The provisions of 35 U.S.C. 156, “Extension of patent term,” provide, generally, that a patent for a product may be extended for a period of up to 5 years as long as the patent claims a product that, among other things, was subject to a regulatory review period before its commercial marketing or use. (The term “product” is defined in that section as “a drug product” [which includes veterinary biological products] or “any medical device, food additive, or color additive subject to regulation under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.”) A product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

The regulations in 9 CFR part 124, “Patent Term Restoration” (referred to below as the regulations), set forth procedures and requirements for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's (APHIS) review of applications for the extension of the term of certain patents for veterinary biological products pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 156. As identified in the regulations, the responsibilities of APHIS include:

• Assisting Patent and Trademark Office of the U.S. Department of Commerce in determining eligibility for patent term restoration;

• Determining the length of a product's regulatory review period;

• If petitioned, reviewing and ruling on due diligence challenges to APHIS's regulatory review period determinations; and

• Conducting hearings to review initial APHIS findings on due diligence challenges.

The regulations are designed to be used in conjunction with regulations issued by the Patent and Trademark Office concerning patent term extension, which may be found at 37 CFR 1.710 through 1.791.

A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For veterinary biologics, the testing phase begins on the date the authorization to prepare an experimental veterinary biologic became effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase begins on the date an application for a license was initially submitted for approval and ends on the date such license was issued. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks may award, APHIS' determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a veterinary biologic will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(5)(B).

APHIS recently licensed for production and marketing the veterinary biologic Fel-O-Vax® FIV Vaccine. Subsequent to this approval, the Patent and Trademark Office received a patent term restoration application for Fel-O- Vax ® FIV Vaccine (U.S. Patent No. 5,275,813) from the Regents of the University of California, and the Patent and Trademark Office requested APHIS' assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated March 11, 2003, APHIS advised the Patent and Trademark Office that this veterinary biologic had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of Fel-O-Vax ® FIV Vaccine (Feline Immunodeficiency Virus Vaccine, Killed Virus) represented the first permitted commercial licensing or use of the product. Subsequently, the Patent and Trademark Office requested that APHIS determine the product's regulatory review period.

APHIS has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for Fel-O-Vax ® FIV Vaccine is 3,853 days. Of this time, 2,442 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, and 1,411 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods were derived from the following dates:

1. The date the authority to prepare an experimental biological product under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act (21 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) became effective: August 28, 1991. APHIS has verified the applicant's claim that the test was begun on August 28, 1991.

2. The date the application for a license was initially submitted for approval under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act: May 4, 1998. APHIS has verified the applicant's claim that the application was initially submitted on May 4, 1998.

3. The date the license was issued: March 14, 2002. APHIS has verified the applicant's claim that the license for the commercial marketing of the vaccine was issued on March 14, 2002.

This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 3,853 days of patent term extension.

Section 124.22 of the regulations provides that any interested person may request a revision of the regulatory review period determination within 30 days of the date of this notice (see DATES above). The request must specify the following:

• The identity of the product;

• The identity of the applicant for patent term restoration;

• The docket number of this notice; and

• The basis for the request for revision, including any documentary evidence.

Further, under § 124.30 of the regulations, any interested person may file a petition with APHIS, no later than 180 days after the date of this notice (see DATES above), alleging that a license applicant did not act with due diligence in seeking APHIS approval of the product during the regulatory review period. The filing, format, and content of a petition must be as described in the regulations in “Subpart D—Due Diligence Petitions” (§§ 124.30 through 124.33).

Title: Economic, Social, and Cultural Aspects of Livestock Ranching on the Santa Fe and Carson National Forests.

OMB Number: 0596-New.

Expiration Date of Approval: New.

Type of Request: New.

Abstract: Management of Federal lands is often hampered because land managing agencies lack sufficient information to understand and monitor socio-cultural values and changing attitudes toward land and resource use. This lack of up-to-date information impedes efforts of the Forest Service (FS) to work with livestock ranchers who graze their cattle under permit on Forest Service managed lands (permittees).

In northern New Mexico, many grazing permittees are descendants of Hispanic settlers who farmed and ranched in the area for 400 years. Prior to U.S. takeover of the region in 1848, much of the land now grazed under Federal permits was owned or used by local communities under Spanish and Mexican land grants. Cultural differences and historic problems over land use contribute to disagreements and misunderstandings between the permittees and Federal land managers.

The study for which this information collection is needed will encompass all grazing permittees on the Espanola District of the Santa Fe National Forest and the Canjilon District of the Carson National Forest. It will provide data on economic, social, and cultural contributions of livestock ownership to the grazing permittees of northern New Mexico. A prior pilot study conducted in 1998 on the two forests; along with studies conducted in the late 1960s and 1970s require updating and revision to provide the most current information. Additionally, the pilot study indicates that there is a need for a broader base of data.

The results of this research should help agency personnel manage the land more effectively and work more cooperatively with livestock grazing permittees. Such information may also serve to improve agency relations with area communities by promoting greater understanding of the local culture and the role of livestock ownership in that culture. As the public becomes more involved in the federal land management decision-making process, the need for public education on the relationship between land and the rural way of life increases.

To collect the required information, social science researchers from the Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service will personally administer a questionnaire to grazing permittees from the Santa Fe and Carson National Forests. Respondents who are unable to schedule an interview will have the option of returning their completed questionnaire by mail.

The data collected will describe the economic, social, and cultural contributions of livestock operations to grazing permittees including: (1) Background information on the permittee and his/her family; (2) background information on the livestock operation; (3) contribution of the livestock operation to the household economy; (4) contribution of the livestock operation to the cultural, and lifestyle; (5) land use values of the family and community. After completing the information collection, researchers will compile and analyze the data.

The compiled data from this study will be used to assist managers on the two forests to work more effectively with grazing permittees by encouraging increased intercultural understanding. Additionally, the collected information may be used in developing and updating grazing allotment plans and in developing forest plan revisions. This type of information is also valuable in public education programs concerning the rural culture of northern New Mexico. The results of this study will also serve as the foundation for multiple research publications.

Since this study is designed to provide information on small-scale livestock operations on Federal allotments, its implementation is of considerable importance. If this data is not collected, grazing allotment plans and forest plan revisions for the target forests will not be based on the most current and appropriate socio-cultural and economic information. Furthermore, agency relations with the community may be hindered from a lack of knowledge that might otherwise help to promote intercultural understanding and cooperation.

Estimate of Annual Burden: One and a half hours.

Type of Respondents: Livestock ranchers/owners who have permits to graze cattle or sheep on the Santa Fe and Carson National Forests in northern New Mexico.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 600 respondents.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: One time. This is a one-time collection of information.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 900 total hours. This is a one-time collection of information.

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

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

Since the initiation of these investigations ( Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Certain Durum Wheat and Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada, 67 FR 65947 (October 29, 2002) (“ Initiation Notice ”), the following events have occurred:

On November 1, 2002, we solicited comments from interested parties regarding the criteria to be used for model-matching purposes. We received numerous comments on our proposed matching criteria in November and December 2002. Furthermore, we held discussions on the issue of model matching with officials from the North American Millers Association and the U.S. Department of Agriculture on November 15 and 20, 2002, respectively. On December 6, 2002, the Department adopted the model match criteria and hierarchy for these proceedings. See Memorandum to John Brinkmann, “Selection of Model Matching Criteria for Purposes of the Antidumping Duty Questionnaire,” dated December 6, 2002, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”) in room B-099 of the main Department building.

On November 25, 2002, the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable indication that imports of durum wheat and hard red spring (“HRS”) wheat from Canada are materially injuring the United States durum wheat and HRS wheat industries ( see ITC Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1019A and 1019B (Publication No. 3563)).

On December 4, 2002, we selected the Canadian Wheat Board (“CWB”) as the mandatory respondent in these proceedings. For further discussion, see Memorandum to John Brinkmann, “Respondent Selection” dated December 4, 2002 (“ Respondent Selection Memorandum ”), which is on file in the CRU. We subsequently issued the antidumping questionnaires to the CWB on December 9, 2002.

On November 18, 2002, the Government of Canada (“GOC”) submitted two scope exclusion requests. See “Scope Comments” section, below. On December 12, 2002, the petitioners  1 submitted their rebuttal comments. The GOC and the petitioners submitted additional comments on February 4 and 11, 2003, respectively.

On December 23, 2002, the petitioners submitted comments in support of their allegation that a particular market situation, within the meaning of section 773(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), exists with regard to sales of durum wheat and HRS wheat in Canada. Further information and comments were received from the CWB, the petitioners, and the GOC throughout January 2003. On February 4, 2003, the Department informed interested parties that, based on evidence on the records of these investigations as of that date, we determined that it is appropriate for the Department to collect Canadian home market sales data for use as the basis for normal value. See “Selection of Comparison Market,” below.

In January and February 2003, the Department received responses to sections A, B, and C of the Department's original questionnaire from the CWB. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires for sections A, B, and C in February and March 2003, and received responses from the CWB from February through April 2003.

On January 24, 2003, pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined that these proceedings are extraordinarily complicated and that additional time was necessary to make our preliminary determinations. Therefore, we postponed the preliminary determinations until no later than May 1, 2003. See Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Antidumping Duty Determinations: Certain Durum Wheat and Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada, 67 FR 24114 (January 31, 2003).

On January 29, 2003, the petitioners made an allegation of sales below the cost of production (“COP”) against sales of HRS wheat from Canada. On February 19, 2003, the petitioners revised their sales-below-COP allegation on HRS wheat and also alleged that sales of durum wheat in Canada were made at prices below COP. The petitioners supplemented their cost allegation on February 24, 2003. The CWB submitted comments on these cost allegations on February 7, 24, and 27, 2003. On February 25, 2003, the Department initiated a cost investigation on Canadian sales of HRS wheat. See Memorandum to Neal Halper, “Certain Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada: Petitioner's Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production by the Canadian Wheat Board,” dated February 25, 2003, which is on file in the CRU.

Also, on February 25, 2003, we solicited comments from interested parties regarding the selection of cost respondents in the sales-below-cost investigation of HRS wheat. We received comments from the petitioners and the CWB on February 28, March 3, and March 7, 2003. On March 10, 2003, we solicited additional comments from interested parties on our proposed cost respondent selection methodology. On March 12, 2003, we received comments on the proposed cost respondent selection methodology from the petitioners and the CWB. Thereafter, on March 14, 2003, the Department issued a section D questionnaire to selected cost respondents. The Department received responses to section D of the Department's questionnaire on April 21, 2003. Supplemental questionnaires for section D will be issued subsequent to the preliminary determination on HRS wheat.

On February 28, 2003, the Department determined not to initiate a cost investigation on Canadian sales of durum wheat. See Memorandum to Neal Halper, “Certain Durum Wheat from Canada: Petitioner's Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production by the Canadian Wheat Board,” dated February 28, 2003, which is on file in the CRU. On March 10, 2003, the petitioners requested that the Department reconsider its decision to not initiate an investigation of sales below COP by the CWB. The petitioners submitted further information and comments on March 14, 21, 27, and 31, 2003. On March 12, 25, and 28, 2003, the CWB filed comments opposing the petitioners' request for reconsideration. On April 8, 2003, the Department reaffirmed its decision not to initiate a cost investigation on Canadian sales of durum wheat. See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Durum Wheat from Canada; Request for the Department to Reconsider its Decision to Not Initiate an Investigation of Sales Below the Cost of production by the Canadian Wheat Board,” dated April 8, 2003, which is on file in the CRU.

On April 23 and 25, 2003, the petitioners submitted comments with respect to the upcoming preliminary determinations.

For purposes of these investigations, the products covered are (1) durum wheat and (2) hard red spring wheat.

Imports covered by this investigation are all varieties of durum wheat from Canada. This includes, but is not limited to, a variety commonly referred to as Canada Western Amber Durum. The merchandise subject to this investigation is currently classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings: 1001.10.00.10, 1001.10.00.91, 1001.10.00.92, 1001.10.00.95, 1001.10.00.96, and 1001.10.00.99. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of these proceedings is dispositive.

Imports covered by this investigation are all varieties of hard red spring wheat from Canada. This includes, but is not limited to, varieties commonly referred to as Canada Western Red Spring, Canada Western Extra Strong, and Canada Prairie Spring Red. The merchandise subject to this investigation is currently classifiable under the following HTSUS subheadings: 1001.90.10.00, 1001.90.20.05, 1001.90.20.11, 1001.90.20.12, 1001.90.20.13, 1001.90.20.14, 1001.90.20.16, 1001.90.20.19, 1001.90.20.21, 1001.90.20.22, 1001.90.20.23, 1001.90.20.24, 1001.90.20.26, 1001.90.20.29, 1001.90.20.35, and 1001.90.20.96. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of these proceedings is dispositive.

In accordance with our regulations, we set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage and encouraged all parties to submit comments within 20 calendar days of publication of the Initiation Notice ( see 67 FR 65948).

On November 18, 2002, we received a request from the GOC to amend the scope of these investigations and the companion countervailing duty (“CVD”) investigations of hard red spring wheat and durum wheat. Specifically, the GOC requested that the scope be amended to exclude those areas of Canada where the CWB does not have jurisdiction, and to remove Harmonized Tariff Schedule number 1001.90.20.96 from the scope of the antidumping and CVD investigations of certain hard red spring wheat.

