City of Marathon, and the Village of Islamorada. The burden hours are calculated based on the maximum number of estimated respondents (4,000 insured buildings). Monroe County, City of Marathon, and the Village of Islamorada will identify which insured buildings are possible violations of the community's floodplain management ordinance. It is anticipated that the inspection procedure will be implemented over a multi-year period in each community in order to inspect several hundred insured buildings identified as possible violations each year.

It is estimated that Monroe County will inspect 500-700 insured buildings per year, the City of Marathon will inspection 200-400 insured buildings per year, and the Village of Islamorada will inspect 200-400 insured buildings per year.

The policyholders of insured buildings identified as possible violations by the community will receive a notice from their insurer approximately 6 months before the policy expiration date. This notice will state that the policyholder must obtain an inspection from the community and submit the results of the inspection as part of the renewal of the flood insurance policy by the end of the renewal grace period (30 days after date of the policy expiration). In addition, for each of the 2,000-4,000 insured buildings identified as a possible violation of the community's floodplain management ordinance, the following will apply:

• The policyholder will receive a reminder notice from the insurer regarding the inspection with the Renewal Notice about 45 to 60 days before the policy expires.

• The policyholder is responsible for contacting the community to arrange for an inspection by a local official in the community in which the property is located.

• The policyholder will receive two copies of the inspection report from the community and submit one copy of the inspection report as part of the policy renewal process, which includes the payment of the premium.

• If the policyholder did not obtain an inspection and submit an inspection report with the renewal payment by the end of the renewal grade period (30 days after date of expiration), the flood insurance policy would not be renewed. The insurer would send a notice at expiration or shortly thereafter to the policyholder that the flood insurance policy expired and cannot be re-issued without the community inspection report.

The flood insurance renewal notice and flood insurance application have previously been approved by OMB (OMB 3067-0022).

Estimated Cost: Communities generally charge a fee for permits and inspections as part of their administration of their zoning ordinance, building code, and floodplain management ordinance. It is estimated that it will cost the policyholder on average between $35 to $50.00 for each inspection. There may be expenses related to telephone calls and arranging for someone to be available at the property so that local officials can inspect the building. These expenses are estimated to be on average $15.00 per respondent. Therefore, policyholders who are required to obtain an inspection as a condition of renewing the flood insurance policy and who obtain that inspection, it is estimated to cost on average $65.00 per policyholder. For approximately 900 to 1,500 inspections per year, the total annual cost burden to respondents is estimated to be between $58,500 and $97,500.

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

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the Territory of Guam is hereby amended to include Categories C through G under the Public Assistance program for the Territory of Guam determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of July 6, 2002:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the Federated States of Micronesia is hereby amended to include Individual Assistance and Categories C through G under the Public Assistance program for Chuuk State determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of July 11, 2002:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas 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 July 4, 2002:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Vermont is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of July 12, 2002:

The President's FY 2003 budget proposal includes $300 million to initiate a competitive pre-disaster mitigation grant program, which would replace the formula-based Hazard Mitigation Grant Program for FY 2003.

This proposed funding would represent a change in funding source for mitigation (annual funding versus funding linked to disasters), but would continue to support the goals of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. While there are specific mitigation opportunities that occur immediately after a disaster, an annual grant program that provided a consistent source of funding would allow States and communities to develop more comprehensive proposals and projects to reduce their overall risks. Communities would no longer be dependent on a disaster declaration in order to obtain a FEMA mitigation grant. However, FEMA would continue to work with State and local governments to take advantage of post-disaster mitigation opportunities.

The President's budget proposal outlines a program whereby grants would be awarded on a competitive basis to ensure that the most worthwhile, cost-beneficial projects receive funding. Funded activities would reduce the risks of future damage in hazard prone areas, thereby reducing the need for future disaster assistance. Grant awards would be made without reference to State allocations, quotas or other formula-based allocation of funds. Consistent with funding available under the FY 2002 Pre-Disaster Mitigation grant program, authorized by § 203 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Assistance and Emergency Relief Act, eligible activities under a competitive grant program would include: risk assessments; State and local mitigation planning; the reinforcement of structures against seismic, wind, and other hazards; elevation, acquisition, or relocation of flood-prone structures; and minor flood control or drainage management projects.

State emergency management authorities currently play an essential role in the implementation of all of FEMA mitigation grant programs. They provide technical assistance to communities, solicit and review applications, and coordinate statewide mitigation activities. FEMA's Pre-Disaster Mitigation implementation strategy will include the States, and we will collaborate with our State and local partners and stakeholders to develop a means for competitive review of grant proposals.

Although FEMA does not know whether this proposal for a competitive pre-disaster mitigation grant program will be included in the FY 2003 appropriations or what our authority will be in implementing such a program, we would like to prepare for the possibility by gathering comments on the proposal from our partners and stakeholders. In preliminary exploration of the issues surrounding design of the President's proposed Competitive Pre-Disaster Mitigation grant program, FEMA is soliciting responses to the following questions:

1. What key factors should FEMA consider in developing a competitive grant program?

2. What role should the States play in a competitive grant process?

3. If FEMA was authorized to set aside funds for States in addition to the competitive process, do you think there should be a set aside that States could depend on annually to maintain a level of capability in mitigation? What types of activities should be eligible for such funding?

4. Should mitigation planning funds be set aside for States in addition to competitive pre-disaster mitigation grants?

5. How could FEMA ensure that funds would be spent to address all hazards?

6. Should activities addressing multi-hazard vs. single hazard be more heavily weighted in a ranking system?

7. What methodologies could FEMA use to distribute funding based on risk?

8. How could the evaluation of applications be designed to ensure that the most worthwhile, cost-beneficial projects receive funding?

9. What should FEMA consider in addition to cost benefit analysis in developing a ranking system to evaluate applications (e.g., repetitive loss, life safety)?

10. What factors does FEMA need to consider in developing a process where agencies such as departments of economic development or natural resources were encouraged to engage in natural hazard risk reduction by applying for a competitive pre-disaster mitigation grant?

11. Should there be a cap on project costs in order to ensure a broader distribution of funds? How would a project cap amount be determined?

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.

Following the Exxon Valdez oil spill in March 1989, a Trustee Council of three state and three federal trustees, including the Secretary of the Interior, was formed. The Trustee Council prepared a restoration plan for the injured resources and services within the oil spill area. The restoration plan called for annual work plans identifying projects to accomplish restoration. An extension of the Restoration Plan, the Gulf Ecosystem Monitoring and Research Program, also requires implementation through annual work plans. Each year proposals for restoration, monitoring, and research projects are solicited from a variety of organizations, including the public.

By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (1994), it is ordered as follows:

1. Subject to valid existing rights, the following described public land is hereby withdrawn from settlement, sale, location, or entry under the public land laws, including the United States mining laws, 30 U.S.C. ch 2 (2000), but not from leasing under the mineral leasing laws, for the United States Air Force to protect the King Salmon Remediation Project (AA-82862):

2. The Secretarial Order dated October 15, 1941, as amended, which withdrew public land for Air Navigation Site No. 169 (A-053428), is hereby revoked insofar as it affects the land described in Paragraph 1 containing approximately 1.25 acres.

3. The withdrawal made by this order does not alter the applicability of those public land laws governing the use of the lands under lease, license, or permit, or governing the disposal of its mineral or vegetative resources other than under the mining laws.

4. This withdrawal will expire 20 years from the effective date of this order unless, as a review conducted before the expiration date pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f) (1994), the Secretary determines that the withdrawal shall be extended.

By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (1994), it is ordered as follows:

1. The Secretarial Order dated May 2, 1908, which withdrew National Forest System land for the Swamp Creek Administrative Site, is hereby revoked in its entirety as to the following described National Forest System land:

2. At 9 a.m. on September 5, 2002, the land will be opened to such forms of disposition as may by law be made of National Forest System lands, including location and entry under the United States mining laws, subject to valid existing rights, the provisions of existing withdrawals, other segregations of record, and the requirements of applicable law. Appropriation of any land described in this order under the general mining laws prior to the date and time of restoration is unauthorized. Any such attempted appropriation, including attempted adverse possession under 30 U.S.C. 38 (1994), shall vest no rights against the United States. Acts required to establish a location and to initiate a right of possession are governed by State law where not in conflict with Federal law. The Bureau of Land Management will not intervene in disputes between rival locators over possessory rights since Congress has provided for such determinations in local courts.

By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (1994), it is ordered as follows:

1. Subject to valid existing rights, the following described National Forest System lands are hereby withdrawn from location and entry under the United States mining laws (30 U.S.C. Ch. 2 (1994)), to protect the Holden Mine Reclamation Project:

2. The withdrawal made by this order does not alter the applicability of those public land laws governing the use of the lands under lease, license, or permit, or governing the disposal of their mineral or vegetative resources other than under the mining laws.

3. This withdrawal will expire 20 years from the effective date of this order unless, as a result of a review conducted before the expiration date pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f)(1994), the Secretary determines that the withdrawal shall be extended.

Title: 30 CFR 280, Prospecting for Minerals other than Oil, Gas, and Sulphur in the Outer Continental Shelf.

OMB Control Number: 1010-0072.

Abstract: The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq. and 43 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ), authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to prescribe rules and regulations to administer leasing of the OCS. Section 1340 states that “* * * any person authorized by the Secretary may conduct geological and geophysical explorations in the [O]uter Continental Shelf, which do not interfere with or endanger actual operations under any lease maintained or granted pursuant to this Act, and which are not unduly harmful to aquatic life in such area.” The section further requires that, permits to conduct such activities may only be issued if it is determined that: the applicant is qualified; the activities are not polluting, hazardous, or unsafe; they do not interfere with other users of the area; and do not disturb a site, structure, or object of historical or archaeological significance.

Section 1352 further requires that certain costs be reimbursed to the parties submitting required G&G information and data. Under the Act, permittees are to be reimbursed for the costs of reproducing any G&G data required to be submitted. Permittees are to be reimbursed also for the reasonable cost of processing geophysical information required to be submitted when processing is in a form or manner required by the Director and is not used in the normal conduct of the business of the permittee.

Regulations implementing these responsibilities are under 30 CFR part 280. On December 8, 1999, MMS published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (64 FR 68649) that proposed amendments to, and revised into plain language, the 30 CFR 280 regulations, as well as other amendments. The OMB approved the information collection burden for the proposed rulemaking. On July 17, 2002, MMS published final regulations (67 FR 46855) with an effective date of August 16, 2002. There were no changes from proposed to final that impacted the information collection burden that OMB had approved as part of the proposed rulemaking process. The current OMB approval expires in January 2003. The revised 30 CFR 280 final regulations, as published, are the subject of this notice and the subsequent submission to OMB for approval of the information collection burden.