On December 12, 2002, the petitioners submitted rebuttal comments. On February 4, 2003, the GOC responded to those comments, and on February 11, 2003, the petitioners commented on the GOC's February 4, 2003 comments.

In the concurrent CVD investigations of durum wheat and HRS wheat from Canada, the Department preliminarily determined that these scope exclusions were not warranted. For further discussion, see the March 3, 2003 memorandum to Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary Susan H. Kuhbach, “Scope Exclusion Requests: Non-Canadian Wheat Board Areas and HTSUS 1001.90.20.96,” on file in the CRU for the instant proceedings; and Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determinations With Final Antidumping Duty Determinations: Certain Durum Wheat and Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada, 68 FR 11374, 11375 (March 10, 2003).

The period of investigation (“POI”) is July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002. This period corresponds to the four most recent fiscal quarters prior to the filing of the petition ( i.e. , September 13, 2002).

To determine whether sales of durum wheat and hard red spring wheat from Canada to the United States were made at less than fair value (“LTFV”), we compared the export price (“EP”) to the normal value (“NV”), as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we compared POI weighted-average EPs to NVs. Any specific changes to the EP and NV calculations are discussed in the May 1, 2003, calculation memoranda, which are on file in the CRU (“Calculation Memoranda”).

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced and sold by the CWB in the home market during the POI that fit the description in the “Scope of Investigations” section of this notice to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We compared U.S. sales to sales of identical merchandise made in the home market, where possible. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade.

To identify identical and similar merchandise for purposes of comparing U.S. and home market sales, we developed several product characteristics. Specifically, for durum wheat, we asked the CWB to report information on the type, grade, protein content, vitreous kernel content, test weight, and moisture content, for each sale during the POI. For HRS wheat, we asked the CWB to report information on the type, grade, protein content, class, vitreous kernel content, test weight, and moisture content, for each sale during the POI.

In its submissions concerning model matching, as well as in its initial questionnaire responses, the CWB consistently asserted that it would be unable to provide complete data on vitreous kernel content, test weight, and moisture content, because such data are not normally maintained in the CWB's books and records—in either electronic or hard copy form—in the ordinary course of business. Because the Department found that these product characteristics are appropriate for model matching purposes in these proceedings, we reiterated our request that the CWB supply all available data to the Department. In its April 23, 2003, supplemental questionnaire response, the CWB stated that it had reported all of the product characteristic data available to it. For durum wheat, the CWB reported complete product characteristics for virtually all U.S. sales and reported complete data for approximately half of the home market sales. For HRS wheat, however, the CWB reported complete product characteristic data for only a small number of U.S. and home market sales. The CWB reiterated that, because data on these product characteristics are not maintained in the CWB's normal course of business for a majority of transactions, the sales databases were “necessarily incomplete.” See CWB's April 23, 2003, submission, at 2.

For purposes of these preliminary determinations, we have accepted the CWB's statement that it has reported all the product characteristic information available to it. However, given the magnitude of the missing data, we intend to verify very carefully the CWB's claim that all data were reported and that it does not consistently collect or maintain data on vitreous kernel content, test weight, and moisture content. Moreover, we continue to take the position that all the product characteristics selected by the Department are important for making proper comparisons in these proceedings. Therefore, for durum wheat, we have matched U.S. sales for which complete product characteristic data was reported to those home market sales also containing complete product characteristic data, given the fact that we have almost complete U.S. data and complete data on a sufficient number of home market sales. For HRS wheat, however, we would not be able to make meaningful comparisons if we were to rely on all seven product characteristics because of the incompleteness of the U.S. and home market sales databases. Accordingly, we have matched U.S. sales of HRS wheat to home market sales using only the first four product characteristics ( i.e. , type, grade, protein content, and class). However, we note that, consistent with the methodology outlined in the Memorandum from Theresa L. Caherty and Michael P. Martin to Neal M. Halper, “Identification of Cost of Production Respondents,” dated April 22, 2003 (“Cost Respondent Selection Memorandum”), which is on file in the CRU, we have excluded Canadian western extra strong wheat, Canadian prairie spring wheat, and feed wheat from the HRS wheat antidumping duty analysis due to the relatively small quantity of sales of these products to the United States during the POI.

In its original questionnaire responses, the CWB reported home market and U.S. sales using invoice date as the date of sale. Based on the description of the sales process provided by the CWB, we note that, in the CWB's normal commercial practice, the sales invoice is normally issued after the date of shipment. Because the date of shipment almost always precedes the reported date of sale, we preliminarily determine that the date of shipment better reflects the date on which the CWB established the material terms of sale, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i). Accordingly, we have relied on the date of shipment as the date of sale.

For both durum wheat and HRS wheat, we calculated EP, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the merchandise was sold prior to importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, and because constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We based EP on the in-store or C&F price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We identified the starting price, where appropriate, by accounting for interest charges/allowances, cleaning allowances, cost of moving charges, late shipment storage charges, rail freight allowances, and billing adjustments, where applicable. The CWB reported agent's commissions as an adjustment to the starting price. We treated these expenses as commission expenses. See Calculation Memoranda. We also made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight (country elevator to terminal, or Thunder Bay to St. Lawrence freight charges), rail carrier charges, hopper car charges, terminal expenses, fobbing costs (charges associated with loading the wheat onto the vessel), demurrage/despatch costs, country elevator storage expenses, freight revenue, and certain other freight charges, which, because of their proprietary nature, cannot be summarized in this notice. See Calculation Memoranda. As noted in the Calculation Memoranda, we reclassified certain expenses reported by the CWB as movement expenses as direct selling expenses.

Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price at which the foreign like product is sold in the home market, provided that the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if quantity is inappropriate) and that there is no particular market situation that prevents a proper comparison with the EP. In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV ( i.e. , whether the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared the CWB's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Because the CWB's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable for both durum wheat and HRS wheat.

In the Initiation Notice, we determined that information reasonably available to the petitioners indicated the existence of a particular market situation—pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act—which rendered price comparisons between home market and U.S. prices inappropriate for purposes of determining whether to initiate these investigations. See Initiation Notice, 67 FR at 65949. We noted, however, that during the course of these investigations we would examine further the issue of particular market situation and, if necessary, the proper comparison markets to be used in each investigation. Id.

In a letter to interested parties dated February 4, 2003, we acknowledged that “[t]he existence of a government entity, the CWB, as a monopoly buyer and seller of wheat in the Canadian domestic market raised legitimate concerns that a particular market situation might exist with respect to the Canadian home market in these investigations.” However, based on evidence on the records of these investigations as of that date, we did not find that the Canadian government controls prices to such an extent that they are non-competitive and inappropriate for use in our dumping analyses. Also, in past cases the Department has recognized a strong preference for using the home market in the Department's dumping calculations and, therefore, has established a high threshold for rejecting home market sales based upon a particular market situation. 2 In the case of durum wheat and HRS wheat, we determined that it is appropriate to collect Canadian home market sales data for use as the basis for normal value. However, we also acknowledged that a number of questions needed to be addressed before a final decision on this issue could be rendered and that any decision made on this issue was subject to change based on evidence collected in supplemental questionnaires or our findings at verification.

Accordingly, in the February 4, 2003, supplemental section A questionnaire (which was modified slightly on February 20, 2003), we asked the CWB to provide further information regarding the alleged particular market situation. Specifically, we asked questions designed to establish whether the CWB's prices in the home market are based upon competitively set prices and whether the CWB consistently bases its prices on a published U.S. price ( e.g. , daily prices reported by the Minneapolis Grain Exchange or other sources). On February 21 and March 4, 2003, the CWB submitted responses to the supplemental section A questionnaire. On April 23, 2003, the petitioners submitted additional comments on this issue.

No new information provided by interested parties since our February 4, 2003, letter suggests that the Canadian government controls prices to such an extent that they are non-competitive and inappropriate for use in our dumping analyses. See Memorandum to Jeffrey A. May, Deputy Assistant Secretary, “Particular Market Situation,” dated May 1, 2003, which is on file in the CRU. Accordingly, we continue to find that it is appropriate to use home market sales for purposes of determining normal value in these investigations. Because this finding is based, in part, on representations by the CWB about how it sets prices in the home market, our decision regarding the appropriateness of Canadian home market prices may be subject to change based upon the results of verification.

In its questionnaire responses, the CWB noted that it is treating grain producers that supply grain to the CWB as affiliated parties, given the various aspects of the relationship between the western Canadian grain producers and the CWB. Specifically, western Canadian grain producers supply the CWB, are members of the CWB, and elect two-thirds of the CWB Board; therefore, according to the CWB, the western Canadian farmers control the CWB Board. See the CWB's January 10, 2003, section A questionnaire response, at A-16 to A-17. However, the CWB further noted that, under its “Producer Direct Sales” (“PDS”) program, the CWB makes sales to grain producers, and it has treated sales to these producers as unaffiliated party transactions. In other words, the CWB appears to have considered grain producers to be affiliated parties when they supply grain to the CWB, but considered the same entities to be unaffiliated when they act as customers under the PDS program. For purposes of these preliminary determinations, we are treating sales to producers under the PDS program as affiliated party transactions because these entities are affiliated with the CWB pursuant to section 771(33)(G) of the Act.

The Department's standard practice with respect to the use of home market sales to affiliated parties for NV is to determine whether such sales are at arm's length prices. Therefore, in accordance with that practice, we performed an arm's length test on the CWB's sales to affiliates as follows.

Sales to affiliated customers in the home market not made at arm's length prices (if any) were excluded from our analysis because we considered them to be outside the ordinary course of trade. See 19 CFR 351.102. To test whether these sales were made at arm's length prices, we compared on a model-specific basis the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges and direct selling expenses. Where, for the tested models of subject merchandise, prices to the affiliated party were on average 99.5 percent or more of the price to the unaffiliated parties, we determined that sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. See 19 CFR 351.403(c) and Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27355 (May 19, 1997). In instances where no price ratio could be constructed for an affiliated customer because identical merchandise was not sold to unaffiliated customers, we were unable to determine that these sales were made at arm's-length prices and, therefore, excluded them from our LTFV analysis. See, e.g., Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Argentina, 58 FR 37062, 37077 (July 9, 1993). Where the exclusion of such sales eliminated all sales of the most appropriate comparison product, we made a comparison to the next most similar model.

As noted above, based on our analysis of an allegation made by the petitioners after initiation of these investigations, we found that there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of HRS wheat in the home market were made at prices below their COP. Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, we initiated a company-specific sales-below-cost investigation to determine whether sales of HRS wheat were made at prices below their COP.

As noted above in the case history, the Department selected the CWB, the largest exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States during the POI, as the sole respondent in the HRS wheat investigation. The CWB's February 5, 2003, section A questionnaire response stated that it was an exporter of the subject merchandise, not the producer of subject merchandise, and included a list of wheat suppliers. Because there are more than 56,000 HRS wheat producers in Canada, the Department developed a methodology to calculate a representative COP and constructed value (“CV”) for the merchandise under consideration. The Department's cost respondent methodology resulted in stratifying producers of HRS wheat by all relevant soil types within each major producing province in Canada and selecting a sample size that ensured a minimum of two producers within each stratum. 3 The resulting final sample size was twenty-seven producers. A simple average of the costs of production within a stratum was calculated and then the amounts per stratum were weight averaged based on each stratum's delivered tons.

Of the twenty-seven producers selected, one producer ( i.e. , cost respondent 2)  4 chose not to respond to the Department's questionnaire, two other producers ( i.e. , cost respondents 10 and 27) did not respond based on extenuating circumstances discussed below, and one other producer ( i.e. , cost respondent 19) had significant issues with respect to the reporting of its COP. Therefore, as described in detail below, because these producers have not provided the necessary information on the record to calculate the simple-average COP within their respective stratum, the use of facts otherwise available is warranted.

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 of the Act; (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) of the Act, the Department shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this title. 5 Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that adverse inferences may be used when a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information.

With respect to cost respondent 2, this producer chose not to respond to the Department's questionnaire. As a result, use of facts available is appropriate pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act. In accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department finds that “an interested party failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,” an adverse inference may be used in determining the facts otherwise available. In the instant case, cost respondent 2 did not cooperate to the best of its ability by failing to provide any of the information requested in the section D cost questionnaire with no rationale for why it could not provide such information when other producers could. Therefore, as adverse facts available for the preliminary determination on HRS wheat for this cost respondent, we used the higher of the COP from the petition for the same province and soil type or the highest reported cost for other cost respondents within the same stratum. Based on our comparison of the two amounts we found that the reported cost for the other cost respondents within the same stratum was higher. As a result, we used the other respondent's COP within the same stratum as the surrogate cost for cost respondent 2.

Both cost respondents 10 and 27 did not respond to the Department's cost questionnaire based on extenuating circumstances. With respect to cost respondent 10, the CWB explained that this farmer had deliveries of HRS wheat to the CWB during the POI, but did not produce HRS wheat during the 2001 growing season. However, cost respondent 10 did have affiliated parties that produced HRS wheat during the cost reporting period. Therefore, as a surrogate, cost respondent 10 reported its affiliate's COP for the cost reporting period. We note that this affiliate was not considered a cost respondent in the sample selection and, as such, we determined it would not be appropriate to include the affiliate's COP in our overall calculation of COP.