Responses are mandatory or required to obtain or retain a benefit. No questions of a “sensitive” nature are asked. The MMS protects information considered proprietary according to 30 CFR 280.70 and applicable sections of 30 CFR parts 250 and 252, and the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR 2).

MMS OCS Regions collect information required under part 280 to ensure there is no environmental degradation, personal harm or unsafe operations and conditions, damage to historical or archaeological sites, or interference with other uses; to analyze and evaluate preliminary or planned drilling activities; to monitor progress and activities in the OCS; to acquire G&G data and information collected under a Federal permit offshore; and to determine eligibility for reimbursement from the Government for certain costs. Respondents are required to submit form MMS-134 to provide the information necessary to evaluate their qualifications. The information is necessary for MMS to determine if the applicants for permits or filers of notices meet the qualifications specified by the Act. The MMS uses the information collected to understand the G&G characteristics of hard mineral-bearing physiographic regions of the OCS. It aids MMS in obtaining a proper balance among the potentials for environmental damage, the discovery of hard minerals, and adverse impacts on affected coastal states. Information from permittees is necessary to determine the propriety and amount of reimbursement.

Frequency: On occasion, annual; and as required in the permit.

Estimated Number and Description of Respondents: Approximately 1 permittee, 1 notice filer, and 1 adjacent State.

Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden: The currently approved annual “hour” burden for this information collection is 88 hours. The following chart details the individual components and respective hour burden estimates of this ICR. In calculating the burdens, we assumed that respondents perform certain requirements in the normal course of their activities. We consider these to be usual and customary and took that into account in estimating the burden.

Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden: We have identified no non-hour cost burdens for this collection of information.

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: Before submitting an ICR to OMB, PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) 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.

Agencies must also estimate the “non-hour cost” burdens to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. Therefore, if you have costs to generate, maintain, and disclose this information, you should comment and provide your total capital and startup cost components or annual operation, maintenance, and purchase of service components. You should describe the methods you use to estimate major cost factors, including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, discount rate(s), and the period over which you incur costs. Capital and startup costs include, among other items, computers and software you purchase to prepare for collecting information, monitoring, and record storage facilities. You should not include estimates for equipment or services purchased: (i) before October 1, 1995; (ii) to comply with requirements not associated with the information collection; (iii) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the Government; or (iv) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.

We will summarize written responses to this notice and address them in our submission for OMB approval. As a result of your comments, we will make any necessary adjustments to the burden in our submission to OMB.

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 the 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.

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 the lower court 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 remanded the determination to the Commission “for proceedings not inconsistent with the Federal Circuit's decision in Appeal No. 01-1223.” It also directed the Commission to issue a remand determination within sixty days of the date of the order, i.e., by August 19, 2002. On July 8, 2002, the Commission published its schedule for the remand proceeding in the Federal Register . 67 FR 47147.

On July 10, 2002, the Commission filed a motion with the Court of International Trade requesting an extension of the deadline for filing the remand determination until September 27, 2002. On July 15, 2002, the Court granted the Commission's request. Accordingly, the Commission is amending the schedule of its remand proceeding to reflect the Court's order. Any deadlines not specified below remain unchanged from the Commission's original notice.

The Commission will vote on the remand determination at a public meeting to be held on Thursday, September 12, 2002. The meeting is tentatively scheduled for 2:00 p.m.

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 by 11 inches. The brief will be limited to thirty (30) pages, and must be filed no later than the close of business on August 23, 2002.

Each party who is an interested party may also a submit a rebuttal brief to the Commission. The brief must be concise and limited to rebutting or commenting on the arguments made or facts presented by other parties in their initial brief. Any material in the comments not addressing these issues will be stricken from the record. The brief must be double-spaced, single-sided, and on stationary measuring 8 1/2 by 11 inches. The rebuttal brief will be limited to ten (10) pages, and must be filed no later than the close of business on August 30, 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 sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. In accordance with sections 3201.16(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.

ILAB announces the availability of funds to be granted by cooperative agreement(s) to one or more qualifying organization to achieve the following program objectives: (1) Enhance the Chinese government's capacity to develop laws and regulations to implement internationally recognized workers rights; (2) promote greater awareness of labor law among Chinese workers and employers; (3) improve industrial relations and develop a national system to educate government officials, employers, workers and academics on worker rights, collective bargaining, and labor dispute prevention and resolution; and (4) enhance legal aid services to workers and migrant laborers, providing services through government and non-governmental organizations. The cooperative agreement(s) will be carried out through project(s) with China's national government in Beijing and through pilot projects in one or more of the following cities: Shenyang, Chengdu, Shanghai, and Guangzhou. Proposals of pilot projects in other cities will also be considered, provided that the cities are located within a reasonable distance from a U.S. Consulate General. In each city, the pilot project should focus on one or more of the above-mentioned objectives, depending on the specific needs of each city. In choosing cities for pilot project(s), applicants are encouraged to engage financial and human resources in the city or cities where the pilot project(s) is most likely to produce demonstrable results and success. It is neither necessary nor desirable to propose pilot projects in all these cities, unless the applicant can demonstrate that there are adequate financial and human resources to ensure project success. In addition, any successful pilot project should address the specific challenges in each locality but should also be mindful of the needs of national policymakers in China. Each pilot project should be relevant to the local labor conditions and problems and should supplement the overall program objectives. Finally, the designs of these pilot projects should reflect the understanding of and appropriate strategy to deal with China's current central-local relations, i.e., proposals should be sensitive to the needs and conditions of municipal and provincial governments while also respecting national laws, procedures and policies.

Applicants are advised that USDOL is also currently soliciting grant applications under a separate SGA, SGA 02-17, to implement a program to improve mine safety in China.

The cooperative agreement(s) is to be actively managed by ILAB to assure the achievement of the stated objectives. Applicants are encouraged to be creative in proposing an innovative and cost-effective program that will have a demonstrable impact on achieving the overall objectives. Applicants are strongly encouraged to form partnerships with other national, international, or Chinese organizations to submit a joint proposal.

Limitation: Technical assistance under the proposed program may not be provided to the All-China Federation of Trade Unions. For additional information, see 22 U.S.C. 6981 (b)(3).

In China, several government agencies are responsible for administrating labor law at the national, provincial and municipal levels. At the national level, the Ministry of Labor and Social Security (MOLSS) is the principal policy-making institution.

The enforcement of national labor law and regulations is carried out by provincial and municipal bureaus of labor and social security, which are under the jurisdiction of the municipal or provincial government; they receive policy and technical guidance from MOLSS. Provincial and municipal governments also establish local regulations and policies for the implementation of national laws and policies.

Over the past decade, China has taken steps toward establishing laws and regulations and creating institutions in the labor area. 1 However, the enforcement of these laws and regulations remains problematic at both the national level as well as the local level. China's 1994 Labor Law establishes fundamental legal principles in the following nine areas:

• Promotion of employment

• Labor contracts and collective contracts

• Working hours, rest, and leave

• Wages

• Labor safety and sanitation

• Special protection for female staff and workers and juvenile workers

• Professional training

• Social insurance and welfare treatment

• Labor disputes

In each of these areas, the law provides the basic legal framework and guidelines but does not provide sufficient detail to implement these basic principles. The MOLSS formulates regulations and directions in each of the areas. Without adequate regulations, the government cannot protect the rights of workers as provided by the 1994 Labor Law. Enforcement is a major challenge in small and medium enterprises where violations (most often non-payment of wages and overtime and unsafe working conditions) reportedly occur most frequently.

Moreover, inspectors are not well trained as a result of the government's limited budget for training and the lack of modern training methods and materials. Many of the available training resources were developed in the 1960s and the training system is in dire need of modernization. Finally, traditional labor inspection techniques were developed for use in state-owned-enterprises (SOEs) under China's planned economy. China now needs a modern and capable inspection staff that can work to promote and enforce the law with privately owned enterprises, foreign invested enterprises, small to medium-sized SOEs, and township and village enterprises.

As China continues the transition toward a market-oriented economy, fear of unemployment often inhibits workers from exercising their rights at work. China's economic reforms have displaced about 150 million rural workers who seek employment in urban areas. Competition for jobs often leads workers to accept jobs that do not pay the legal minimum wage, over-time wages, holiday pay, maternity leave, or provide a safe and healthy working environment. It also leads to unscrupulous management practices and abuse by employers.

Most of the labor-intensive, low paying jobs in urban areas are filled by migrant workers, often young women, who have little education or employment experience. These workers have the greatest need to learn about their rights and responsibilities granted by national labor law.

Workers' lack of awareness and understanding of China's labor laws and regulations often prevents them from exercising their rights. The government and a very small number of NGOs are making some effort to educate workers about labor law. For example, several cities, including Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen, initiated ad hoc workshops for job-seekers and migrant laborers to explain to them rules and regulations regarding work permits, wages and overtime payments, and other rights and obligations. A few NGOs in Guangzhou also provide information to migrant workers who seek guidance on employment laws regarding workplace disputes. However, these efforts cover only a small portion of the workforce and the services provided tend to be sporadic.

Industrial relations in China are changing profoundly, but the legal and regulatory framework for industrial relations has not kept pace with these changes. There is no effective national structure for the promotion and education of negotiations among government, employers and workers.

An increasing number of workers are taking disputes to formal arbitration mechanisms. These mechanisms are not fully developed and are perceived as not always being staffed with well-trained neutral arbitrators. Chinese officials and analysts have spoken publicly about the need to adopt a new style of labor relations. Lawyers and workers, in small but potentially significant numbers, have begun to utilize the courts to adjudicate disputes and protect the rights of workers following the arbitration process. 2

China currently has a small but growing corps of young lawyers, but few have expertise on labor issues. China has seen a sharp increase in labor disputes in recent years. According to official MOLSS statistics, arbitration committees nationwide handled over 135,000 labor disputes in 2000, an increase of 12.5 percent over the previous year. 3 Given China's evolving industrial relations, the need for legal and managerial professionals in the labor area is growing steadily.

The international community is lending technical assistance to China to address industrial relations issues. The International Labor Organization (ILO) is implementing a technical assistance project to improve human resource management and labor management relations in three cities in China. 4 The ILO project seeks to address three topics: (1) the development of high quality human resource practices; (2) the promotion of sound labor-management relations; and (3) the upgrading of working conditions and productivity in small and medium enterprises. Other international donors, such as the Ford Foundation and the government of the Netherlands, are supporting a number of small pilot projects that focus on legal aid to workers in Guangdong, Shanghai, and Beijing. 5

Women and migrants are China's most vulnerable workers. 6 Many workers do not seek effective protection from labor abuse because they are not aware of their rights and obligations under the law. While in recent years the Chinese government has enhanced its efforts to provide improved benefits and protections for workers, workers are frequently ignorant of these changes.