Similar to cost respondent 10, cost respondent 27 did not provide cost data for the 2001 growing season because the information was not available. Specifically, cost respondent 27 sold its farming operations and ceased farming. Because neither cost respondent 10 nor 27 had information available that would enable them to respond to the Department's cost questionnaire and—in the case of cost respondent 10—they attempted to provide some cost information, we applied neutral facts available for the HRS wheat preliminary determination pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act. As neutral facts available, we have relied on the cost data submitted by the other cost respondents within the same stratum. Therefore, we have not included an amount for these cost respondents in the simple average calculation within their respective stratums.

With respect to cost respondent 19, we note that, unlike the farmers discussed above, it submitted COP information for the cost reporting period. However, due to extenuating circumstances during the 2001 cost reporting period, this cost respondent received insurance proceeds that exceeded its total cost incurred. In addition, due to the extenuating circumstances, the yield per acre of wheat was aberrant compared to the other cost respondents. As a result, we determined that neutral facts available was warranted pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act. As neutral facts available we have relied on the cost data submitted by the other cost respondents within the same stratum. Therefore, we have not included an amount for this cost respondent in the simple average calculation within its stratum.

As noted above, the sole respondent, the CWB, was an exporter of the subject merchandise, not the producer of subject merchandise. Therefore, consistent with our practice regarding the cost of resales of subject merchandise, we requested COP data from a sample of the CWB's wheat suppliers. See Cost Respondent Selection Memorandum. In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a single weighted-average COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and administrative (G&A) expenses, interest expenses, and home market packing costs for all wheat producers selected. See the “Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices” section below for treatment of home market selling expenses. To calculate the weighted average COP, we first simple averaged the COPs within each stratum, then weight averaged the results based on each stratum's delivered tons.

We relied on the COP data submitted by each cost respondent in its cost questionnaire response, except in specific instances where the submitted costs were not appropriately quantified or valued, or where the costs otherwise required adjustment, as discussed below:

1. We adjusted the reported labor costs for cost respondents 1, 3-9, 11-16, 18, 20-22, and 24-26. Virtually all of the labor provided on these farms was performed by the owners. For reporting purposes, the cost respondents relied on labor hours and rates from a study performed by Professor Schoney of the University of Saskatchewan. However, because this data was self-selected by the cost respondents and only represented data collected from a single province (Saskatchewan), we relied instead on the per acre labor rates published in the provincial crop guides.

2. We disallowed a reported offset to the COP for insurance proceeds received during the year by cost respondents 7, 8, 11, 15, 17, 22, 23, 25, and 26. These cost respondents failed to provide any explanation describing the facts surrounding these insurance payments. For example, it is unclear to which year's harvest the payments relate, what crops are affected, or whether the proceeds are based on market value for the damaged crops or to recover lost costs.

3. We adjusted the direct cost pool used to allocate variable and fixed overhead costs for cost respondents 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14-16, 20, 21, and 22-26. Specifically, we excluded the cost of purchased livestock (whether expensed or amortized) and imputed labor from the direct cost pool.

4. We deducted imputed labor costs from the denominator used in the calculation of the G&A and financial expenses ratios. We then recalculated the ratio and applied the result to the per-unit cost of manufacture (“COM”), exclusive of imputed labor. This adjustment was made for cost respondents 1, 3-9, 11-18, and 20-26.

For detailed calculations of these adjustments for each cost respondent, see the COP/CV Adjustments Memorandum.

We reduced cost respondent 1's reported production volume by the amount of seed consumed in 2002.

We revised cost respondent 3's allocation of land use cost to apportion an amount to pasture land used for grazing livestock.

We revised cost respondent 5's reported per-unit COM by calculating the per-unit amount using the actual quantity of HRS wheat produced, instead of the quantity of HRS wheat delivered.

We revised cost respondent 6's per-unit COM by calculating the per-unit amount using the actual quantity of HRS wheat produced. It appears that the cost respondent inadvertently used the incorrect production quantity.

We revised cost respondent 7's reported cost of production to include the total amount expensed for corporate and partnership start-up costs, in accordance with the cost respondent's normal books and records.

We also increased cost respondent 7's reported cost of production to include labor costs related to bookkeeping services performed by an affiliate.

We adjusted cost respondent 9's reported insurance costs to reflect the accrued expense. Specifically, we included the total commodity insurance premiums, not only the actual insurance payments.

For cost respondent 14, we revised the direct cost pool used to allocate variable and fixed overhead costs as noted in the common cost respondent adjustment 3 above. In addition, we included certain expenses ( i.e. , repairs and maintenance, fuel, etc.) in the direct cost pool that were excluded by the cost respondent.

We increased the numerator used to calculate the G&A expense ratio to include an amount for GST taxes that were deducted twice.

We also increased the numerator for the financial expense ratio by disallowing an offset for short-term interest income. Specifically, we found no evidence on the record in the cost respondent's normal books and records where this income was actually earned and recorded.

We adjusted cost respondent 16's allocation of custom work expenses.

We adjusted cost respondent 17's labor to reflect the actual labor expense reported in the cost respondent's normal books and records.

We disallowed the change in accounting method related to repairs and maintenance expenses. Specifically, for reporting purposes cost respondent 21 capitalized and amortized certain repairs and maintenance expenses. However, these amounts were expensed in the cost respondent's normal books and records. Therefore, for the HRS wheat preliminary determination, we included the total amount expensed in the COP.

We reduced cost respondent 22's reported production volume by the amount of seed consumed in 2002.

We revised cost respondent 23's labor to reflect actual labor costs reported in the cost respondent's normal books and records.

We disallowed cost respondent 23's treatment of a secondary wheat product as a by-product offset. For the preliminary determination, we calculated one average cost of HRS wheat for the 2001 growing season. Thus, while we disallowed the offset to HRS wheat costs, we did include the quantity of feed HRS wheat in the denominator of the calculation of the growing season's average HRS wheat cost per ton.

We adjusted the reported land use cost for cost respondent 25 to include the amount of rent paid to the shareholders for land and to exclude the property taxes personally paid by the shareholders.

On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-average COP to the home market sales of HRS wheat, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether the sale prices were below the COP. The prices were adjusted for any applicable freight revenue, interest charges/allowances, cleaning allowances, cost of moving charges, late shipment storage charges, rail freight allowances, movement charges, billing adjustments, and direct and indirect selling expenses. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices less than their COP, we examined whether such sales were made (1) within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and (2) at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(1), where less than 20 percent of the respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product, because we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we determine that the below-cost sales represent “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, we also determine whether such sales were made at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act. If so, we disregard the below-cost sales.

We found that, for certain specific HRS products, more than 20 percent of the CWB's home market sales within an extended period of time were at prices less than the COP and, in addition, such sales did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales and used the remaining sales, if any, as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade (“LOT”) as the EP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent) according to 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. Id; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997). In order to determine whether the comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market ( i.e. , the “chain of distribution”), 6 including selling functions, 7 class of customer (“customer category”), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412(c), in identifying levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales ( i.e. , NV based on either home market or third country prices), we consider the starting prices before any adjustments.

When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between sales at different LOTs in the country in which NV is determined, we make a level of trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

We obtained information from the CWB regarding the marketing stages involved in making the reported home market and U.S. sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by the CWB for each channel of distribution. Our level of trade findings are summarized below. Our LOT analyses for durum wheat and HRS wheat, which contain business proprietary information, are incorporated in the Calculation Memoranda.

The CWB reported seven channels of distribution in the home market, with three customer categories. The first channel of distribution, coded in its submissions as channel 1, included Eastern Water In-store Thunder Bay sales made to unaffiliated resellers and end-users. The second channel of distribution, coded in its submissions as channel 2, were Eastern Water FOB In-store St. Lawrence sales made to unaffiliated resellers. The third channel of distribution, coded in its submissions as channel 3, were Rail to East (not through Thunder Bay) sales made to unaffiliated resellers and end users. The fourth channel of distribution, coded in its submissions as channel 4, were Western Elevator to Mills (acting as a process elevator) sales made to end users. The fifth channel of distribution, coded in its submissions as channel 5, were Western Elevator to Mill (not acting as a process elevator) and Producer Direct sales made to unaffiliated resellers, end users, and producers. Sales to these customer categories in each of these channels were similar with respect to sales process, freight services, warehouse/inventory maintenance, and warranty service. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that these channels of distribution constitute a distinct LOT (“LOTH1”).

The sixth channel of distribution, coded in its submissions as channel 6, were Western Mill Producer Direct sales made to end users and producers. The seventh channel of distribution, coded in its submissions as channel 10, were Producer Direct Sales, Domestic Feed Sales, or Truck Sales to the United States made to unaffiliated resellers and producers. Sales to these customer categories in both of these channels were similar with respect to sales process, freight services, warehouse/inventory maintenance, and warranty service, but differed from sales to LOTH1 substantially with respect to freight services and warehouse/inventory maintenance. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that these channels of distribution constitute a distinct LOT (“LOTH2”).

In the U.S. market, the CWB had only EP sales. The CWB reported EP sales to two channels of distribution and three customer categories. The first channel of distribution, coded in its submissions as channel 7, were Rail Minneapolis/Chicago sales made to unaffiliated resellers and end users. Sales to both customer categories in this channel were similar with respect to sales process, freight services, warehouse/inventory maintenance, and warranty service. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that this channel of distribution constitutes a distinct LOT (“LOTU1”).

The second channel of distribution, coded in its submissions as channel 10, were Producer Direct Sales, Domestic Feed Sales, or Truck Sales to the United States made only to producers. We found that sales in this channel (“LOTU2”) differed substantially from LOTU1 with respect to the sales process, freight service, and warehouse/inventory maintenance, and that sales in each LOT were made at different points in the chain of distribution. Based upon our overall analysis in the U.S. market, we found that LOTU1 and LOTU2 constitute two distinct levels of trade.

The EP level of trade LOTU1 was similar to the home market level of trade LOTH1 with respect to sales process, freight services, warehousing/inventory maintenance, and warranty service, but differed considerably from home market level of trade LOTH2 with respect to freight services and warehousing/inventory maintenance. Consequently, we matched U.S. sales at EP level of trade LOTU1 to sales at the same level of trade in the home market ( i.e. , LOTH1). Where we did not match products at the same level of trade, and there was a pattern of consistent price differences between different levels of trade, we made a level of trade adjustment. See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

The EP level of trade LOTU2 was similar to the home market level of trade LOTH2 with respect to sales process, freight services, warehousing/inventory maintenance, and warranty service, but differed considerably from home market level of trade LOTH1 with respect to freight services and warehousing/inventory maintenance. Consequently, we matched U.S. sales at EP level of trade LOTU2 to sales at the same level of trade in the home market ( i.e. , LOTH2). Where we did not match products at the same level of trade, and there was a pattern of consistent price differences between different levels of trade, we made a level of trade adjustment. See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

The CWB reported seven channels of distribution in the home market, with three customer categories. The first channel of distribution, coded in its submissions as channel 1, included Eastern Water In-store Thunder Bay sales made to unaffiliated resellers and end-users. The second channel of distribution, coded in its submissions as channel 2, were Eastern Water FOB In-store St. Lawrence sales made to end users. The third channel of distribution, coded in its submissions as channel 3, were Rail to East (not through Thunder Bay) sales made to unaffiliated resellers and end users. The fourth channel of distribution, coded in its submissions as channel 4, were Western Elevator to Mills (acting as a process elevator) sales made to unaffiliated resellers and end users. The fifth channel of distribution, coded in its submissions as channel 5, were Western Elevator to Mill (not acting as a process elevator) and Producer Direct sales made to unaffiliated resellers, end users, and producers. Sales to these customer categories in each of these channels were similar with respect to sales process, freight services, warehouse/inventory maintenance, and warranty service. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that these channels of distribution constitute a distinct LOT (“LOTH1”).

The sixth channel of distribution, coded in its submissions as channel 6, were Western Mill Producer Direct sales made to end users. The seventh channel of distribution, coded in its submissions as channel 10, were Producer Direct Sales, Domestic Feed Sales, or Truck Sales to the United States made to unaffiliated resellers, end users, and producers. Sales to these customer categories in these channels were similar with respect to sales process, freight services, warehouse/inventory maintenance, and warranty service, but differed from sales to LOTH1 substantially with respect to freight services. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that these channels of distribution constitute a distinct LOT (“LOTH2”).

In the U.S. market, the CWB had only EP sales. The CWB reported EP sales to four channels of distribution and three customer categories. The first channel of distribution, coded in its submissions as channel 7, were Rail Minneapolis/Chicago sales made to unaffiliated resellers and end users. The second channel of distribution, coded in its submissions as channel 8, were Vessel Thunder Bay to Buffalo/Puerto Rico sales made to unaffiliated resellers. The third channel of distribution, coded in its submissions as channel 9, were Vancouver to United States sales made to unaffiliated resellers and end users. Sales to both customer categories in these channels were similar with respect to sales process, freight services, warehouse/inventory maintenance, and warranty service. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that these channels of distribution constitute a distinct LOT (“LOTU1”).