Local governments provide some legal assistance in all areas of law (criminal, civil and labor) to eligible citizens, including workers, through legal aid centers, but such assistance is extremely limited in both the number of citizens it serves and the quality of service provided. The legal aid centers are typically run by the local bureaus of justice, and are often under-staffed and under-budgeted. For example, in a district in Shanghai, where the legal aid services are supposedly the best in the country, the legal aid center is staffed by two lawyers who offer consulting services to qualified citizens on a walk-in basis and four additional law professionals who staff legal telephone hotlines. According to city officials, the center was visited by nearly 7,000 persons in the past year and received over 11,000 telephone inquiries. Such high levels of demand for such a small staff put the quality of service at risk, and limit the number of persons who can be assisted.

Some NGOs are beginning to provide legal aid services as a part of their overall mission. A handful of NGOs in Guangzhou and Shenzhen provide legal aid services to migrant workers, particularly to women. However, such NGOs are extremely limited in number and most lack the human and financial resources to expand their services beyond the several dozen cases they work on each year.

For any proposal to be considered responsive to this solicitation, it must contain proposed projects that cover all of the following four aspects, with each corresponding to issues identified in section A.

Applicants should seek to propose project(s) that (1) assist the government in developing laws and regulations, emphasizing employment promotion, labor contracts and labor inspection, to protect workers' rights as provided in China's 1994 Labor Law, taking into consideration ILO international labor standards; (2) develop a national system for the training of government officials concerned with implementation and enforcement of national labor laws and regulations; (3) provide the government with technical expertise and other resources for the training of officials at all levels, and; (4) develop training materials and techniques and provide training for labor inspectors to enhance their abilities and effectiveness. Applicants are encouraged to design pilot projects in localities and to engage local and central government agencies, as well as national universities, where appropriate.

All applications should include a means to develop an educational infrastructure on labor law to educate workers and employers about their legal rights, protections and responsibilities under national labor laws and regulations. Particular attention should be directed to reaching socially and economically disadvantaged groups, such as women and migrant workers; and privately owned enterprises. Applicants are encouraged to develop innovative forms of cooperative relationships with national organizations, including non-governmental organizations.

Applicants should include a project to (1) promote innovative forms of labor-management cooperation in the workplace; (2) develop practical and effective ways to improve the existing labor dispute prevention and resolution system; and (3) develop a national, sustainable system for the diffusion of knowledge and best international practices in the areas of worker rights, collective bargaining, and dispute prevention and resolution among key government officials, employers, workers, and academics.

All applicants should include a project to (1) work with appropriate organizations to provide legal services in the labor area to workers; (2) provide training both in the area of legal knowledge as well as effective methods of providing legal service to workers, especially migrant and women workers; (3) develop sustainable institutional capacities in China for the continuation of legal services to workers beyond the program period; and (4) develop a labor and social security legal information consultation system to provide a network platform for western provinces and finally establish a national network to provide legal consultation services in the labor area. Applicants are encouraged to form partnerships with NGOs, including universities and research institutes, which are already providing legal aid to workers. Applicants are strongly encouraged to form new partnerships in China for the same purpose.

ILAB is authorized to award and administer this program by the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-116, 115 Stat. 2177 (2002).

Any commercial, international, or non-profit organization, which may include faith-based organizations, capable of successfully implementing a labor rule of law program in China, and successfully working with MOLSS, local labor bureaus, local work safety bureaus, courts, NGOs, Chinese legal professionals, Chinese universities and other appropriate agencies or organizations in China to meet the stated program objectives is eligible to apply for this cooperative agreement. An applicant may, and indeed is encouraged, to collaborate with other organizations in submitting a joint proposal, although in such a case a lead organization must be identified. The capability of an applicant and collaborating organizations to perform necessary aspects of this solicitation will be determined under Section V. B Rating Criteria and Selection.

Please note that eligible cooperative agreement applicants must not be classified under the Internal Revenue Code as a Section 501(c)(4) entity. See 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(4). According to the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, as amended, 2 U.S.C. 1611, an organization, as described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, that engages in lobbying activities will not be eligible for the receipt of federal funds constituting an award, grant, or loan.

One (1) ink-signed original, complete application plus two (2) copies must be submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor, Procurement Services Center, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-5416, Washington, DC 20210, not later than 4:45 p.m. EDST, September 4th, 2002.

The application must consist of two (2) separate parts. Part I of the application must contain the Standard Form (SF) 424, “Application for Federal Assistance” (Appendix A) (The entry on SF 424 for the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number (CFDA) is 17.700) and sections A-F of the Budget Information Form SF 424A (Appendix B). Part II must contain a technical proposal that demonstrates capabilities in accordance with the Statement of Work (Section IV.A) and the selection criteria (Section V.B).

To be considered responsive to this solicitation, the application must consist of the above-mentioned separate sections not to exceed 40 single-sided (8 1/2 ″ x 11″), double-spaced, 10 to 12 pitch typed pages. Any applications that do not conform to these standards may be deemed non-responsive to this solicitation and may not be evaluated. Standard forms and attachments are not included in the page limit. The application must include a table of contents and an abstract summarizing the application in not more than two (2) pages. These pages are also not included in the page limits.

Upon completion of negotiations, the individual signing the SF 424 on behalf of the applicant must be authorized to bind the applicant.

The grant application package must be received at the designated place by the date and time specified or it will not be considered. Any application received at the Procurement Services Center after 4:45 p.m. EDST, September 4, 2002, will not be considered unless it is received before the award is made and:

1. it was sent by registered or certified mail not later than the fifth calendar day before September 4, 2002;

2. it is determined by the Government that the late receipt was due solely to mishandling by the Government after receipt at the U.S. Department of Labor at the address indicated; or

3. it was sent by U.S. Postal Service Express Mail Next Day Service-Post Office to Addressee, not later than 5 p.m. at the place of mailing two (2) working days, excluding weekends and Federal holidays, prior to September 4, 2002.

The only acceptable evidence to establish the date of mailing of a late application sent by registered or certified mail is the U.S. Postal Service postmark on the envelope or wrapper and on the original receipt from the U.S. Postal Service. If the postmark is not legible, an application received after the above closing time and date shall be processed as if mailed late. “Postmark” means a printed, stamped or otherwise placed impression (not a postage meter machine impression) that is readily identifiable without further action as having been applied and affixed by an employee of the U.S. Postal Service on the date of mailing. Therefore applicants should request that the postal clerk place a legible hand cancellation “bull's eye” postmark on both the receipt and the envelope or wrapper.

The only acceptable evidence to establish the date of mailing of a late application sent by U.S. Postal Service Express Mail Next Day Service-Post Office to Addressee is the date entered by the Post Office receiving clerk on the “Express Mail Next Day Service-Post Office to Addressee” label and the postmark on the envelope or wrapper and on the original receipt from the U.S. Postal Service. “Postmark” has the same meaning as defined above. Therefore, applicants should request that the postal clerk place a legible hand cancellation “bull's-eye” postmark on both the receipt and the envelope or wrapper.

The only acceptable evidence to establish the time of receipt at the U.S. Department of Labor is the date/time stamp of the Procurement Services Center on the application wrapper or other documentary evidence or receipt maintained by that office.

Applications sent by e-mail, telegram, or facsimile (FAX) will not be accepted. Applications sent by other delivery services, such as Federal Express, UPS, etc., will be accepted, however, the applicant bears the responsibility for timely submission. Because of delay in the receipt of mail in the Washington, DC area, it is recommended that you confirm receipt of your application by contacting Lisa Harvey, U.S. Department of Labor, Procurement Services Center, telephone (202) 693-4570 (this is not a toll-free number), prior to the closing deadline. All inquires should reference SGA 02-18.

Approximately US$4.5 million is budgeted to fund this program. Although USDOL reserves the right to award more than one cooperative agreement, joint applications, consisting of more than one organization may apply to implement the program. Applicants will submit one application for the implementation of all projects (including pilot projects in localities) and are encouraged to utilize local organizations to implement portions of the program in order to institutionalize and sustain project improvements and reduce costs.

The award of any sub-contract to a local organization will be subject to USDOL approval. See Section IV.D Administrative Requirements.

The duration of the program is four (4) years. The start date of project activities will be negotiated upon the awarding of the cooperative agreements.

In developing their proposals, applicants should develop a strategy for implementation of the project objectives as stated in the section SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. The strategy should take into account the implementing environment in China as well as that of the specific cities selected for pilot projects. For the labor law administration component of the proposal ( see Section I.B.(i)), the proposed strategy should clearly identify areas in which laws and regulations are to be developed under this program. The strategy should also identify the major components, methods and approaches of the proposed “national system” for the training of Chinese officials in the administration of labor law. Further, the strategy should identify cities for pilot projects and should clearly demonstrate how the pilot projects serve to achieve the overall program objectives. Finally, the strategy should clearly identify key organizations or universities with which the applicant proposes to form partnerships. For the labor law awareness component ( see Section I.B.(ii)), the strategy should clearly identify the organization(s) or other venues through which workers and employers can be reached. For the industrial relations component ( see Section I.B.(iii)), the strategy should identify partners and effective ways of providing education and training at the national level to prevent and resolve labor disputes. For the legal aid component ( see section I.B.(iv)), the strategy should include both the identification of organizations to provide such services as well as plans to expand and sustain such services beyond the program period.

The strategy should also demonstrate how the applicant proposes to build upon the success of existing or past projects supported by other international donors, and coordinate activities among them at the local and national level. Further, the applicant should draft a strategy demonstrating how it will meet the project objectives by the end of the grant period, and how sustainability will be an integral element of the overall program.

The applicant must present a strategy to demonstrate that at least

• 80% of the target groups (targeted for training or education of labor law) exhibit an increased awareness of workers' and employers' rights as provided under national laws;

• 50% of the target groups (targeted for legal aid assistance) receive adequate legal assistance or counseling;

• 50% of targeted employers develop and implement workplace policies or programs aimed at improving employer-employee relations; and

• 80% of government inspectors of general labor law demonstrate greater skill in carrying out their functions.

The applicant should include a basis on which the target groups will be established (i.e., target industries, regions or disadvantaged groups), outline the information, education, and communication (IEC) materials that will be used as well as a strategy for translating education and capacity building efforts into concrete and demonstrable results. In addition, the applicant should develop sustainable innovative strategies for involving government and employers organizations, and nongovernmental organizations, as appropriate, in the development, implementation and enforcement of appropriate workplace policies at the national and enterprise levels aimed at ensuring workers' and employers' rights under the law.