The fourth channel of distribution, coded in its submissions as channel 10, were Producer Direct Sales, Domestic Feed Sales, or Truck Sales to the United States made to unaffiliated resellers and producers. Sales to both customer categories in this channel were similar with respect to sales process, freight services, warehouse/inventory maintenance, and warranty service. We further found that sales in this channel (“LOTU2”) differed substantially from LOTU1 with respect to freight services and warehouse/inventory maintenance, and that sales in each LOT were made at different points in the chain of distribution. Based upon our overall analysis in the U.S. market, we found that LOTU1 and LOTU2 constitute two distinct levels of trade.

The EP level of trade LOTU1 was similar to the home market level of trade LOTH1 with respect to sales process, freight services, warehousing/inventory maintenance, and warranty service, but differed considerably from home market level of trade LOTH2 with respect to freight services. Consequently, we matched U.S. sales at EP level of trade LOTU1 to sales at the same level of trade in the home market ( i.e. , LOTH1). Where we did not match products at the same level of trade, and there was a pattern of consistent price differences between different levels of trade, we made a level of trade adjustment. See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

The EP level of trade LOTU2 was similar to the home market level of trade LOTH2 with respect to sales process, freight services, warehousing/inventory maintenance, and warranty service, but differed considerably from home market level of trade LOTH1 with respect to freight services and warehousing/inventory maintenance. Consequently, we matched U.S. sales at EP level of trade LOTU2 to sales at the same level of trade in the home market ( i.e. , LOTH2). Where we did not match products at the same level of trade, and there was a pattern of consistent price differences between different levels of trade, we made a level of trade adjustment. See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

We calculated NV based on in-store or C&F prices to unaffiliated customers or prices to affiliated customers that we determined to be at arm's length. We identified the correct starting price, where appropriate, by accounting for interest charges/allowances, cleaning allowances, cost of moving charges, late shipment storage charges, rail freight allowances, and billing adjustments. We also made adjustments for the following movement expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(iii) of the Act: Foreign inland freight (from country elevator to terminal or Eastern Canadian Mills, or from Thunder Bay to St. Lawrence), hopper car charges, terminal expenses, fobbing costs, handling and elevation expenses, and country elevator storage expenses. As noted in the Calculation Memoranda, we reclassified certain expenses reported by the CWB as movement expenses as direct selling expenses. Because there are no cost differences attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise in these cases, we were not able to make a difference in merchandise adjustment—pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411—based on costs. In addition, where appropriate, we made adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act for differences in circumstances of sale for imputed credit expenses, tender premiums, car awards performance measures, cleaning costs, weighing/inspection costs, protein premiums, producer revenues, and certain other proprietary adjustments. We also made adjustments, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses incurred in the comparison market or on U.S. sales where commissions were granted on sales in one market but not in the other (the commission offset). Finally, where appropriate, we made an adjustment for differences in LOT under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412(b)-(e).

We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve.

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we will verify all information to be used in making our final determinations.

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (“BCBP”) to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise from Canada that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . We will instruct the BCBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds the EP, as indicated in the chart below. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our determinations. If our final determinations are affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of these preliminary determinations or 45 days after our final determinations whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industries.

We will disclose the calculations used in our analyses to parties in these proceedings in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Case briefs for these investigations must be submitted to the Department no later than 50 days after the date of publication of these preliminary determinations or one week after the issuance of the last verification report, whichever is later. Rebuttal briefs must be filed five days after the deadline for submission of case briefs. A list of authorities used, a table of contents, and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes.

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

Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days of the publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs.

If these investigations proceed normally, we will make our final determinations within 75 days of these preliminary determinations.

These determinations are published pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i) of the Act.

On February 27, 2003, the Department received a letter from Nucor requesting an administrative review of the countervailing order on CTL Plate from Korea. On March 25, 2003, the Department initiated an administrative review of this order for the period January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2002. Nucor submitted a letter dated March 24, 2003, withdrawing its request for the above referenced administrative review.

For purposes of this administrative review, the products covered are certain hot-rolled carbon-quality steel: (1) Universal mill plates ( i.e. , flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a nominal or actual thickness of not less than 4 mm, which are cut-to-length (not in coils) and without patterns in relief), of iron or non-alloy-quality steel; and (2) flat-rolled products, hot-rolled, of a nominal or actual thickness of 4.75 mm or more and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness, and which are cut-to-length (not in coils). Steel products to be included in the scope of this order are of rectangular, square, circular or other shape and of rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such non-rectangular cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process ( i.e. , products which have been “worked after rolling”)—for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Steel products that meet the noted physical characteristics that are painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances are included within this scope. Also, specifically included in the scope of this order are high strength, low alloy (HSLA) steels. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Steel products to be included in this scope, regardless of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions, are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is two percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below is equal to or exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 1.50 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.41 percent of titanium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent zirconium. All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not equal or exceed any one of the levels listed above, are within the scope of this order unless otherwise specifically excluded. The following products are specifically excluded from this order: (1) Products clad, plated, or coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances; (2) SAE grades (formerly AISI grades) of series 2300 and above; (3) products made to ASTM A710 and A736 or their proprietary equivalents; (4) abrasion-resistant steels ( i.e. , USS AR 400, USS AR 500); (5) products made to ASTM A202, A225, A514 grade S, A517 grade S, or their proprietary equivalents; (6) ball bearing steels; (7) tool steels; and (8) silicon manganese steel or silicon electric steel.

The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the HTSUS under subheadings: 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7225.40.3050, 7225.40.7000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000, 7226.91.8000, 7226.99.0000.

Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise covered by these orders is dispositive.

Within 90 days of the March 25, 2003, publication of the notice of initiation, Nucor withdrew its request for an administrative review. See Letter from Nucor to the Department dated March 24, 2003, on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099, Main Building of the Department of Commerce. No other interested party requested a review, and we have received no submissions commenting on Nucor's withdrawal of its request for review.

In accordance with the Department's regulation, 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), and consistent with its practice, the Department hereby rescinds the administrative review of CTL Plate from Korea for the period January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002. See, e.g., Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey: Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review , 67 FR 42541 (June 24, 2002).

This notice is in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and § 351.213(d)(4) of the Department's regulations.

Background

On May 22, 2002, the Department published in the Federal Register its amended final affirmative countervailing duty determination and countervailing duty order on certain softwood lumber products (subject merchandise) from Canada (67 FR 36070), as corrected (67 FR 37775; May 30, 2002) ( Amended Final Determination ). On July 17, 2002, the Department published the Notice of Initiation/Round 1 which covered 73 companies that filed complete and timely review applications. See 67 FR 46955. On September 20, 2002, the Department published the Notice of Initiation/Round 2 , which covered 31 additional companies. See 67 FR 59252. This notice included 23 companies that had corrected incomplete applications as well as eight companies whose requests were received beyond the initial application deadline for reasons outside the requesters' control.

As explained in the Notice of Initiation/Round 1 , we segregated applicants into two groups. Group 1 consists of companies that obtain the majority of their wood (over 50 percent of their inputs) from the United States, the Maritime Provinces, Canadian private lands, and Canadian companies excluded from the order, and companies that source less than a majority of their wood from these sources and do not have tenure. Group 2 includes companies that source less than a majority of their wood from these sources and have acquired Crown timber through their own tenure contracts. In Round 1, we found that 45 companies satisfied the requirements of Group 1 and 28 companies satisfied the requirements of Group 2. In Round 2, we found that 22 companies satisfied the requirements of Group 1 and nine companies satisfied the requirement of Group 2.

In our review of the applications in Group 1 in Round 1, we noted that, in order to conduct our analysis, we required only minimal supplemental data for 24 of the 45 companies. The other Group 1 companies required additional information and more extensive analysis. We issued questionnaires to the 24 companies requiring only minimal information and set a short deadline for the response. Of the 24 companies, 18 were able to supply the supplemental information by the deadline. We completed our preliminary analysis of those 18 companies, using the Group 1 methodology (see “Methodology” section below). See Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Expedited Reviews: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada (67 FR 52945; August 14, 2002) ( August Preliminary Results ). On November 5, 2002, we published the final results for 13 of the 18 companies covered by the August Preliminary Results. See Final Results and Partial Recission of Countervailing Duty Expedited Reviews: Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada ( November Final Results ) (67 FR 67388; November 5, 2002). Concurrent with this notice, we are publishing the final results on three additional companies.

Subsequent to the August Preliminary Results , nine Group 1 companies in Round 1 requested an analysis of whether they benefitted from subsidies bestowed on their inputs: American Bayridge Corporation, Blanchette and Blanchette Inc., Goodfellow Inc., Les Bois d'Oeuvre Beaudoin & Gauthier, Meunier Lumber Company Ltd., Mid-America Lumber, Olav Haavaldsrud Timber Company Limited, Treeline Wood Products Limited, and Usine Sartigan Inc. Subsequent to the Notice of Initiation/Round 2 , three Group 1 companies in Round 2 requested an analysis of whether they benefitted from subsidies bestowed on their inputs: Carson Lake Lumber Limited, Winnipeg Forest Products, Inc., and W.I. Woodtone Industries. We are not including in this notice any of the companies that requested an analysis of whether they benefitted from subsidies bestowed on their inputs.

This notice includes the preliminary results for 28 Group 1 companies (14 in Round 1 and 14 in Round 2).

We received comments and rebuttal comments on the August Preliminary Results , on September 6, 2002, and September 18, 2002, respectively, from petitioners and several respondents. We addressed the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with the November Final Results notice. However, we only addressed those issues that were of a general nature or that specifically affected those 13 reviews. We also received comments from petitioners on November 4, 2002, and December 12, 2002. On January 23, 2003, West Bay Forest Products & Manufacturing Ltd. (West Bay), a company covered by these preliminary results, submitted rebuttal comments to petitioners December 12, 2002, comments. In these preliminary results, we are addressing petitioners' November 4, 2002, and December 12, 2002, comments concerning the companies in these preliminary results, West Bay's rebuttal comments, as well as outstanding methodological issues related to Group 1 companies.

On October 18, 2002, Doman Industries Limited, a respondent company in Round 2, withdrew its request for review. On October 29, 2002, Jackpine Engineered Wood Products Inc. and Jackpine Forest Products Limited, respondent companies in Round 1, withdrew their requests for review. On February 5, 2002, Domtar Inc., another respondent company in Round 1, withdrew its request for review.

In addition, after examining information submitted by the companies in these expedited reviews proceedings, we find that one company, Francois Giguere Inc., a company in Round 1 did not ship the subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review (April 1, 2000, through March 31, 2001) (POR). In accordance with the Department's practice, companies that did not ship subject merchandise during the period covered by the investigation or review are not eligible to participate in that segment of the proceeding. See, e.g., Final Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from the Republic of Korea (68 FR 13267; March 19, 2002). Moreover, the application to request an expedited review specifically listed exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR as one of the eligibility requirements. Therefore, we are rescinding the expedited review for Francois Giguere Inc.

Similarly, two companies in Round 2, 2859-8936 Quebec Inc. Les Cedre Basques and 9027-7971 Quebec Inc., stated in their applications that they did not have any sales of the subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Instead, they claim that a wholesaler sold their subject merchandise to the United States during the POR; however, they did not provide a completed application for this wholesaler who exported their subject merchandise, as specifically requested in the application form. Because they did not provide the necessary information with regard to this wholesaler, we are not able to proceed with their expedited reviews. See Letter from Melissa Skinner, Director, Office VI, to 2859-8936 Quebec Inc. Les Cedre Basques and Letter from Melissa Skinner to 9027-7971 Quebec Inc., both dated April 11, 2003, on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Commerce Building. Therefore, we are rescinding the expedited reviews for 2859-8936 Quebec Inc. Les Cedre Basques and 9027-7971 Quebec Inc.

Further, one of the Round 2 companies, Hollcan Millworks Ltd. (Hollcan) did not respond to our January 15, 2003, questionnaire which was due on January 29, 2003. We attempted to contact the company to follow up on the questionnaire and found that the phone line was disconnected and email messages were returned as undeliverable. See the Department's March 17, 2003 memorandum to the file regarding Expedited Reviews in the Countervailing Duty Order on Softwood Lumber from Canada (C-122-839), which is on file in room B-099 of the Central Records Unit of the Main Commerce Building. Because Hollcan did not provide the necessary information, we are not able to proceed. Therefore, we are rescinding the expedited review for Hollcan.

Our analysis of the information submitted by Group 1 companies in Round 1 and Round 2 also indicates that there are several companies that performed no processing or manufacturing with respect to the subject merchandise they sold to the United States during the POR, but rather these companies resold softwood lumber processed/manufactured by other companies. As we clearly indicated in our May 24, 2002, Expedited Review Application, in instances involving resales activity, we require information from all of the reseller's suppliers in order to calculate a net subsidy rate for the reseller. The pure resellers ( i.e. , companies with no lumber production or manufacturing of their own) identified below did not provide the information originally requested in the Expedited Review Application. In fact, contrary to the Department's instructions in the Expedited Review Application, several of the companies listed below did not fully disclose their resale activities in the application. Moreover, with respect to some companies, it was not until we had analyzed sales information contained in several supplemental questionnaire responses that we realized that they were, in fact, pure resellers. Therefore, we are rescinding the expedited review for the following Round 1 company: Cando Contracting Ltd. In addition, we are rescinding the expedited reviews for the following Round 2 companies: Antrim Cedar Corporation, Goldwood Industries Ltd., and Westwood Wholesale Lumber Ltd.