The applicant awarded the cooperative agreement (“grantee”) will be required to work cooperatively with stakeholders in China, including but not limited to, MOLSS, local bureaus of labor and social security, local bureaus of work safety, provincial and city governments, NGOs, universities, research institutions, and other national or international organizations that work in similar areas. In addition, the grantee is expected to identify one or more key national or regional organizations that are capable of ensuring the sustainability of the program beyond the grant period.

Following the award of the cooperative agreement(s), unless otherwise indicated, the grantee must submit copies of all required reports to USDOL by the specified due dates. Other documents, such as project designs, are to be submitted by mutually agreed-upon deadlines.

Grantee(s) will travel to cities in China with USDOL officials on a project design mission trip, draft the design, and submit a project document in the format established by USDOL, to include a background/justification section, project strategy (objectives, outputs, activities, indicators), project implementation timetable, project management organizational chart, project budget, logical framework and performance monitoring plan to systematically monitor project results. The document will also include sections, which cover coordination strategies, project management, and sustainability of project improvements involving government, employers' and workers' organizations as well as other nongovernmental organizations as appropriate. The project design will be drawn, in part, from the proposal written in response to this solicitation.

The grantee(s) must furnish a typed technical report to USDOL on a quarterly basis, no later than 15 days from the last date of each quarter, i.e. , 31 March, 30 June, 30 September and 31 December of each year. The 30 June (2nd quarter) and 31 December (4th quarter) reports are abbreviated and need only indicate whether the work plan was fully implemented and if not, explain why not and attach the amended work plan. The grantee(s) must also furnish a separate financial report (SF 272) to USDOL on the same quarterly basis. The format for the technical progress report will be the standard format developed by USDOL and must contain the following information:

a. For each project objective, an accurate account of activities carried out under that objective during the reporting period as it relates to the work plan;

b. Major trends in the project that note particular success with a particular activity or trends that indicate a need to readjust or expand the work plan;

c. An account of problems, proposed solutions, actions taken or required regarding implementation of the project;

d. New proposals for activities, staffing, funding, etc.;

e. Lessons learned in project implementation;

f. Future actions planned in support of each project objective;

g. An accounting of staff and any sub-contractor hours expended; and

h. Aggregate amount of costs incurred during the reporting period, including estimated expenditures vs. budget.

An annual work plan for each project will be submitted within 45 days after the approval of the project design by USDOL. Subsequent annual work plans, when revised, will be delivered to reflect modifications in implementation, no later than one year following submission of the previous work plan; or to reflect revisions based on recommendations made during mid-term evaluations, no later than 30 days following the mid-term evaluation.

A performance monitoring plan will be developed in collaboration with USDOL, including beginning and ending dates for projects, planned and actual dates for mid-term and final project evaluations, and will be included as part of the submission of the project document for USDOL approval. The plan will include performance indicators and instruments to collect and report on performance data on a semi-annual basis.

The Grant Officer's Technical Representative (GOTR) will determine whether a mid-term evaluation will be conducted by an internal or external evaluation team. The final evaluation will be external in nature. In all cases, evaluations will be objective and carried out by independent evaluators. The grantee(s) must respond to any comments and recommendations resulting from the review of the mid-term report and will submit a work plan for implementing the recommendations of the mid-term report within 15 days following formal submission of the report to the grantee(s) by USDOL. Applicants need to allocate funds for these activities in the proposed budget.

The grantee(s) must submit to USDOL all media-related and educational materials developed by it or its sub-contractor under this cooperative agreement(s), including relevant press releases, for use in this project(s) before they are reproduced, published, or used. The grantee(s) must consult with USDOL to ensure that materials are compatible with USDOL materials relating to the program, i.e. , public relations material such as video and web site. USDOL considers brochures, pamphlets, videotapes, slide-tape shows, curricula, and any other training materials used in the program, educational materials. USDOL will review materials for technical accuracy. USDOL will also review training curricula and purchased training materials for accuracy before they are used. The grantee(s) must obtain prior approval from the Grant Officer for all materials developed or purchased under this cooperative agreement. All materials produced by grantee(s) must be provided to USDOL in a digital format for possible publication on the Internet by USDOL.

In all circumstances, the following must be displayed on printed materials:

When issuing statements, press releases, requests for proposals, bid solicitations, and other documents describing projects or programs funded in whole or in part with Federal money, all grantees receiving Federal funds, including State and local governments and recipients of research grants, must clearly state:

a. The percentage of the total costs of the program or project that will be financed with Federal money;

b. The dollar amount of Federal funds for the project or program; and

c. The percentage and dollar amount of the total costs of the project or program that will be financed by non-governmental sources.

In consultation with USDOL, USDOL's role will be acknowledged in one of the following ways:

a. The USDOL logo may be applied to USDOL-funded material prepared for world-wide distribution, including posters, videos, pamphlets, research documents, national survey results, impact evaluations, best practice reports, and other publications of global interest. The grantee(s) will consult with USDOL on whether the logo should be used on any such items prior to final draft or final preparation for distribution. In no event shall the USDOL logo be placed on any item until USDOL has given the grantee written permission to use the logo, after obtaining appropriate internal USDOL approval for use of the logo on the item.

b. If the USDOL determines the logo is not appropriate and does not give written permission, the following notice must appear on the document:

Grantee organizations will be subject to applicable Federal laws (including provisions of appropriations law) and the applicable Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars. Determinations of allowable costs will be made in accordance with the applicable Federal cost principles, i.e., Non-Profit Organizations—OMB Circular A-122. The cooperative agreement(s) awarded under this SGA will be subject to the following administrative standards and provisions, if applicable:

29 CFR part 36 —Federal Standards for Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance.

29 CFR part 93 —New Restrictions on Lobbying.

29 CFR part 95 —Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and Other Non-Profit Organizations, and with Commercial Organizations, Foreign Governments, Organizations Under the Jurisdiction of Foreign Governments and International Organizations.

29 CFR part 96 —Federal Standards for Audit of Federally Funded Grants, Contracts and Agreements.

29 CFR part 98 —Federal Standards for Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) and Government-wide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Grants).

29 CFR part 99 —Federal Standards for Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations.

Sub-contracts must be awarded in accordance with 29 CFR 95.40-48. In compliance with Executive Orders 12876 as amended, 13230, 12928, and 13021 as amended, the grantee(s) is strongly encouraged to provide subcontracting opportunities to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions and Tribal Colleges and Universities.

The applicant must list the individual(s) who has been designated as having primary responsibility for the conduct and completion of all work in project(s) it proposes. The grantee(s) agrees to inform the GOTR whenever it appears impossible for one or more of these individual(s) to continue work on the project as planned. The grantee(s) may nominate substitute personnel for approval of the GOTR; however, the grantee(s) must obtain prior approval from the Grant Officer for all key personnel. If the Grant Officer determines not to approve the personnel change, he/she reserves the right to terminate the cooperative agreement.

Cooperative agreement funds may not be encumbered/obligated by the grantee(s) before or after the cooperative agreement period of performance. Encumbrances/obligations outstanding as of the end of the cooperative agreement period may be liquidated (paid out) after the end of the cooperative agreement period. Such encumbrances/obligations may involve only commitments for which a need existed during the cooperative agreement period and which are supported by approved contracts, purchase orders, requisitions, invoices, bills, or other evidence of liability consistent with the grantee(s)'s purchasing procedures and incurred within the cooperative agreement period. All encumbrances/obligations incurred during the cooperative agreement period must be liquidated within 90 days after the end of the cooperative agreement period, if practicable.

USDOL, through its authorized representatives, has the right, at all reasonable times, to make site visits to review project accomplishments and management control systems and to provide such technical assistance as may be required. If USDOL makes any site visit on the premises of the grantee(s) or a sub-contractor(s) under this cooperative agreement(s), the grantee(s) must provide and must require its sub-contractors to provide all reasonable facilities and assistance for the safety and convenience of the Government representatives in the performance of their duties. All site visits and evaluations must be performed in such a manner as will not unduly delay the work.

USDOL will screen all applications to determine whether all required elements are present and clearly identifiable. A technical panel will objectively rate each complete application against the criteria described in this announcement. The panel recommendations to the Grant Officer are advisory in nature. The Grant Officer may elect to select one or more grantee/s on the basis of the initial proposal submission; or, the Grant Officer may establish a competitive or technically acceptable range for the purpose of selecting qualified applicants. If deemed appropriate, following the Grant Officer's call for the preparation and receipt of final revisions of proposals, the evaluation process described above will be repeated to consider such revisions. The Grant Officer will make a final selection determination based on what is most advantageous to the Government, considering factors such as panel findings, geographic presence of the applicants, the best value to the Government, cost, and other factors. The Grant Officer's determination for award under this SGA 02-18 is final.

Notice: Selection of an organization as a cooperative agreement recipient does not constitute approval of the cooperative agreement application as submitted. Before the actual cooperative agreement is awarded, the Grant Officer may enter into negotiations concerning such items as program components, funding levels, and administrative systems. If the negotiations do not result in an acceptable submission, the Grant Officer reserves the right to terminate the negotiation and decline to fund the application.

The technical panel will review grant applicants against the criteria listed below on the basis of 100 points.

The criteria are presented in the order of emphasis that they will receive.

a. Overview. This section of the proposal must explain the strategy employed by the applicant to achieve the following results:

(1) At least 80% of the target group (targeted for training or education of labor law) exhibits an increased awareness of workers' and employers' rights as provided under the laws;

(2) At least 50% of the target group (targeted for legal aid assistance) receive adequate legal assistance or counseling;

(3) At least 50% of targeted employers have developed and implemented workplace policies or programs aimed at improving employer-employee relations; and

(4) At least 80% of targeted government labor law inspectors acquire increased skills to carry out their functions.

The applicant must describe in detail the proposed approach to comply with each requirement in Section IV.A of this solicitation, including all tasks and methods to be utilized to implement the project. Also, the applicant must propose projects that would address issues discussed in Section I.(A) and (B).

b. Logical Framework. The strategy should include an outline of the objectives, activities and indicators envisioned for implementation of the program.

c. Implementation Plan. The applicant must submit an implementation plan for the entire program, preferably with a visual such as a Gantt chart. The implementation plan should outline the approach that will be used to implement the program. The plan should list the activities envisioned for the life of the program as well as scheduling of activities by objective, starting with the execution of the cooperative agreement and ending with the final report. In describing the implementation plan, the applicant must address the following points:

(1) Describe the use of existing or potential infrastructure and use of qualified personnel, including qualified nationals, to implement the projects in Beijing as well as in selected pilot project cities. The applicant also must include a project organizational chart, demonstrating management structure, key personnel positions and indicating proposed links with the relevant government ministries, local government agencies/bureaus, NGOs, universities and other significant local actors.

(2) Develop a list of activities and explain how each relates to the overall development objectives as stated in Section I.

(3) Explain how appropriate IEC materials and training curriculum will be developed.

(4) Explain the strategy for coordinating activities conducted at the central government level with those conducted at the local (provincial/city) level.

(5) Demonstrate how the program will strengthen national government's capacity and enhance policies to protect the rights of workers as prescribed by national law.

(6) Demonstrate how the grantee would systematically monitor and report on project performance to measure the achievement of the project objective(s).

(7) Demonstrate how the grantee would build national and local capacity to ensure that project efforts to enhance the implementation and enforcement of national labor laws would be sustained after completion of the project.

d. Management and Staff Loading Plan. The management plan must also include a management and staff loading plan. The management plan should include the following:

(1) If two organizations are applying for the award in collaboration, they must demonstrate an approach to ensure successful collaboration including clear delineation of respective roles and responsibilities. The applicants must also identify the lead organization and submit the collaboration agreement.

(2) A project organization chart and accompanying narrative which differentiates between elements of the applicant's staff and subcontractors or consultants who will be retained;

(3) A description of the functional relationship between elements of the project's organization; and

(4) The identity of the individual(s) responsible for project management and the lines of authority between this/these individual(s) and other elements of the project.

The staff loading plan must identify all key tasks and the person-days required to complete each task. Labor estimates for each task must be broken down by individuals assigned to the task, including sub-contractors and consultants. All key tasks must be charted to show time required to perform them by months or weeks.

The evaluation criteria in this category are as follows:

a. The applicant organization and collaborating organizations applying for the award must demonstrate experience of working on developmental projects in China or in countries with similar political, economic and social constraints.

b. The applicant must demonstrate prior experience of working directly with government ministries, local government organizations, employers, workers, NGOs and academic institutions, as well as with U.S. Missions, in the area of labor law.

c. The applicant must also demonstrate that it can negotiate and implement developmental projects in China and that it has the appropriate international experience and expertise to carry out program responsibilities in China.

d. The applicant must demonstrate that it has staff or is able to recruit staff that can communicate effectively with Chinese employers, workers, migrant workers, and Chinese officials. Preference will be given to applicant organizations with staff that have Chinese language skills.

e. The proposal must include information regarding previous grants, contracts or cooperative agreements relevant to this solicitation. This information must include:

(1) The organization for whom the work was done;

(2) A contact person in that organization with his/her current phone number;

(3) The dollar value of the grant, contract or cooperative agreement for the project(s);

(4) The time frame and administrative and programmatic effort involved in the project(s);

(5) A brief summary of the work performed; and

(6) A brief summary of accomplishments.

This information on previous grants and contracts shall be provided in appendices and will not count toward the 40-page maximum page requirement.

This section of the application must include sufficient information for judging the quality and the competence of key staff proposed to be assigned to the project(s) proposed to assure that they meet the required qualifications. Successful performance of the proposed work depends heavily on the qualifications of the individuals committed to the project. Accordingly, in its evaluation of each application, USDOL will place emphasis on the applicant's commitment of key personnel qualified for the work involved in accomplishing the assigned tasks. Information provided on the experience and educational background of personnel must indicate the following:

(a) The identity of key personnel assigned to the project. “Key personnel” are staff who are essential to the successful operation of the project and completion of the proposed work and, therefore, may not be replaced or have their hours reduced without the approval of the Grant Officer.

(b) The educational background, Chinese language skills, and experience of key personnel.

(c) The special capabilities of key personnel that demonstrate prior experience in organizing, managing and performing similar efforts.

(d) The current employment status of key personnel and availability for this project. The applicant must also indicate whether the proposed work will be performed by persons currently employed or is dependent upon planned recruitment or sub-contracting.

Note that management and professional technical staff members comprising the applicant's proposed team should be individuals who have prior experience with organizations working in similar efforts, and are fully qualified to perform work specified in the Statement of Work. Where sub-contractors or outside assistance is proposed, organizational control should be clearly delineated to ensure responsiveness to the needs of USDOL. Key personnel must sign letters of agreement to serve on the project, and indicate availability to commence work within three weeks of grant award.

The following information must be furnished:

(a) The applicant must designate a Program Director and other key personnel to oversee the program. The Program Director must have a minimum of three years of professional experience in a leadership role in implementation of complex labor programs in developing countries. He or she must demonstrate sufficient knowledge of and understanding of China's political and economic development, its government, and the complexity of China's current state-local relations. Chinese language (Mandarin) proficiency is highly desirable.

(b) The applicant should specify other key personnel proposed to carry out the requirements of this solicitation.

(c) An organization chart showing the applicant's proposed organizational structure for performing task requirements for the project(s) proposed, along with a description of the roles and responsibilities of all key personnel proposed for this project(s). The chart should also differentiate between elements of the applicant's staff and sub-contractors or consultants who will be retained.

(d) Identify all key tasks and the person-days required to complete each task. Labor estimates for each task must be broken down by individuals assigned to the task, including sub-contractors and consultants. All key tasks must be charted to show time required to perform them by months or weeks.

(e) A resume for each of the key personnel to be assigned to the program. At a minimum, each resume must include: The individual's current employment status and previous work experience, including position title, duties performed, dates in position, employing organizations and educational background, including Chinese language skills (if any). Duties must be clearly defined in terms of role performed, i.e., manager, team leader, consultant, etc. (Resumes must be included as attachments, which do not count toward the page limitation.)

(f) The special capabilities of staff that demonstrate prior experience in organization, managing and performing similar efforts.

(g) The current employment status of key personnel proposed for work under the cooperative agreement, i.e. , whether personnel are currently employed by the organization or whether their employment depends upon planned recruitment or sub-contracting.

The applicant must develop one proposed budget for the implementation of the entire program, including pilot projects in localities. This section of the application must explain the costs for performing all of the requirements presented in this solicitation and for producing all required reports and other deliverables presented in this solicitation; costs must include labor, training, material production and dissemination, equipment, travel and other related costs. The budget plan will be evaluated solely for the purpose of determining the efficient and effective allocation of funding for proposed program implementation. Preference may be given to applicants with low administrative costs. Administrative costs shall be reflected separately on the budget plan from programmatic costs.

The budget must comply with Federal cost principles (which can be found in the applicable OMB Circulars) and with ILAB budget requirements contained in the application instructions in Section III of this solicitation.

This stated commitment will be incorporated into the text of the cooperative agreement with the selected applicant(s).

ILAB announces the availability of funds to be granted by cooperative agreement to one or more qualifying organization to achieve the following program objective: Improve work safety by reducing accidents and injuries in Chinese mines. The cooperative agreement(s) will be carried out through project(s) with China's national government in Beijing and through pilot projects in one or more mining areas provided that the selected mines are located within a reasonable distance from a U.S. Consulate General. (U.S. Consulate Generals are located in Shanghai, Guangzhou, Chengdu, and Shenyang.) In each location, the pilot project should focus on the above-mentioned objective. In choosing the location for pilot project(s), applicants are encouraged to engage financial and human resources in areas where the pilot project(s) is most likely to produce demonstrable results and success. It is neither necessary nor desirable to propose pilot projects in all mining areas in China, unless the applicant can demonstrate that there are adequate financial and human resources to ensure project success. In addition, any successful pilot project should address the specific challenges in each locality but should also be mindful of the needs of national policymakers in China. Each pilot project should be relevant to the local labor conditions and problems and should supplement the overall program objective. Finally, the designs of these pilot projects should reflect the understanding of and appropriate strategy to deal with China's current central-local relations, i.e. , proposals should be sensitive to the needs and conditions of municipal and provincial governments while also respecting national laws, procedures and policies.

Applicants are advised that ILAB is also currently soliciting grant applications under a separate SGA, SGA 02-18, to implement a program to enhance China's labor rule of law. The cooperative agreement(s) is to be actively managed by ILAB to assure the achievement of the stated objectives. Applicants are encouraged to be creative in proposing an innovative and cost-effective program that will have a demonstrable impact on achieving the overall objectives. Applicants are strongly encouraged to form partnerships with other national, international, or Chinese organizations to submit a joint proposal.

Limitation: Technical assistance under the proposed program may not be provided to the All-China Federation of Trade Unions. See 22 U.S.C. 6981(b)(3).

In China, labor issues, including mine safety, are dealt with by several government agencies at the national, provincial, and municipal levels. At the national level, the State Administration for Work Safety (SAWS) is responsible for the development of policy and legislation on work safety and inspections.

The enforcement of mine safety law is carried out at the provincial and municipal level by the local bureaus of coal mine safety supervision, which report to the provincial government but take policy guidance from the SAWS. The local bureaus of work safety are under the jurisdictions of the provincial/municipal commissions on economics and trade but must uphold national laws and policies set by SAWS. Provincial and municipal governments also establish local regulations and policies for the implementation of national laws and policies.

China has one of the world's largest mining industries both in terms of number of workers and production. Chinese mines also have one of the highest fatality rates in the world. Coal mining is the most dangerous sector for workers in China and resulted in approximately 6,000 deaths in 2001. 1 Some sources claim an even higher fatality rate in the mining industry: Disaster Relief, an organization affiliated with the American Red Cross, reports that “many disasters take place in illegally run mines * * * leaving some to believe that annual mining deaths in China exceed the 10,000 mark.”  2 The high rate and severity of coal mining accidents has highlighted serious labor law enforcement problems. Despite the recent government efforts to close tens of thousands of small coal mines with the worst safety problems, the enforcement of mine safety laws at the local level remains weak. The central government announced in 2001 tougher mine inspection and closure standards. 3

China faces many challenges in improving mine safety. Recent discussions with officials of SAWS provide some insights into the actions required to improve conditions in the mines. First, China needs to improve its capacity to train mine rescue personnel. Chinese officials emphasized the need to establish a national safety training center for coal mines for this purpose. Second, the government needs to enhance its capacity to enforce mine safety laws and regulations at the local level. Finally, the government needs to educate workers and mine operators about workplace safety and safety management.

To be considered responsive to this solicitation, an applicant should propose projects that (1) work with the relevant government bodies to develop mine rescue techniques and institutionalize, with the appropriate government agencies, the systematic training of government and mine personnel in such techniques; (2) strengthen the capacity of government personnel to promote workplace safety and health in Chinese mines; (3) train miners and mine operators in mine safety methods and practices; (4) improve the enforcement of work safety laws and regulations, including the sharing of education and training material; and, (5) develop pilot projects with selected coal mines or other related enterprises in technical aspects of safety supervision.

ILAB is authorized to award and administer this program by the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002, Pub.L. No. 107-116, 115 Stat. 2177 (2002).