Finally, we note that one Group 1 company, Kootenay Innovate Wood Inc., is cross-owned with a Group 2 company. As explained below in Comment 1 of the “Analysis of Comments Received” section of these preliminary results, Group 1 companies that are cross-owned with Group 2 companies will be processed with the Group 2 companies. Thus, Kootenay has not received a company-specific rate in these preliminary results.

This notice includes the preliminary results of review for the following 14 Group 1 companies in Round 1:

These preliminary results also include the preliminary results of review for the following 14 Group 1 companies in Round 2:

Further we are rescinding on the following five companies in Round 1:

We are also rescinding on the following seven companies in Round 2:

The products covered by this order are softwood lumber, flooring and siding (softwood lumber products). Softwood lumber products include all products classified under headings 4407.1000, 4409.1010, 4409.1090, and 4409.1020, respectively, of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), and any softwood lumber, flooring and siding described below. These softwood lumber products include:

(1) Coniferous wood, sawn or chipped lengthwise, sliced or peeled, whether or not planed, sanded or finger-jointed, of a thickness exceeding six millimeters;

(2) Coniferous wood siding (including strips and friezes for parquet flooring, not assembled) continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, rabbeted, chamfered, v-jointed, beaded, molded, rounded or the like) along any of its edges or faces, whether or not planed, sanded or finger-jointed;

(3) Other coniferous wood (including strips and friezes for parquet flooring, not assembled) continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, rabbeted, chamfered, v-jointed, beaded, molded, rounded or the like) along any of its edges or faces (other than wood moldings and wood dowel rods) whether or not planed, sanded or finger-jointed; and

(4) Coniferous wood flooring (including strips and friezes for parquet flooring, not assembled) continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, rabbeted, chamfered, v-jointed, beaded, molded, rounded or the like) along any of its edges or faces, whether or not planed, sanded or finger-jointed.

Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and BCBP purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to this order is dispositive.

As specifically stated in the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada (67 FR 15539; April 2, 2002) ( see comment 53, item D, page 116, and comment 57, item B-7, page 126), available at www.ia.ita.doc.gov , drilled and notched lumber and angle cut lumber are covered by the scope of this order.

The following softwood lumber products are excluded from the scope of this order provided they meet the specified requirements detailed below:

(1) Stringers (pallet components used for runners): if they have at least two notches on the side, positioned at equal distance from the center, to properly accommodate forklift blades, properly classified under HTSUS 4421.90.98.40.

(2) Box-spring frame kits: If they contain the following wooden pieces—two side rails, two end (or top) rails and varying numbers of slats. The side rails and the end rails should be radius-cut at both ends. The kits should be individually packaged, they should contain the exact number of wooden components needed to make a particular box spring frame, with no further processing required. None of the components exceeds 1″ in actual thickness or 83″ in length.

(3) Radius-cut box-spring-frame components , not exceeding 1″ in actual thickness or 83″ in length, ready for assembly without further processing. The radius cuts must be present on both ends of the boards and must be substantial cuts so as to completely round one corner.

(4) Fence pickets requiring no further processing and properly classified under HTSUS heading 4421.90.70, 1″ or less in actual thickness, up to 8″ wide, 6′ or less in length, and have finials or decorative cuttings that clearly identify them as fence pickets. In the case of dog-eared fence pickets, the corners of the boards should be cut off so as to remove pieces of wood in the shape of isosceles right angle triangles with sides measuring 3/4 inch or more.

(5) U.S. origin lumber shipped to Canada for minor processing and imported into the United States, is excluded from the scope of this order if the following conditions are met: (1) The processing occurring in Canada is limited to kiln-drying, planing to create smooth-to-size board, and sanding, and (2) if the importer establishes to BCBP' satisfaction that the lumber is of U.S. origin.

(6) Softwood lumber products contained in single family home packages or kits , 1 regardless of tariff classification, are excluded from the scope of this order if the importer certifies to items 6 A, B, C, D, and requirement 6 E is met:

A. The imported home package or kit constitutes a full package of the number of wooden pieces specified in the plan, design or blueprint necessary to produce a home of at least 700 square feet produced to a specified plan, design or blueprint;

B. The package or kit must contain all necessary internal and external doors and windows, nails, screws, glue, sub floor, sheathing, beams, posts, connectors, and if included in the purchase contract, decking, trim, drywall and roof shingles specified in the plan, design or blueprint.

C. Prior to importation, the package or kit must be sold to a retailer of complete home packages or kits pursuant to a valid purchase contract referencing the particular home design plan or blueprint, and signed by a customer not affiliated with the importer;

D. Softwood lumber products entered as part of a single family home package or kit, whether in a single entry or multiple entries on multiple days, will be used solely for the construction of the single family home specified by the home design matching the entry.

E. For each entry, the following documentation must be retained by the importer and made available to the BCBP upon request:

i. A copy of the appropriate home design, plan, or blueprint matching the entry;

ii. A purchase contract from a retailer of home kits or packages signed by a customer not affiliated with the importer;

iii. A listing of inventory of all parts of the package or kit being entered that conforms to the home design package being entered;

iv. In the case of multiple shipments on the same contract, all items listed in E(iii) which are included in the present shipment shall be identified as well.

Lumber products that the BCBP may classify as stringers, radius cut box-spring-frame components, and fence pickets, not conforming to the above requirements, as well as truss components, pallet components, and door and window frame parts, are covered under the scope of this order and may be classified under HTSUS subheadings 4418.90.45.90 , 4421.90.70.40, and 4421.90.97.40.

Finally, as clarified throughout the course of the investigation, the following products, previously identified as Group A, remain outside the scope of this order. They are:

In addition, this scope language has been further clarified to now specify that all softwood lumber products entered from Canada claiming non-subject status based on U.S. country of origin will be treated as non-subject U.S.-origin merchandise under the countervailing duty order, provided that these softwood lumber products meet the following condition: Upon entry, the importer, exporter, Canadian processor and/or original U.S. producer establish to BCBP's satisfaction that the softwood lumber entered and documented as U.S.-origin softwood lumber was first produced in the United States as a lumber product satisfying the physical parameters of the softwood lumber scope. 2 The presumption of non-subject status can, however, be rebutted by evidence demonstrating that the merchandise was substantially transformed in Canada.

These preliminary results include: (a) Companies that obtain the majority of their wood (over 50 percent of their inputs) from the United States, the Maritime Provinces, Canadian private lands, and/or Canadian companies excluded from the order, and (b) companies that source less than a majority of their wood from these sources and do not have tenure. We calculated company-specific rates based on the methodology described in the November Final Results . To obtain the company-specific stumpage benefit, we multiplied the quantity of Crown logs and the quantity of lumber inputs (except for those specified below) by the province-specific stumpage benefit calculated in the underlying investigation, i.e. , the average per-unit differential between the calculated adjusted stumpage fee for the relevant province and the appropriate benchmark for that province. For those provinces, such as British Columbia and Ontario, for which we calculated more than one per-unit benefit in the investigation, we calculated one province-wide per-unit benefit by weight-averaging the previously calculated values by the corresponding volumes of harvested softwood (this was done in the November Final Results ). As indicated in the Notice of Initiation/Round 1 , we have not attributed a benefit to (1) logs or lumber acquired from the Maritime Provinces, (2) logs or lumber of U.S. origin, (3) lumber produced by mills excluded in the investigation, and (4) logs from Canadian private land. See 67 FR 46955, 46957. Furthermore, we are not including in our subsidy rate calculations logs which the companies demonstrate to have acquired and resold without any processing. In addition, we are also not including in the subsidy calculations lumber purchased and resold without any further production or manufacturing because, as explained below, the companies in these preliminary results failed to submit information regarding their suppliers as originally requested in our expedited review application. We divided the stumpage benefit by the appropriate value of the company's sales (scope and non-scope softwood lumber products and softwood lumber by-products, net of resales) to determine the company's estimated subsidy rate from stumpage and then added any benefit from other programs to obtain the cash deposit rate for the company.

Several companies reported that they are cross-owned with other companies that produce and/or manufacture subject merchandise. Specifically, Fraser Pacific Forest Products Inc., Frontier Mills Inc., and Landmark Truss & Lumber Inc. (Landmark Companies) stated that they were cross-owned. Similarly, West Bay Forest Products & Manufacturing Ltd. indicated that it is cross-owned with two companies that produce and/or manufacture subject merchandise, Gold Mountain and Cedarshed (West Bay Companies). With respect to the Landmark and the West Bay Companies, in accordance with § 351.525(b)(6) of the Department's Regulations, we first calculated the benefits for each of the cross-owned companies using the approach described in the “Methodology” section of these Preliminary Results. We then summed the benefits attributable to the consolidated, cross-owned entity and divided the total by the entity's consolidated sales denominator (scope and non-scope softwood lumber products and softwood lumber by-products, net of resales).

As discussed above in the “Partial Rescission” section of these preliminary results, companies with reselling activities were instructed in the Expedited Review Application to provide information pertaining to their suppliers. However, the Group 1 companies with resale and production activities failed to provide such information. Therefore, the Department is not in a position to calculate the benefit on the portion of their sales attributable to resales. For this reason, lumber that was resold by these companies without any further production or manufacturing will remain subject to the country-wide rate established in the Amended Final Determination . Regarding lumber actually produced or manufactured by these companies, we have calculated a company-specific benefit that is based solely on the lumber that the companies have produced. Accordingly, for each Group 1 company included in these preliminary results that produces its own lumber and performs resale activities, we calculated a company-specific-rate for all lumber that the company produces. Lumber that is resold by these companies without any further manufacturing will be subject to the “Country-Wide Rate” calculated in the Final Amended Determination .

For the period April 1, 2000, to March 31, 2001, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy rate for this program to be as follows for Group 1 companies in Round 1:

For the period April 1, 2000, to March 31, 2001, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy rate for this program to be as follows for Group 1 companies in Round 2:

In the underlying investigation, the Department determined that the provinces of British Columbia and Quebec provided countervailable benefits under certain programs. British Columbia provided countervailable benefits under the Forest Renewal Program and Quebec provided countervailable benefits under the Private Forest Development Program (PFDP), loans issued by Investment Quebec, lending under Article 28 of the Society for the Industrial Development of Quebec (SDI) and loans issues by the Society for the Recuperation and Development of Quebec Forests (Rexfor). Based upon our decision in the underlying investigation, the Department requested information from companies regarding the use of these programs. Four companies from British Columbia reported using the Forest Renewal Program. These were the only companies in these preliminary results that reported using previously investigated non-stumpage programs during the POR. Consistent with our approach in the underlying investigation, we are treating benefits received under the Forest Renewal Program as countervailable grants. In accordance with § 351.524(2), we have allocated all of the benefits provided under this program to the year of receipt because the total amount approved under the subsidy program is less than 0.5 percent of the relevant sales denominator ( i.e. , total sales of softwood lumber products, net of resales). To calculate the net subsidy rate received under this program, we divided the benefit by the companies' total sales of softwood lumber products, net of resales.

For the period April 1, 2000, to March 31, 2001, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy rate to be as follows for Group 1 companies in Round 1:

For the period April 1, 2000, to March 31, 2001, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy rate to be as follows for Group 1 companies in Round 2:

The following comments address methodological issues related to Group 1 companies as well as issues concerning the general methodologies the Department is applying in these expedited reviews.

Comment 1: Whether the Same Methodology Should Be Applied to Cross-owned Companies When One Is Assigned to Group 1 and the Other to Group 2. Tembec Inc., Dowie Timber Ltd., Selkirk Specialty Wood Ltd., Mill & Timber Products Ltd., R. Fryer Forest Products Limited, and Liskeard Lumber Ltd. (the Tembec Group) argue that treatment of Group 2 companies becomes more complicated in instances in which a Group 2 company is cross-owned with a Group 1 company. The Tembec Group contends that there is no indication as to which methodology will be employed for each company in these types of cases. The Tembec Group maintains that if the Department uses the simplified methodology for the Group 1 company and the cost methodology for the Group 2 company, the Department would be in conflict with its own policy to treat cross-owned companies as one entity.

With respect to the treatment of cross-owned companies when one company is in Group 1 and one company is in Group 2, petitioners assert that all cross-owned companies in this situation should be examined using the Group 2 methodology. Petitioners argue that the Group 2 methodology is the most accurate of the two methods and should apply in such cases.

Department's position : We disagree with both respondents and petitioners. The Group 1 and Group 2 benefit calculation methodologies are, more or less, the same, the only difference being that the Group 2 methodology involves the calculation of a benefit attributable to timber harvested from Crown lands based on the company's actual experience. Thus, for Group 1 companies cross-owned with Group 2 companies, the Department will apply the Group 1 benefit calculation methodology to the Group 1 company and apply the Group 2 benefit calculation methodology to the cross-owned company in Group 2. To derive the net subsidy rate applicable to both the Group 1 and Group 2 company that are cross-owned, the Department will sum the two benefit amounts and divide the total by the two companies' consolidated sales denominator (scope and non-scope softwood lumber products and softwood lumber by-products, net of resales). Therefore, with respect to the methodology to be applied to companies whose cross-owned companies may be assigned to a different group, the Department, when calculating the benefit, will apply to each Group 1 or Group 2 company the methodology, regardless of cross-ownership, of the group to which the company is assigned. The rate for the cross-owned companies will be calculated taking into account the results of the two separate calculations. Given this approach, we are unable in these preliminary results to calculate a consolidated net subsidy rate for Group 1 companies that are cross-owned with Group 2 companies because we are still processing and receiving data from Group 2 companies.