Any commercial, international, or non-profit organization capable of successfully implementing a mine safety program in China, and successfully working with SAWS, local mine safety bureaus, Chinese mines, NGOs, and other appropriate agencies or organizations in China to meet the stated program objective is eligible to apply for this cooperative agreement(s). Joint applications, consisting of more than one organization are also eligible, and indeed are encouraged, although in such a case a lead organization must be identified. The capability of an applicant and collaborating organizations to perform necessary aspects of this solicitation will be determined under Section V.B Rating Criteria and Selection.

Please note that eligible cooperative agreement applicants must not be classified under the Internal Revenue Code as a Section 501(c)(4) entity. See 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(4). According to the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 as amended, 2 U.S.C. 1611, an organization, as described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, that engages in lobbying activities will not be eligible for the receipt of federal funds constituting an award, grant, or loan.

One (1) ink-signed original, complete application plus two (2) copies must be submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor, Procurement Services Center, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-5416, Washington, DC 20210, not later than 4:45 p.m. ESDT, September 4, 2002.

The application must consist of two (2) separate parts. Part I of the application must contain the Standard Form (SF) 424, “Application for Federal Assistance” (Appendix A) (The entry on SF 424 for the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number (CFDA) is 17.700) and sections A-F of the Budget Information Form SF 424A (Appendix B). Part II must contain a technical proposal that demonstrates capabilities in accordance with the Statement of Work (Section IV.A) and the selection criteria (Section V.B).

To be considered responsive to this solicitation, the application must consist of the above-mentioned separate sections not to exceed 30 single-sided (8 1/2 ″ x 11″), double-spaced, 10 to 12 pitch typed pages. Any applications that do not conform to these standards may be deemed non-responsive to this solicitation and may not be evaluated. Standard forms and attachments are not included in the page limit. The application must include a table of contents and an abstract summarizing the application in not more than two (2) pages. These pages are also not included in the page limits.

Upon completion of negotiations, the individual signing the SF 424 on behalf of the applicant must be authorized to bind the applicant.

The grant application package must be received at the designated place by the date and time specified or it will not be considered. Any application received at the Procurement Services Center after 4:45 p.m. EDST September 4, 2002, will not be considered unless it is received before the award is made and:

1. It was sent by registered or certified mail not later than the fifth calendar day before September 4, 2002;

2. It is determined by the Government that the late receipt was due solely to mishandling by the Government after receipt at the U.S. Department of Labor at the address indicated; or

3. It was sent by U.S. Postal Service Express Mail Next Day Service-Post Office to Addressee, not later than 5 p.m. at the place of mailing two (2) working days, excluding weekends and Federal holidays, prior to September 4, 2002.

The only acceptable evidence to establish the date of mailing of a late application sent by registered or certified mail is the U.S. Postal Service postmark on the envelope or wrapper and on the original receipt from the U.S. Postal Service. If the postmark is not legible, an application received after the above closing time and date shall be processed as if mailed late. “Postmark” means a printed, stamped or otherwise placed impression (not a postage meter machine impression) that is readily identifiable without further action as having been applied and affixed by an employee of the U.S. Postal Service on the date of mailing. Therefore applicants should request that the postal clerk place a legible hand cancellation “bull's eye” postmark on both the receipt and the envelope or wrapper.

The only acceptable evidence to establish the date of mailing of a late application sent by U.S. Postal Service Express Mail Next Day Service-Post Office to Addressee is the date entered by the Post Office receiving clerk on the “Express Mail Next Day Service-Post Office to Addressee” label and the postmark on the envelope or wrapper and on the original receipt from the U.S. Postal Service. “Postmark” has the same meaning as defined above. Therefore, applicants should request that the postal clerk place a legible hand cancellation “bull's-eye” postmark on both the receipt and the envelope or wrapper.

The only acceptable evidence to establish the time of receipt at the U.S. Department of Labor is the date/time stamp of the Procurement Services Center on the application wrapper or other documentary evidence or receipt maintained by that office.

Applications sent by e-mail, telegram, or facsimile (FAX) will not be accepted. Applications sent by other delivery services, such as Federal Express, UPS, etc., will be accepted, however, the applicant bears the responsibility for timely submission. Because of delay in the receipt of mail in the Washington, DC area, it is recommended that you confirm receipt of your application by contacting Lisa Harvey, U.S. Department of Labor, Procurement Services Center, telephone (202) 693-4570 (this is not a toll-free number), prior to the closing deadline. All inquires should reference SGA 02-xx.

Approximately US $2.5 million is budgeted to fund this program.

Although USDOL reserves the right to award more than one cooperative agreement, joint applicants consisting of more than one organization may apply to implement the program. Applicants will submit one application for the implementation of all projects (including pilot projects in localities) and are encouraged to utilize local organizations to implement portions of the program in order to institutionalize and sustain project improvements and reduce costs. The award of any sub-contract will be subject to USDOL approval. See Section IV.D Administrative Requirements.

The duration of the program is four (4) years. The start date of project activities will be negotiated upon the awarding of the cooperative agreement(s).

In developing their proposals, applicants should develop a strategy for implementation of the project objective as stated in the section SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . The strategy should take into account the implementing environment in China as well as that of the specific cities selected for pilot projects. The strategy should identify key mines and personnel for the program to successfully reduce mine accidents and improve the government's inspection and rescue functions ( see Section I.B.).

The strategy should demonstrate how the applicant proposes to build upon the success of existing or past projects supported by other international donors, and coordinate activities among them at the local and national level. Further, the applicant should draft a strategy demonstrating how it will meet the project objectives by the end of the grant period, and how sustainability will be an integral element of the overall program.

The applicant must present a strategy to demonstrate that at least

• 50% of targeted mines improve work safety conditions for workers; and

• 80% of government inspectors of mine safety law demonstrate greater skill in carrying out their functions.

The applicant should include a basis on which the target groups will be established ( i.e., target mines or regions), outline the information, education, and communication (IEC) materials that will be used as well as a strategy for translating education and capacity building efforts into concrete and demonstrable results. In addition, the applicant should develop sustainable innovative strategies for involving government and employers organizations, and nongovernmental organizations, as appropriate, in the development, implementation and enforcement of appropriate workplace policies at the national and enterprise levels aimed at ensuring workers' and employers' rights under the law. The applicant awarded the cooperative agreement (“grantee”) will be required to work cooperatively with stakeholders in China, including but not limited to, MOLSS, SAWS, local bureaus of work safety, provincial and city governments, local mine bureaus, mines, NGOs, and other national or international organizations that work in similar areas. In addition, the grantee is expected to identify one or more key national or regional organizations that are capable of ensuring the sustainability of the program beyond the grant period.

Following the award of the cooperative agreement(s), unless otherwise indicated, the grantee must submit copies of all required reports to USDOL by the specified due dates. Other documents, such as project designs, are to be submitted by mutually agreed-upon deadlines.

The grantee(s) will travel to cities in China with USDOL officials on a project design mission trip, draft the design, and submit a project document in the format established by USDOL, to include a background/justification section, project strategy (objectives, outputs, activities, indicators), project implementation timetable, project management organizational chart, project budget, logical framework and performance monitoring plan to systematically monitor project results. The document will also include sections, which cover coordination strategies, project management, and sustainability of project improvements involving government, employers' and workers' organizations as well as other nongovernmental organizations as appropriate. The project design will be drawn, in part, from the proposal written in response to this solicitation.

The grantee(s) must furnish a typed technical report to USDOL on a quarterly basis, no later than 15 days from the last date of each quarter, i.e., 31 March, 30 June, 30 September and 31 December of each year. The 30 June (2nd quarter) and 31 December (4th quarter) reports are abbreviated and need only indicate whether the work plan was fully implemented and if not, explain why not and attach the amended work plan. The grantee(s) must also furnish a separate financial report (SF 272) to USDOL on the same quarterly basis. The format for the technical progress report will be the standard format developed by USDOL and must contain the following information:

a. For each project objective, an accurate account of activities carried out under that objective during the reporting period as it relates to the work plan;

b. Major trends in the project that note particular success with a particular activity or trends that indicate a need to readjust or expand the work plan;

c. An account of problems, proposed solutions, actions taken or required regarding implementation of the project;

d. New proposals for activities, staffing, funding, etc.;

e. Lessons learned in project implementation;

f. Future actions planned in support of each project objective;

g. An accounting of staff and any sub-contractor hours expended;

h. Aggregate amount of costs incurred during the reporting period, including estimated expenditures vs. budget; and

i. An accounting of travel performed under the cooperative agreement during the reporting period, including purpose of trip, persons or organizations contacted, and benefits derived.

An annual work plan for each project will be submitted within 45 days after the approval of the project design by USDOL. Subsequent annual work plans, when revised, will be delivered to reflect modifications in implementation, no later than one year following submission of the previous work plan; or to reflect revisions based on recommendations made during mid-term evaluations, no later than 30 days following the mid-term evaluation.

A performance monitoring plan will be developed in collaboration with USDOL, including beginning and ending dates for projects, planned and actual dates for mid-term and final project evaluations, and will be included as part of the submission of the project document for USDOL approval. The plan will include performance indicators and instruments to collect and report on performance data on a semi-annual basis.

The Grant Officer's Technical Representative (GOTR) will determine whether a mid-term evaluation will be conducted by an internal or external evaluation team. The final evaluation will be external in nature. In all cases, evaluations will be objective and carried out by independent evaluators. The grantee(s) must respond to any comments and recommendations resulting from the review of the mid-term report and will submit a work plan for implementing the recommendations of the mid-term report within 15 days following formal submission of the report to the grantee(s) by USDOL. Applicants need to allocate funds for these activities in the proposed budget.

The grantee(s) must submit to USDOL all media-related and educational materials developed by it or its sub-contractors under this cooperative agreement(s), including relevant press releases, for use in this project(s) before they are reproduced, published, or used. The grantee(s) must consult with USDOL to ensure that materials are compatible with USDOL materials relating to the program, i.e., public relations material such as video and web site. USDOL considers brochures, pamphlets, videotapes, slide-tape shows, curricula, and any other training materials used in the program, educational materials. USDOL will review materials for technical accuracy. USDOL will also review training curricula and purchased training materials for accuracy before they are used. The grantee(s) must obtain prior approval from the Grant Officer for all materials developed or purchased under this cooperative agreement. All materials produced by grantee(s) must be provided to USDOL in a digital format for possible publication on the Internet by USDOL.

In all circumstances, the following must be displayed on printed materials:

When issuing statements, press releases, requests for proposals, bid solicitations, and other documents describing projects or programs funded in whole or in part with Federal money, all grantees receiving Federal funds, including State and local governments and recipients of research grants, must clearly state:

a. The percentage of the total costs of the program or project that will be financed with Federal money;

b. The dollar amount of Federal funds for the project or program; and

c. The percentage and dollar amount of the total costs of the project or program that will be financed by non-governmental sources.