Comment 2: Whether Subsidy Amounts Attributed to Logs on the Basis of Volume Should be Equal to Subsidies Amounts Attributed to Lumber and Sawdust. Petitioners argue that the Department was in error in the Issues and Decision Memorandum issued in conjunction with the November Final Results in saying “the Department made no distinction between the amount of subsidy attributed to one cubic meter of lumber and the amount of subsidy attributed to one cubic meter of sawdust.” See page 15 of the Issues and Decision Memorandum: Final Results of Expedited Reviews of 13 Companies Covered by the August 14, 2002 Notice of Preliminary Results Under the Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada (November Issues and Decision Memorandum ). Petitioners contend that this is not supported by the facts and is inconsistent with the countervailing duty methodology and economics. Petitioners contend that the allocation of subsidies is based upon the value of products of the subsidized mills. High-value products are recognized as being more highly subsidized and the majority of the subsidy is allocated to these products. In contrast, the allocation of the subsidy to low-value products is much less.

Petitioners contend that in the lumber investigation, the subsidy was attributed to the value of the lumber products produced from preferentially provided inputs. Moreover, they state that the subsidy calculation is always performed on a value, not a volume basis. They cite to 19 CFR 351.525(a) which states “the Secretary will calculate the ad valorem subsidy rate by dividing the amount of the benefit allocated to the period of investigation or review by the sales value * * *” Therefore, they argue that the subsidy calculation should be based on the value of the entire input and the value of the entire output since the whole log is required to produce softwood lumber. Petitioners maintain that the Department should clarify that the correct methodology of allocating the subsidy between lumber and by-products, consistent with the underlying investigation, is based on value and not volume.

Moreover, petitioners assert that in the expedited reviews the Department correctly calculated the subsidy by multiplying the per cubic meter benefit on sawtimber by the volume of sawlogs used by the sawmills. However, petitioners contend that the Department also multiplied the province-wide per-cubic-meter benefit on sawtimber by the volume of lumber used as an input by the reviewed lumber company. Petitioners argue that the per-unit benefit on logs is not the same as the per-unit benefit on lumber because it may take as much as two cubic meters of sawtimber to make a cubic meter of lumber.

Petitioners contend that this methodology is inconsistent with the Notice of Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Negative Critical Circumstances Determination: Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada, 67 FR 15545 (April 2, 2002) ( Final Determination ). They claim that the Department's methodology understates the subsidy amount on lumber. Petitioners argue that the application of a per-unit benefit based on logs to lumber inputs acquired by, for example, a Canadian lumber remanufacturer, would not reflect the full value of the subsidy received when the lumber in question was resold. Petitioners maintain that this methodology is not supported mathematically. Moreover, the fact that this calculation methodology was used in the exclusion process in the underlying investigation provides no basis to continue this error. Although, assert petitioners, they did not have time to address this erroneous methodology in calculating the company-specific exclusions in their briefs, they claim this methodology should be subject to correction in these expedited reviews.

Department's position : We have carefully considered petitioners' comments on the amount of subsidies attributable to lumber acquired as an input. We remain, however, of the view that the methodology that has been followed by the Department is reasonable and in accordance with our practice.

In these expedited reviews, just as in the exclusion process in the investigation, one of the tasks before the Department is to estimate the amount of subsidy attributable to lumber as an input into the manufacturing process. No such value was derived in determining the country-wide rate in the investigation. In that context, we simply calculated the amount of subsidy attributed to timber; we did not—because we did not need to—derive a value for the subsidy attributable to lumber produced from subsidized timber.

In the exclusion process, we estimated the amount of benefit on lumber as an input into the manufacturing process based on the only value available from the investigation, i.e. the benefit on timber expressed as a specific dollar amount per cubic meter. Because the amount of the benefit calculated in the investigation was based on volume, we attributed the benefit to lumber on a volume (not value) basis. We applied this benefit to all lumber, not only to lumber of Crown origin, because, as we stated in the February 20, 2002, Decision Memorandum (Memorandum from Bernard Carreau, Deputy Assistant Secretary, to Faryar Shirzad, Assistant Secretary, regarding Countervailing Duty Investigation on Softwood Lumber Products from Canada), “as a practical matter it is impossible to distinguish lumber produced from private logs and lumber produced from Crown timber, once it is processed in potentially subsidized mills.” We used this methodology in the exclusion process and clearly described it in the first initiation notice of the expedited reviews ( Notice of Initiation/Round 1 ).

As previously stated in Comment 4 of the November Issues and Decision Memorandum, we believe that petitioners had ample opportunity to comment on the accuracy of this methodology during the investigation and in earlier stages of these expedited reviews, particularly when we requested comments on our proposed methodology in the first initiation notice. We received no comments on this issue; therefore, we proceeded with issuing the preliminary results for 18 companies. Petitioners commented after the publication of the August Preliminary Results ; however, we disagreed with petitioners' position and applied the same methodology in the final results for 13 of those companies.

We find no compelling reason in petitioners' arguments to modify the methodology applied so far. In particular, petitioners have not demonstrated that—given the information that is reasonably available to the Department within the time constraints applicable to these reviews—their approach to attributing subsidies to lumber used as an input is more accurate than the approach used by the Department. Moreover, the Department finds that a change in methodology at this time could be detrimental to the companies under review, who have relied on the current methodology to make a number of decisions, such as whether or not to withdraw from the expedited reviews and whether or not to apply for an upstream analysis. For all these reasons, we are continuing to apply the province-wide stumpage benefit to a unit of lumber in these preliminary results, as we did in the August Preliminary Results and the investigation.

Comment 3: Whether Group 1 Companies That Did Not Request an Analysis of Whether They Benefitted From Subsidies Bestowed on Their Inputs Should Be Able To Reassess This Decision. Landmark Truss & Lumber Inc. (Landmark) and its subsidiaries Frontier Mills Inc. and Fraser Pacific Forest Products Inc. maintain that they did not request an analysis of whether they benefitted from subsidies bestowed on their inputs based on their understanding that the final results for Group 1 companies would be issued within the time frames previously announced by the Department. Furthermore, Landmark understood that any results based on an analysis of whether they benefitted from subsidies bestowed on their inputs would not be issued until after the final results of Group 2 companies.

Landmark notes that petitioners have argued in their case brief that the final results of expedited reviews for all companies should be issued simultaneously. Landmark asserts that if the Department decides not to follow its schedule for Group 1 companies and instead issues all expedited reviews simultaneously, then Group 1 companies with the same circumstances as Landmark should be allowed to reassess their decision with respect to requesting an analysis of whether subsidies bestowed on their inputs benefitted them.

Landmark also notes that the Government of Canada (GOC) has argued in case briefs submitted during the course of this proceeding that an analysis of whether the companies benefitted from subsidies bestowed on their inputs should not extend the existing timelines for the expedited reviews and that the Department should issue a proposed methodology for the conduct of this type of analysis. If the Department agrees to complete the analysis on the established schedule or if the Department issues a proposed methodology for the conduct of this type of analysis, Landmark submits that companies similarly situated should be given the opportunity to reassess their decision and to request such an analysis.

Department's Position: In their September 6, 2002, case brief at page 16, the GOC maintained that the Department should allow companies purchasing inputs through arm's length transactions to request expedited reviews subsequent to initiation of the expedited reviews. In the November Final Results , we emphasized that allowing other companies to request expedited reviews at that time would complicate and delay an already elaborate and cumbersome process. Similarly, giving companies the opportunity to reassess and request an analysis of whether subsidies bestowed on their inputs benefitted them at this stage in the expedited review process, as Landmark suggests, would further complicate and delay the expedited review process. Therefore, we are not adopting these suggestions.

Comment 1: Antrim Cedar Corporation. Petitioners assert that Antrim Cedar's exclusion request in the underlying investigation indicated that it was a reseller of lumber during the POR, however, in these expedited reviews, Antrim reported that it had no resales of logs or lumber.

Department's Position: Antrim's application and subsequent questionnaire responses indicate resales of subject merchandise. However, as indicated above, we are rescinding Antrim's expedited review. The basis of our determination with respect to Antrim's expedited review is explained in the “Partial Recission” section of this notice.

Comment 2: Central Cedar Ltd. Petitioners contend that the total value of all sales of subject merchandise reported in Central Cedar's exclusion request differs from the amount reported in its expedited review application.

Department's Position: The exclusion request was in a different segment of the proceeding from these expedited reviews. Therefore, the figures provided in the two segments of the proceeding are not directly comparable. The numbers reported for purposes of these expedited reviews are F.O.B. values and we have sent several questionnaires to the companies clarifying exactly how the sales data should be derived for purposes of these expedited reviews. Companies have provided the clarified data to the Department and we have used it in these preliminary results.

Comment 3: Fraser Pacific Forest Products. Petitioners contend that in the exclusion process, Fraser reported that it was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Landmark Truss and reported total sales of subject merchandise for itself and its affiliated companies. However, petitioners point out that in these expedited reviews, Landmark Truss by itself claimed total sales of subject merchandise without mention of any affiliates. Petitioners assert that the sum of total sales of subject merchandise for these three companies' expedited review applications is a substantial increase over the amount reported for total sales of subject merchandise in the exclusion process.

Department's Position: Fraser Pacific Forest Products has reported in these expedited reviews that it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Landmark and also cross-owned with Frontier Mills. In these expedited review proceedings, we have sent several questionnaires to Fraser Pacific, Frontier Mills, and Landmark to clarify the data that was submitted. We have calculated the rate for this company using our cross-owned methodology as described above in the methodology section of this notice. Thus, we have accounted for not only its cross-ownership with Landmark, but also its cross-ownership with Frontier Mills.

Comment 4: Power Wood Corporation (Power Wood) and Rielly Industrial Lumber Inc. (Rielly). Petitioners assert that the total sales of subject merchandise reported in Power Wood's and Rielly's exclusion request differs from the amount reported in the expedited review process. Moreover, petitioners contend that in the company exclusion process these two companies certified that they received no benefit from provincial Crown stumpage in British Columbia. Yet, petitioners point out that in the Power Wood's and Rielly's expedited review application, they reported that they acquired Crown-origin logs from British Columbia during the POR.

Department's Position: As noted in Comment 2 above concerning Central Cedar, these expedited review proceedings are different from the exclusion process. We have provided in these expedited reviews specific instructions how to derive the data for sales. In addition, we have taken into account Power Wood's and Rielly's Crown-origin logs reported in the company's questionnaire response in our calculation for this company's individual cash deposit rate.

Comment 5: Sylvanex Lumber Products Inc. Petitioners argue that in the company exclusion proceeding, Sylvanex Lumber Products Inc. (Sylvanex) reported that they had received government assistance while in these expedited reviews, Sylvanex indicates that they received no government assistance.

Department's Position: As noted in numerous company-specific comments above, the company exclusion segment of the proceeding was different from the expedited review segment of the proceeding. Contrary to petitioners' assertion, during the exclusion process and by letter dated August 21, 2001, Sylvanex reported that it “did not benefit from other programs subject to this investigation.” See the GOC's October 29, 2001, submission, of which a public version is on file in room B-099 of the Central Records Unit in the main Commerce Building. In addition, the October 10, 2001 certification supplied by Forest Renewal BC indicated that Sylvanex received zero benefits from Forest Renewal BC. The benefit that petitioner states that Sylvanex reported during the exclusion process resulted from the reporting, by Forest Renewal BC of sums provided to various associations within British Columbia. These amounts were allocated to members of the associations for purposes of the exclusion applications alone. In these expedited reviews, the participating companies have submitted program usage information based on their own financial records and experience. Under this approach, Sylvanex again has reported that it did not use the Forest Renewal Program during the POR. Given the difference in reporting methodologies between the two proceedings and the fact that Sylvanex based its questionnaire response on its own financial data, we find the discrepancy raised by petitioners is adequately explained and, thus, does not call into question the veracity of the information submitted by Sylvanex in these expedited reviews.

Comment 6: Tyee Timber Products Ltd. According to petitioners, Tyee Timber Products (Tyee) indicated in the exclusion process that they were affiliated with another company. However, petitioners point out that in these expedited reviews, Tyee does not indicate that they are affiliated with any company. Moreover, the total sales of subject merchandise reported in the exclusion proceeding differs from the total sales of subject merchandise reported in their expedited review application. Lastly, petitioners argue that in Tyee's expedited review application the company indicated that no logs were used or purchased, however, they report in another section of the application that the company used British Columbian timber as inputs.

Department's Position: As explained above, the exclusion process was a different segment of the proceeding from these expedited reviews, and we have clarified in our questionnaires how the sales data should be derived for purposes of our analysis as well as how to report data related to logs harvested and purchased. With respect to whether Tyee reported affiliates in its expedited review application, as explained above, the reporting methodologies used by participating companies differed between the exclusion process and the expedited review process. In the exclusion process, companies signed certifications regarding their affiliation and cross-ownership status that were based on questionnaires and guidelines compiled and issued by the GOC. See the GOC's October 29, 2001, submission. In contrast, in the expedited reviews, the Department has sent questionnaires directly to the participating companies that contain specific definitions and instructions regarding the issue of affiliation and cross-ownership. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable, since different authorities issued separate and different questionnaires, that some discrepancies would exist between the two proceedings. However, what is germane to the instant proceeding is what Tyee has stated regarding its affiliation and cross-ownership with other companies based on the definitions and instructions that were directly provided to it by the Department. On this point, Tyee has made clear in its application and questionnaire responses that it was not affiliated or cross-owned with any companies.

Comment 7: West Bay Forest Products and Manufacturing Ltd. Petitioners contend that West Bay Forest Products reported in the exclusion process different values for total sales of subject merchandise from the value they reported in their application for expedited review.

In response, West Bay Forest Products asserts that the financial information reported in their exclusion application reported total sales of all remanufactured softwood lumber. With respect to the expedited reviews, the company reported the combined total of remanufactured and resale sales amounts. Moreover, the company found an additional error in the total value of remanufactured sales reported in their original expedited review filing. In addition, the company provided a reconciliation of the difference between the figures in the two segments of the proceeding.

Department's Position: As explained above, we provided specific instructions on how to calculate sales figures in these expedited reviews. Therefore, the figures provided in the two segments of the proceeding are not directly comparable. Further, we find that the information submitted by West Bay Forest Products accounts for the differences in total sales values between the two segments of the proceeding.

In accordance with 782(I)(3) of the Act, we may verify information submitted by respondents who preliminarily received a de minimis subsidy rate, prior to making our final determination.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(I), we calculated an individual subsidy rate for each producer/exporter subject to these expedited reviews. For the period April 1, 2000, to March 31, 2001, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy to be as follows for Group 1 companies in Round 1:

For the period April 1, 2000, to March 31, 2001, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy to be as follows for Group 1 companies in Round 2:

If the final results of these reviews remain the same as these preliminary results, the Department intends to instruct the BCBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts indicated above of the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of the subject merchandise produced and exported by the reviewed companies, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of these reviews. These rates will not apply to merchandise produced by the reviewed companies but exported by other entities.

Those producers/exporters whose final estimated net subsidy rate, based on verified information, is zero or de minimis will be excluded from the order. Because, in the Department's view, there is no relevant difference for purposes of the de minimis rule between expedited reviews of orders resulting from investigations conducted on an aggregate basis and expedited reviews of orders resulting from investigations conducted on a company-specific basis, we believe it is appropriate in these reviews to treat de minimis rates, one percent ad valorem in this case, in accordance with section 19 CFR 351.214(k)(3)(iv). Therefore, after the issuance of its final results, the Department intends to instruct BCBP to liquidate, without regard to countervailing duties, all outstanding shipments of the subject merchandise produced and exported by excluded companies.

These expedited reviews cover only those companies that we have specifically identified as qualifying for expedited reviews. The cash deposit rate for all other non-reviewed companies subject to the country-wide rate will be adjusted in the final results of the expedited reviews to account for the benefit and the sales values of the companies that have received company-specific rates. We will instruct the BCBP to collect cash deposits for all non-reviewed companies at the new cash deposit rates established in the final results of these reviews.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days after the date of publication of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. Parties who submit argument 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). The due dates for the case briefs will be announced at a later date.

Individuals who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request within 14 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. The time, date, and place of the hearing will be announced after the Department has released the dates of the briefing schedule. However, any party that wants to participate in a hearing must submit a written request within the time period specified above.

Requests for a public hearing should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and, (3) to the extent practicable, an identification of the arguments to be raised at the hearing. In addition, ten copies of the business proprietary version and six copies of the non-proprietary version of the case briefs must be submitted to the Assistant Secretary.

Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of proprietary information under administrative protective order no later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date the case briefs, under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), are due. The Department will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal briefs in the final results of these expedited reviews. The Department will ensure that interested parties are informed of the briefing schedule.

In the interests of giving each respondent an informed opportunity to request rescission of their expedited review, we have amended the timeline announced in the application form to request rescission of an expedited review. Requests of rescission must be received by the Department no later than 30 days after the date of publication of the preliminary results of the relevant expedited review.

These expedited reviews and notice are issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) and 777(I)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1) and 19 U.S.C. 1677(f)(I)).

On April 23, 2003, notice was published in the Federal Register (68 FR 19974) that a request for a scientific research permit to take various cetacean species, including endangered whales, in the North Atlantic (including the Gulf of Mexico) and Mediterranean Sea had been submitted by Dr. Peter Tyack (Biology Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, 02453) and that a draft environmental assessment had been prepared on the proposed research. Comments on the application and/or the draft environmental assessment must be received by May 23, 2003. NMFS will hold a public meeting to inform interested parties of the proposed research and solicit comments on the application and accompanying draft environmental assessment.

This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Carrie Hubard, 301-713-2289 (voice) or 301-713-0376 (fax), at least five days before the scheduled meeting date.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID number OW-2003-0027, which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Use EDOCKET to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above.

Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 60 days of this notice, and according to the following detailed instructions: (1) Submit your comments to EPA online using EDOCKET (our preferred method), by email to: ow-docket@epa.gov, or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Water Docket, Mail Code: 4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 (May 31, 2002), or go to http://www.epa.gov/edocket.

Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are State governments.

Title: State Water Quality Program Management Resource Analysis (OMB Control Number 2040-0216; EPA ICR Number 1945.02 expiring 09/30/2003.

Abstract: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in partnership with States, is conducting the State Water Quality Management Resource Analysis (Gap Analysis) to help enumerate current and future funding needs and to help identify innovative strategies for reducing resource gaps. To gather preliminary information in a short time frame, the Gap Analysis was originally divided into two phases. Phase I consisted of the development of an initial, national estimate of the resource gap faced by water quality management programs to provide a general idea of the magnitude of the resource gap faced by States.

Phase II of the Gap Analysis involved developing a detailed, activity-based workload model to provide a common framework and consistent methodology for States and EPA to estimate the cost to the States to meet the objectives of the Clean Water Act (CWA) over the next five years. In order to complete the model, EPA's Office of Wastewater Management (OWM) gathered data from 21 States on current and future resources needed for water quality management activities.

Phase III of the Gap Analysis will build upon the information collected in Phase II, which used an estimate of current State expenditures on water quality activities. Under Phase III, States will complete a portion of the Phase II modules to update the needs numbers to reflect regulatory changes or changes to their programs. In addition, States will be asked to complete an activity-based model for current expenditures that mirrors the model for needs. This baseline spending data will allow the States and EPA to more accurately estimate the gap between expenditures and needed resources.

Phase III of the Gap Analysis is a one-time collection effort by OWM, and responses to this information collection request (ICR) are voluntary. The collection is necessary to develop an estimate of the gap in resources facing water quality management programs, both for individual States and the nation.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

EPA is asking States to provide estimates of current spending and resource needs for water quality management program activities. EPA will provide the States with integrated modules (the Gap Analysis model) designed to capture current expenditures, current needs, and future needs to perform all activities associated with the development, planning, coordination, management, and implementation of State water quality management programs.

Each module contains lists of activities in each of the program areas. The modules will be integrated so that estimates for various program areas can be combined into a total estimate across all program areas.

To reduce the burden of the collection, the Gap Analysis model is designed to maximize State flexibility. It contains default values developed for the national estimate of the resource needs faced by State water quality management programs. Respondents can accept the default values or enter an appropriate value for their State. If the default value is altered, the change will cascade throughout the rest of the module.

The EPA would like to solicit comments to:

(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

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

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

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

Burden Statement: The total number of respondents for this ICR is estimated to be twenty State agencies. The total number of responses for each respondent is one, which averages to 0.33 responses per respondent annually. EPA estimates the burden to be $1,893 and 61 hours per respondent for each respondent that chooses to submit information. For the three-year ICR period, the average annual respondent burden and cost to States and EPA is estimated at 1,353 hours and $46,068. The annual burden and cost to State governments is estimated at 1,207 hours and $37,648. No capital costs, recordkeeping burden, or operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are associated with this ICR.

State labor costs are estimated by applying an hourly labor rate to the burden hour estimates. For purposes of calculating State labor costs, EPA assumed a single average hourly wage rate of $31.20 per hour for all State activities, which is consistent with other recent OWM ICR submittals. This rate is based on the average hourly wage for State employees, as determined by the U.S. Department of Labor, and includes benefits. As in previous ICRs, 50 percent overhead costs were added to the average State rate.

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

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID number OAR-2003-0042, which is available for public viewing at the Air Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. You may use EDOCKET to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above.

Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA within 60 days of this notice, and according to the following detailed instructions: (1) Submit your comments to EPA online using EDOCKET (our preferred method), by email to air-and-r-docket@epa.gov, or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, OAR, Mailcode 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 (May 31, 2002), or go to www.epa.gov./edocket.

Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action include individuals and businesses (including Independent Commercial Importers) importing on and off-road motor vehicles, motor vehicle engines, or nonroad engines, including nonroad engines incorporated into nonroad equipment or nonroad vehicles.

Title: Information Requirements for Importation of Nonconforming Vehicles, OMB #2060-0095, expiring 08/31/03; Information Requirements for Nonconforming Nonroad Compression Ignition (CI) and Small Spark Ignition (SI) Engines, OMB #2060-0294, expiring 08/31/03.

Abstract: Individuals and businesses importing on and off-road motor vehicles, motor vehicle engines, or nonroad engines, including nonroad engines incorporated into nonroad equipment or nonroad vehicles report and keep records of vehicle importations, request prior approval for vehicle importations, or request final admission for vehicles conditionally imported into the U.S. The collection of this information is mandatory in order to ensure compliance of nonconforming vehicles with Federal emissions requirements. Joint EPA and Customs regulations at 40 CFR 85.1501 et seq. , 89.601 et seq. , 90.601 et seq. , and 19 CFR 12.73 and 12.74 promulgated under the authority of Clean Air Act sections 203 and 208 give authority for the collection of information. This authority was extended to nonroad engines under section 213(d). The information is used by program personnel to ensure that all Federal emission requirements concerning imported nonconforming motor vehicles and nonroad engines are met. Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to policies set forth in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B—Confidentiality of Business Information (see CFR part 2), and the public is not permitted access to information containing personal or organizational identifiers. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

The EPA would like to solicit comments to:

(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

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

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.7 hours per response (OMB #2060-0095), and 0.5 hours per response (OMB #2060-0294) respectively. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected entities: Individuals and businesses importing motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 13,000.

Frequency of Response: 1.6 responses/year.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 15,800.

Estimated Total Annualized Costs Burden: $ 1,266,000.

Respondents/Affected entities: Individuals and businesses importing compression-ignition nonroad engines and small spark-ignition nonroad engines, including those incorporated into nonroad equipment or vehicles.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,500.

Frequency of Response: 100 responses/year.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 76,370.50.

Estimated Total Annualized Costs Burden: $ 93,765.00.

The Application Form may be submitted either by a consortium representing multiple users or by individual users who anticipate needing methyl bromide in 2005 and believe there are no technically and economically feasible alternatives. EPA encourages users with similar circumstances of use to submit a single application (for example, any number of pre-plant users with similar soil, pest, and climactic conditions can join together to submit a single application). In some instances, State agencies will assist users with the application process ( see discussion of voluntary State involvement in part I.B. below).

In addition to requesting information from applicants for the Critical Use Exemption, this solicitation for information provides an opportunity for any interested party to provide EPA with information on methyl bromide alternatives ( e.g. technical and/or economic feasibility research). The Application Form for the methyl bromide Critical Use Exemption and other information on research relevant to alternatives must be sent to the addresses specified above.

Please contact your local, State, regional or national commodity association to find out if they plan on submitting an application on behalf of your commodity group.

Additionally, you should contact your State regulatory agency (generally this will be the State Department of Agriculture or State Environmental Protection Agency) to receive information about their involvement in the process. If your State agency has chosen to participate, EPA encourages all applicants to first submit their applications to the State regulatory agency, which will then forward them to EPA. The National Pesticide Information Center Web site is one resource available for identifying the lead pesticide agency in your State (http://ace.orst.edu/info/npic/state1.htm) .

An Application Form for the methyl bromide Critical Use Exemption can be obtained either in electronic or hard-copy form. EPA encourages use of the electronic form. Applications can be obtained in the following ways:

1. PDF format at EPA Web site: www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr;

2. Microsoft Excel and other electronic spreadsheet formats at EPA Web site: www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr;

3. Mailed hard-copy ordered through the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline at 1-800-296-1996;

4. Hard-copy format at Air Docket No. OAR-A2000-24. The docket is located in room B-102, EPA West Building, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington DC, 20460. The Docket Office is open from 8:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. A reasonable fee may be charged by EPA for copying docket materials.

To support the assertion that a specific use of methyl bromide is “critical,” applicants are expected to demonstrate that there are no technically and economically feasible alternatives available to the user of methyl bromide. The Parties to the Montreal Protocol have developed an “International Index” of Methyl Bromide Alternatives which lists chemical and non-chemical alternatives, by crop ( http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/alt_in.html ). The chemicals and non-chemical practices included on this index were identified by the international technical advisory groups under the Montreal Protocol: the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) and the Technical and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP). The MBTOC and the TEAP determined that alternatives in the International Index have the “technical potential” to replace methyl bromide in at least one circumstance of use on the identified crop (Report of the Technical and Economic Assessment Panel, 1997) ( http://www.teap.org/html/teap_reports.html ). A corresponding U.S. Index of Alternatives (also listed by crop) has been developed by the U.S. government regarding chemical alternatives ( http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr ). This U.S. Index reflects whether chemical alternatives included in the International Index have been registered for use in the United States.