In consultation with USDOL, USDOL's role will be acknowledged in one of the following ways:

a. The USDOL logo may be applied to USDOL-funded material prepared for world-wide distribution, including posters, videos, pamphlets, research documents, national survey results, impact evaluations, best practice reports, and other publications of global interest. The grantee(s) will consult with USDOL on whether the logo should be used on any such items prior to final draft or final preparation for distribution. In no event shall the USDOL logo be placed on any item until USDOL has given the grantee written permission to use the logo, after obtaining appropriate internal USDOL approval for use of the logo on the item.

b. If the USDOL determines the logo is not appropriate and does not give written permission, the following notice must appear on the document:

Grantee organizations will be subject to applicable Federal laws (including provisions of appropriations law) and the applicable Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars. Determinations of allowable costs will be made in accordance with the applicable Federal cost principles, i.e., Non-Profit Organizations—OMB Circular A-122. The cooperative agreement(s) awarded under this SGA will be subject to the following administrative standards and provisions, if applicable:

29 CFR part 36 —Federal Standards for Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance.

29 CFR part 93 —New Restrictions on Lobbying.

29 CFR part 95 —Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and Other Non-Profit Organizations, and with Commercial Organizations, Foreign Governments, Organizations Under the Jurisdiction of Foreign Governments and International Organizations.

29 CFR part 96 —Federal Standards for Audit of Federally Funded Grants, Contracts and Agreements.

29 CFR part 98 —Federal Standards for Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) and Government-wide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Grants).

29 CFR part 99 —Federal Standards for Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations.

Sub-contracts must be awarded in accordance with 29 CFR 95.40-48. In compliance with Executive Orders 12876 as amended, 1323 0, 12928, and 13021 as amended, the grantee(s) is strongly encouraged to provide subcontracting opportunities to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions and Tribal Colleges and Universities.

The applicant must list the individual(s) who has been designated as having primary responsibility for the conduct and completion of all work in project(s) it proposes. The grantee(s) agrees to inform the GOTR whenever it appears impossible for one or more of these individual(s) to continue work on the project as planned. The grantee(s) may nominate substitute personnel for approval of the GOTR; however, the grantee(s) must obtain prior approval from the Grant Officer for all key personnel. If the Grant Officer determines not to approve the personnel change, he/she reserves the right to terminate the cooperative agreement.

Cooperative agreement funds may not be encumbered/obligated by the grantee(s) before or after the cooperative agreement period of performance. Encumbrances/obligations outstanding as of the end of the cooperative agreement period may be liquidated (paid out) after the end of the cooperative agreement period. Such encumbrances/obligations may involve only commitments for which a need existed during the cooperative agreement period and which are supported by approved contracts, purchase orders, requisitions, invoices, bills, or other evidence of liability consistent with the grantee(s)'s purchasing procedures and incurred within the cooperative agreement period. All encumbrances/obligations incurred during the cooperative agreement period must be liquidated within 90 days after the end of the cooperative agreement period, if practicable.

USDOL, through its authorized representatives, has the right, at all reasonable times, to make site visits to review project accomplishments and management control systems and to provide such technical assistance as may be required. If USDOL makes any site visit on the premises of the grantee(s) or a sub-contractor(s) under this cooperative agreement(s), the grantee(s) must provide and must require its sub-contractors to provide all reasonable facilities and assistance for the safety and convenience of the Government representatives in the performance of their duties. All site visits and evaluations must be performed in such a manner as will not unduly delay the work.

USDOL will screen all applications to determine whether all required elements are present and clearly identifiable. A technical panel will objectively rate each complete application against the criteria described in this announcement. The panel recommendations to the Grant Officer are advisory in nature. The Grant Officer may elect to select one or more grantee on the basis of the initial proposal submission; or, the Grant Officer may establish a competitive or technically acceptable range for the purpose of selecting qualified applicants. If deemed appropriate, following the Grant Officer's call for the preparation and receipt of final revisions of proposals, the evaluation process described above will be repeated to consider such revisions. The Grant Officer will make a final selection determination based on what is most advantageous to the Government, considering factors such as panel findings, geographic presence of the applicants, the best value to the Government, cost and other factors. The Grant Officer's determination for award under this SGA is final.

Notice: Selection of an organization as a cooperative agreement recipient does not constitute approval of the cooperative agreement application as submitted. Before the actual cooperative agreement is awarded, the Grant Officer may enter into negotiations concerning such items as program components, funding levels, and administrative systems. If the negotiations do not result in an acceptable submission, the Grant Officer reserves the right to terminate the negotiation and decline to fund the application.

The technical panel will review grant applicants against the criteria listed below on the basis of 100 points.

The criteria are presented in the order of emphasis that they will receive.

a. Overview. This section of the proposal must explain the strategy employed by the applicant to achieve the following results:

(1) At least 50% of targeted mines have improved safety and health conditions for workers; and

(2) At least 80% of targeted government mine safety inspectors acquire increased skills to carry out their functions.

The applicant must propose a set of indicators to measure these stated program results and describe in detail the proposed approach to comply with each requirement in Section IV.A of this solicitation, including all tasks and methods to be utilized to implement the project. Also, the applicant must propose projects that would address issues discussed in Section I.A and B.

b. Logical Framework. The strategy should include an outline of the objectives, activities and indicators envisioned for implementation of the program.

c. Implementation Plan. The applicant must submit an implementation plan for the entire program, preferably with a visual such as a Gantt chart. The implementation plan should outline the approach that will be used to implement the program. The plan should list the activities envisioned for the life of the program as well as scheduling of activities by objective, starting with the execution of the cooperative agreement and ending with the final report. In describing the implementation plan, the applicant must address the following points:

(1) Describe the use of existing or potential infrastructure and use of qualified personnel, including qualified nationals, to implement the projects in Beijing as well as in selected pilot project cities. The applicant also must include a project organizational chart, demonstrating management structure, key personnel positions and indicating proposed links with the relevant government ministries, local government agencies/bureaus, NGOs, and other significant local actors.

(2) Develop a list of activities and explain how each relates to the overall development objective as stated in Section I.

(3) Explain how appropriate IEC materials and training curriculum will be developed.

(4) Explain the strategy for coordinating activities conducted at the central government level with those conducted at the local (provincial/city) level.

(5) Explain how the project(s) on mine safety will effectively engage government inspectors, mineworkers, and mine owners.

(6) Demonstrate how the program will strengthen national government's capacity and enhance policies to protect the rights of workers as prescribed by national law.

(7) Demonstrate how the grantee would systematically monitor and report on project performance to measure the achievement of the project objective(s).

(8) Demonstrate how the grantee would build national and local capacity to ensure that project efforts to increase mine safety would be sustained after completion of the project.

d. Management and Staff Loading Plan. The management plan must also include a management and staff loading plan. The management plan should include the following:

a. If two organizations are applying for the award in collaboration, they must demonstrate an approach to ensure successful collaboration including clear delineation of respective roles and responsibilities. The applicants must also identify the lead organization and submit the collaboration agreement.

b. A project organization chart and accompanying narrative which differentiates between elements of the applicant's staff and sub-contractors or consultants who will be retained;

(3) A description of the functional relationship between elements of the project's organization; and

(4) The identity of the individual(s) responsible for project management and the lines of authority between this/these individual(s) and other elements of the project.

The staff loading plan must identify all key tasks and the person-days required to complete each task. Labor estimates for each task must be broken down by individuals assigned to the task, including subcontractors and consultants. All key tasks must be charted to show time required to perform them by months or weeks.

The evaluation criteria in this category are as follows:

a. The applicant organization and collaborating organizations applying for the award must demonstrate experience working on developmental projects in China or in countries with similar political, economic and social constraints.

b. The applicant must demonstrate prior experience of working directly with government ministries, local government organizations, employers, workers, NGOs and academic institutions, as well as with U.S. Missions, in the area of mine safety.

c. The applicant must also demonstrate that it can negotiate and implement developmental projects in China and that it has the appropriate international experience and expertise to carry out program responsibilities in China.

d. The applicant must demonstrate that it has staff or is able to recruit staff that can communicate effectively with Chinese miners, workers, migrant workers, and Chinese officials. Preference will be given to applicant organizations with staff that have Chinese language skills.

e. The proposal must include information regarding previous grants, contracts or cooperative agreements relevant to this solicitation. This information must include:

(1) The organization for whom the work was done;

(2) A contact person in that organization with his/her current phone number;

(3) The dollar value of the grant, contract or cooperative agreement for the project(s);

(4) The time frame and administrative and programmatic effort involved in the project(s);

(5) A brief summary of the work performed; and

(6) A brief summary of accomplishments.

This information on previous grants and contracts shall be provided in appendices and will not count toward the 30-page maximum page requirement.

This section of the application must include sufficient information for judging the quality and the competence of key staff proposed to be assigned to the project(s) proposed to assure that they meet the required qualifications. Successful performance of the proposed work depends heavily on the qualifications of the individuals committed to the project. Accordingly, in its evaluation of each application, USDOL will place emphasis on the applicant's commitment of key personnel qualified for the work involved in accomplishing the assigned tasks. Information provided on the experience and educational background of personnel must indicate the following:

(a) The identity of key personnel assigned to the project. “Key personnel” are staff who are essential to the successful operation of the project and completion of the proposed work and, therefore, may not be replaced or have their hours reduced without the approval of the Grant Officer.

(b) The educational background, Chinese language skills, and experience of key personnel.

(c) The special capabilities of key personnel that demonstrate prior experience in organizing, managing and performing similar efforts.

(d) The current employment status of key personnel and availability for this project. The applicant must also indicate whether the proposed work will be performed by persons currently employed or is dependent upon planned recruitment or sub-contracting.

Note that management and professional technical staff members comprising the applicant's proposed team should be individuals who have prior experience with organizations working in similar efforts, and are fully qualified to perform work specified in the Statement of Work. Where sub-contractors or outside assistance is proposed, organizational control should be clearly delineated to ensure responsiveness to the needs of USDOL. Key personnel must sign letters of agreement to serve on the project, and indicate availability to commence work within three weeks of grant award.

The following information must be furnished:

(a) The applicant must designate a Program Director and other key personnel to oversee the program. The Program Director must have a minimum of three years of professional experience in a leadership role in implementation of complex labor programs in developing countries. He or she must demonstrate sufficient knowledge of and understanding of China's political and economic development, its government, and the complexity of China's current state-local relations. Chinese language (Mandarin) proficiency is highly desirable.

(b) The applicant should specify other key personnel proposed to carry out the requirements of this solicitation.

(c) An organization chart showing the applicant's proposed organizational structure for performing task requirements for the project(s) proposed, along with a description of the roles and responsibilities of all key personnel proposed for this project(s). The chart should also differentiate between elements of the applicant's staff and sub-contractors or consultants who will be retained.

(d) Identify all key tasks and the person-days required to complete each task. Labor estimates for each task must be broken down by individuals assigned to the task, including sub-contractors and consultants. All key tasks must be charted to show time required to perform them by months or weeks.

(e) A resume for each of the key personnel to be assigned to the program. At a minimum, each resume must include: the individual's current employment status and previous work experience, including position title, duties performed, dates in position, employing organizations and educational background, including Chinese language skills (if any). Duties must be clearly defined in terms of role performed, i.e., manager, team leader, consultant, etc. (Resumes must be included as attachments, which do not count toward the page limitation.)

(f) The special capabilities of staff that demonstrate prior experience in organization, managing and performing similar efforts.

(g) The current employment status of key personnel proposed for work under the cooperative agreement, i.e. , whether personnel are currently employed by the organization or whether their employment depends upon planned recruitment or sub-contracting.

The applicant must develop one proposed budget for the implementation of the entire program, including pilot projects in localities. This section of the application must explain the costs for performing all of the requirements presented in this solicitation and for producing all required reports and other deliverables presented in this solicitation; costs must include labor, training, material production and dissemination, equipment, travel and other related costs. The budget plan will be evaluated solely for the purpose of determining the efficient and effective allocation of funding for proposed program implementation. Preference may be given to applicants with low administrative costs. Administrative costs shall be reflected separately on the budget plan from programmatic costs.

The budget must comply with Federal cost principles (which can be found in the applicable OMB Circulars) and with ILAB budget requirements contained in the application instructions in Section III of this solicitation.

This stated commitment will be incorporated into the text of the cooperative agreement with the selected applicant(s).

ILAB's Office of Foreign Relations (OFR) carries out a worldwide international technical assistance program in support of three objectives: (1) Expanding Economic Opportunity and Income Security for Workers; (2) Protecting the Basic Rights of Workers; and (3) Reducing the Prevalence of HIV/AIDS through Workplace Education. As a means to develop and implement projects to expand economic opportunity and income security for workers, ILAB announces the availability of funds to be granted by cooperative agreement to one or more qualifying organizations to achieve the USDOL program objectives to implement a program of workforce education (possibly including literacy), skills training, employment creation (possibly including self-employment opportunities), and local economic development in Pakistan and the Philippines. These objectives are part of a broader USDOL program to address social safety net needs. The process of globalization and economic liberalization have often led to high expectations of the population to foster social progress after achieving a more stable and solid economy and democratic government. National, regional, and local social safety nets are viewed as an important element in efforts to garner support for economic reform and trade liberalization as they provide a modicum of security in a highly dynamic labor market. The cooperative agreement(s) will focus on providing skills training to one or more targeted populations including women, disenfranchised young adults, religious and ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, and rural or economically disadvantaged communities that are directly linked to real jobs and increased earned income. Program elements may also include the provision of training in self-employment and business development, community-based local economic development, and job-related tools and equipment to individual participants or service providers as needed to ensure the success of the program.

The cooperative agreement(s) will be actively managed by ILAB to assure achievement of the stated objectives. Applicants are encouraged to be creative in proposing innovative and cost-effective interventions that will have a demonstrable impact on unemployment rates and earnings for project participants and their communities.

The country is divided into four provinces (Balochistan, North-West Frontier, Punjab, and Sindh), one territory (Federally Administered Tribal Areas), and one capitol territory (Islamabad Capitol Territory). Although the military is the primary political force, the religious clergy, landowners, industrialists, and small business owners have significant influence over domestic and international politics.

Pakistan has a total population estimated at 140 million and a national literacy rate of 33% (55.3% for males and 29% for females). There is no national law mandating compulsory education nor are sufficient public resources dedicated to education. As a result many children reach legal working age without basic education, literacy, or workforce preparedness skills.

Nearly 56% of the population is of working age but the actual labor force is only 40 million (44% in agriculture, 39% in services, and 17% in industry). There is also extensive export of labor, primarily to the Middle East. The official unemployment rate is 6% although it is generally agreed that real unemployment is much higher, especially for youth, women, and ethnic minorities.

Although 97% of the population is Muslim, there is ethnic tension between the Sunnis, who comprise 77% of the total Muslim population, and the Shi'as, who are 20% of the total Muslim population. There is reportedly frequent discrimination in both public and private sector employment and education for all religious minorities but primarily Christians. Despite a legal requirement that employers either hire qualified persons with disabilities for at least 2% of their positions or pay a fee to a government fund for persons with disabilities, this is rarely enforced.

Women, particularly in the rural areas where female literacy rates are 2% or less, are also subject to discrimination in education and employment opportunities. The National Institute of Psychology conducted a survey in the rural areas and reported that 42% of parents cited “no financial benefit” as the reason they did not send their daughters for formal education. Other surveys have found that girls are also not sent to school so that they can assist with household duties. Discrimination in college acceptance rates of qualified applicants between boys (83%) and girls (28%) further discourages investment in girls' education.

Forty percent (40%) of the population lives below the poverty line and foreign investment is limited. Per capita GDP is estimated at about US$441 and is tied closely to agricultural yields that are adversely affected due to current and persistent drought conditions. Pakistan's largest exports are textiles (garments, cotton cloth, and yarn), rice, and other agricultural products. The U.S. is the largest recipient of exported goods, receiving nearly one quarter of Pakistan's exports.

The Philippines has a total population of nearly 83 million of which 48.1 million are in the labor force, primarily in agriculture, government, and services, and to a lesser extent in assembly manufacturing. Primary education is compulsory and the national literacy rate is 94.6%, 95% for males and 94.3% for females. Secondary school dropout rates are high, however, with a total graduation rate of 50%; among the poor the rate is even lower due to the cost of school uniforms, supplies, and transportation.

Forty one percent (41%) of the population lives below the poverty line with higher rates among Muslims and those living in rural areas. The economy has had a difficult time recovering from the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s and the country's political instability since the overthrow of the Marcos regime. Exports, reaching US$38 billion in 2000, are concentrated in electronic equipment, machinery, garments, and coconut products.

Employment opportunities for youth, women, people with disabilities, rural residents, indigenous people, and Muslims (primarily those residing in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindinao) are especially limited. With regard to the latter, religious leaders from both the Muslim and the Christian communities contend that the economic disparities are the basis for the violence and armed aggression, not religious intolerance. Workplace sexual harassment, particularly in the special economic zones, is thought to be significant although underreported due to fear of job loss in retaliation. In addition, women are traditionally hired under short term and part time work contracts. Although there are legal protections against these forms of discrimination, they are not enforced.

Given the magnitude of the need for skills training and the size of the potential beneficiary population, applicants are encouraged to focus their responses in ways that target a specific community or target population, support U.S. foreign policy objectives within the country, and leverage other donor-funded or host government activities. Furthermore, applicants should emphasize the interconnectedness of the proposed training with real employment opportunities and benefits to a broader community.

Applicants may wish to consider the following programs as illustrative examples of the types of projects that might be considered for USDOL funding. In the Philippines, with the support of an international NGO, young adults are trained in the repair and maintenance of hospital equipment. Subsequent to the receipt of the training, graduates are provided with a personal set of the hardware needed to perform the job and are linked to hospitals willing to hire them. This program also has the developmental benefit of improving healthcare services for disadvantaged populations. In Pakistan, the government has developed a partnership with the Chambers of Commerce to increase the involvement of the private sector in the identification of skills needed for employment and the successful transfer of those skills by the public sector education system.

ILAB is authorized to award and administer this program by the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002, Pub. L. No.107-116, 115 Stat. 2177 (2002).

Any commercial, international, or not-for-profit organization capable of successfully implementing workforce education and skill training (including literacy), employment creation, and local economic development, and working with foreign national government ministries, regional and local government entities, employers, non-governmental and community-based organizations, and labor groups to improve workforce preparedness skills (possibly including literacy education), employment creation (possibly including self-employment opportunities), and local economic development is eligible for this cooperative agreement(s). Government ministries likely to be involved include those for labor, education, social affairs, commerce, finance, and those for special targeted populations such as youth, women, or minorities. Partnerships of more than one organization are also eligible although in such a case a lead organization must be identified. The capability of an applicant, partners, and co-applicants to perform necessary aspects of this solicitation will be determined under Section V.B Rating Criteria.

Please note that eligible cooperative agreement applicants must not be classified under the Internal Revenue Code as a section 501(c)(4) entity. See 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(4). According to the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, as amended, 2 U.S.C. 1611, an organization, as described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, that engages in lobbying activities will not be eligible for the receipt of federal funds constituting an award, grant, or loan.

One (1) ink-signed original, complete application plus two (2) copies of the proposal must be submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor, Procurement Services Center, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room N-5416, Washington, DC 20210, not later than 4:45 p.m. EDST, September 4, 2002.

The application must consist of two (2) separate parts. Part I of the application must contain the Standard Form (SF) 424, “Application for Federal Assistance” (Appendix A) (The entry on SF 424 for the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number (CFDA) is 17.700) and sections A-F of the Budget Information Form SF 424A (Appendix B). Part II must contain a technical proposal that demonstrates capabilities in accordance with the Statement of Work (Section IV.A) and the selection criteria (Section V.B).

To be considered responsive to this solicitation, the application must consist of the above-mentioned separate sections not to exceed 60 single-sided (8 1/2 ″ x 11″), double-spaced, 10 to 12 pitch typed pages for which a response is submitted. Any applications that do not conform to these standards may be deemed non-responsive to this solicitation and may not be evaluated.

Standard forms and attachments are not included in the page limit. The application must include a table of contents and an abstract summarizing the application in not more than two (2) pages. These pages are also not included in the page limits.

Upon completion of negotiations, the individual signing the SF 424 on behalf of the applicant must be authorized to bind the applicant.

The grant application package must be received at the designated place by the date and time specified or it will not be considered. Any application received at the Office of Procurement Services after 4:45 pm EDST on September 4, 2002 will not be considered unless it is received before the award is made and:

1. It was sent by registered or certified mail not later than the fifth calendar day before August 6, 2002;

2. It is determined by the Government that the late receipt was due solely to mishandling by the Government after receipt at the U.S. Department of Labor at the address indicated; or

3. It was sent by U.S. Postal Service Express Mail Next Day Service-Post Office to Addressee, not later than 5 pm at the place of mailing two (2) working days, excluding weekends and Federal holidays, prior to August 6, 2002.