Applicants must address technical, regulatory, and economic issues that limit the adoption of “chemical alternatives” and combinations of “chemical” and “non-chemical alternatives” listed for their crop within the “U.S. Index” of Methyl Bromide Alternatives. Applicants must also address technical, regulatory, and economic issues that limit the adoption of “non-chemical alternatives” and combinations of “chemical” and “non-chemical alternatives” listed for their crop in the “International Index.”

The person submitting information to EPA in response to this notice may assert a business confidentiality claim covering part or all of the information by placing on (or attaching to) the application, at the time it is submitted to EPA, a cover sheet, or a stamped or typed legend placed at the front of the application, employing language such as trade secret, proprietary, or company confidential. Allegedly confidential portions of otherwise non-confidential documents should be clearly identified by the applicant, and may be submitted separately to facilitate identification and handling by EPA. If the applicant desires confidential treatment only until a certain date or until the occurrence of a certain event, the notice should so state. Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent, and by means of the procedures, set forth under 40 CFR part 2, subpart B; 41 FR 36902, 43 FR 40000, 50 FR 51661. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the information when it is received by EPA, it may be made available to the public by EPA without further notice to the applicant.

If you are asserting a business confidentiality claim covering part or all of the information in the application, you must submit a non-confidential version that EPA can circulate to technical reviewers and can place in the public docket for reference by other interested parties. Under no circumstances shall the applicants claim confidentiality for the “Worksheet Six: Application Summary” portion of the application. These application information summary sheets will be posted on the EPA Web site ( www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr ) and included in Air Docket No. OAR-A2000-24. Please note, providing CBI may delay the ability of EPA to review your application.

EPA requests that people who plan to submit an application send a “notice of intent to apply” to the location listed in ADDRESSES above. EPA asks that you submit the “notice of intent to apply” as soon as you decide if you will be applying in 2003, but no later than 30 days before the application deadline. The “notice of intent to apply” can be a simple letter (or an email in the form LASTNAME.FIRSTNAME@epa.gov to one of the people listed under the section FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). The Agency is not requiring a “notice of intent to apply”, but believes it will facilitate the organization of the application review process, and improve the U.S. government's ability to make arguments on behalf of sectors that demonstrate a critical need for methyl bromide.

If the EPA determines that an application is lacking sufficient information needed in order to be processed by the technical reviewers, applicants will be notified by telephone or in writing. If the required information is not submitted 30 days after the request, the application will not be processed. Reviewers may also call applicants for further elaboration about their application, even if it is complete.

The Parties to the Montreal Protocol will decide at the end of calendar year 2003 whether exemptions will be authorized for 2005 alone or for more than one year. If methyl bromide is only authorized by the Parties for 2005 alone, then EPA is requiring those who submitted applications in 2002 to provide updated data by filling out only those very limited portions of the application necessary to furnish any updated information to EPA. The data required for updating applications will be noted is the following:

• Provide the 2002 price of methyl bromide (worksheet 2D-amount and price of methyl bromide alone);

• Provide quantity of methyl bromide used in 2002 (worksheet 2B regarding 2002 information);

• Address the technical and economic feasibility of using newly registered alternatives (provide information in worksheets 3A through 3C regarding alternatives newly registered/available since submission of application during 2002);

• Update research information about alternatives (update worksheet 4 as necessary, based on new studies);

• Update details in research plan to identify and test alternatives (follow new format and provide details in worksheet 4, as necessary); and

• Provide update on new techniques to minimize emissions (worksheet 4).

In October 1998, the U.S. Congress amended the Clean Air Act by adding CAA sections 604(d)(6), 604(e)(3), and 604(h) (section 764 of the 1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 105-277; October 21, 1998)). The amendment requires EPA to conform the U.S. phaseout schedule for methyl bromide to the provisions of the Montreal Protocol for industrialized countries. Specifically, the amendment requires EPA to make regulatory changes to implement the following phaseout schedule:

25% reduction (from 1991 baseline) in 1999;

50% reduction in 2001;

70% reduction in 2003;

100% reduction in 2005.

EPA published regulations in the Federal Register on June 1, 1999 (64 FR 29240), and November 28, 2000 (65 FR 70795), instituting the phaseout reductions in the production and import of methyl bromide in accordance with the schedule listed above. Additionally, the 1998 amendment allowed EPA to exempt the production and import of methyl bromide from the phaseout for critical uses starting January 1, 2005, “to the extent consistent with the Montreal Protocol” (section 764 of the 1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 105-277, October 21, 1998)(section 604(d)(6) of the Clean Air Act).

The Montreal Protocol provides an exemption to the phaseout of methyl bromide for critical uses in Article 2H, paragraph 5. The Parties to the Protocol included provisions for such an exemption in recognition that substitutes for methyl bromide may not be available by 2005 for certain uses of methyl bromide agreed by the Parties to be “critical uses”.

In their Ninth Meeting (1997), the Parties to the Protocol agreed to Decision IX/6, setting forth the following criteria for a “critical use” determination:

In the context of the phaseout program, the use of the term consumption may be misleading. Consumption does not mean the “use” of a controlled substance, but rather is defined as the formula: consumption = production + imports − exports, of controlled substances (Article 1 of the Protocol and section 601 of the CAA). Class I controlled substances that were produced or imported through the expenditure of allowances prior to their phaseout date can continue to be used by industry and the public after that specific chemical's phaseout under EPA's phaseout regulations, unless otherwise precluded under separate regulations.

In addition to the language quoted above, the Parties further agreed to request the TEAP to review nominations and make recommendations for approval based on the criteria established in paragraphs (a)(ii) and (b) of Decision IX/6.

Under the provisions of both the CAA and the Montreal Protocol, the Critical Use Exemption will be available to approved uses on January 1, 2005. Until that date, all production and import of methyl bromide (except for those quantities that qualify for the quarantine and preshipment exemption) must conform to the phasedown schedule listed above ( see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section II A). For more information on the quarantine and preshipment exemption, please refer to 68 FR 238 (January 2, 2003).

There is both a domestic and international component to the Critical Use Exemption process. The following outline represents a projected timeline for the process:

Title: Foreign Branch Report of Condition

Form Number: FFIEC 030

Frequency of Response: Annually, and quarterly for significant branches

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit

For OCC:

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

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) consists of seven members appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, as provided in the Federal Reserve Act (Act). 1 The Act does not define a quorum of the Board, and authorizes the Board to make all rules and regulations necessary to enable the Board effectively to perform its duties and functions. 2 Since 1913, the Board itself has defined a quorum of the Board to be a majority (four members) of its authorized strength of seven members.

The Board's current practice could prevent the Board from taking action if an act of war, terrorist attack or other catastrophic event reduced the Board's membership to fewer than four members. The Board's current practice also could prevent a four-member Board from taking prompt action during an emergency if one member were unable to establish contact with the Board. In light of these possibilities, the Board has amended its definition of a quorum to provide that a majority of the members in office constitutes a quorum of the Board, unless there are five members in office, in which case four members will constitute a quorum of the Board.

The Board believes that the revised definition of a quorum will enhance the Board's ability to fulfill its important statutory responsibilities in an emergency. At the same time, the revised definition would not alter the number of Board members required to constitute a quorum or the functioning of the Board's committee structure in normal operating environments (that is, when five or more members are in office). In this regard, the revised definition would continue to require that four members of the Board participate in an action for a quorum to exist whenever the Board has five or more members in office. 3

The Board has incorporated its new definition of a quorum into the Board's Rules of Organization. The Board's Rules of Organization are uncodified regulations for use within the Federal Reserve System, issued pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552. The Rules of Organization were published in the Federal Register on July 19, 2001 (66 FR 37687). The amendment relates solely to the internal procedure of the Board, and, accordingly, the public notice, public comment and delayed effective date provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act do not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (d). Because public notice and comment is not required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq .) also does not apply to this action.

For the reasons discussed above, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System has amended section 2 of its Rules of Organization by redesignating paragraphs (b) and (c) as paragraphs (c) and (d), respectively, and adding the following new paragraph (b):

Section 2-Composition, Location, and Public Information

(b) Quorum . A majority of the members in office constitutes a quorum of the Board for purposes of transacting business except that, if there are five members in office, then four members constitute a quorum.

As set forth below in this document, OGE is correcting several minor errors in the Notice of Proposed New and Revised Systems of Records document, which OGE published on January 22, 2003 at 68 FR 3098-3109 (as separate part II), with comments requested by March 24, 2003. OGE did not receive any comments; thus, as indicated in the notice, the proposed new and revised systems of records, as corrected in this document, will become effective on May 22, 2003.

As indicated in the preamble, the Office of Government Ethics, is correcting the January 22, 2003 publication of the Notice of Proposed New and Revised Systems of Records, which was the subject of FR Doc. 03-1101, as follows:

This announcement provides information on the general program purpose and objectives, programmatic priorities, eligibility requirements, funding availability, application process, required documentation, review process, and review criteria.

(a) General Program Purpose: To increase the number of nurses, nurse practitioners, nurse anesthetists, and nurse midwives who deliver health care service to AI/AN.

(b) Eligibility and Preference: The following organizations are eligible: (1) Public or private schools of nursing; (2) Tribally controlled community colleges and Tribally controlled posts-secondary vocational institutions (as defined in section 239h (2) of Title 20); and (3) nurse midwife programs, and nurse practitioner programs, that are provided by public or private institutions, for the purpose of increasing the number of nurse midwives, nurse practitioners, and nurses who deliver care to AI/AN's.

Preference will be given to programs which: (1) Provide a preference to AI/AN; (2) programs that train nurse midwives and nurse practitioners; (3) programs that are interdisciplinary; and (4) programs that are conducted in cooperation with the center for gifted and talented Indian students established under section 2624(a) of this Title 1616e(d). If an eligible organization claims preference in order to be given priority, the organization must submit verifying documentation.

(c) Program Priorities: All complete, eligible applications will be considered. If more than one application is received from an IHS Area only one award will be made to that particular area providing a MSN, BSN, ADN or LPN program.

Priority I —At least one project to a public or private college or university, school of nursing, which provides MSN (nurse midwife, nurse practitioner, or nurse anesthetist) degrees not to exceed $350,000 per year up to project period of five years.

Priority II —At least three projects to a public or private college or university, school of nursing which provides BSN or ADN degrees, not to exceed $400,000 per year up to a project period of five years.

Priority III —At least one project to a Tribally controlled community college, school of nursing, which provides LPN training, not to exceed $200,000 per year up to a project period of five years.

(d) Program Objectives: The primary objectives of a grant awarded under this program are to: (1) Recruit and train AI/AN individuals to be nurses (MSN, BSN, ADN, LPN); (2) provide scholarships to individuals enrolled in schools of nursing to pay tuition, books, fees, and stipends for living expenses; (3) provide a program that encourages nurses (MSN, BSN, ADN or LPN), to provide or continue to provide, health care services to AI/AN; and (4) provide a program that increases the skills of and provides continuing education to nurses (MSN, BSN, ADN, LPN).

Each proposal must respond to at least two of the above four objectives.

(e) Program Activities Considered for Support: The grant program must be developed to locate and recruit students with potential for nursing and provide support services to students who are recruited. Support services may include providing career counseling and academic advice; assistant students to identify academic deficiencies and to develop plans to correct those deficiencies; assisting students to locate financial aid; monitoring students to identify possible problems; assisting with the determination of need for and location of tutorial services; and other related activities which help to retain students in school.

(f) Required Affiliation: The applicant must submit documentation that it is an accredited school of nursing, or a Tribally controlled community college. The term “accredited” when applied to any program of nurse education means a program accredited or assured accreditation by a recognized body or bodies, or by a State agency, approved for such purpose by the Secretary of Education and when applied to a school, college or university (or a unit thereof) which is accredited by a recognized body or bodies, or a State agency, approved for such purpose by the Secretary of Education. In order to establish the connection between the program of the applicant and a health care facility that primarily serves Indians the Secretary requires and information regarding the accessibility of the application to target Indian communities or tribes, including evidence of past or potential cooperation between the application of such communities or Tribes. When the target population of a proposed project includes a particular Indian Tribe or Tribes, an official document, i.e., a letter of support or tribal resolution, must be submitted indicating that the Tribe or Tribes will cooperate with the applicant.

Related objectives of the program are the proper administration of a project, selection of scholarship recipients by fair and consistent means, monitoring of recipients to assure compliance with scholarship requirements and eventual job placement within the service area of the grantee to fulfill service obligation. A student must serve one year for every year funded. One of the monitoring objectives in assuring satisfactory academic performance which is defined as: (1) A 2.50 grade point average (GPA); and (2) the GPA required by the college/university.

(g) Fund Availability: Approximately $1.7 million is available per year, for a five year cycle. The anticipated start date for selected projects will be August 1, 2003. A total of five projects will be awarded with funding for succeeding years based on satisfactory level of performance; the availability of appropriation in future years; and the continuing need of IHS for the project. Funding will be available to fund only one project (MSN, BSN, ADN, LPN) grant within an IHS Area.

(h) Period of Support: Projects will be funded with annual budget periods and project periods of five years. The second, third, fourth and fifth year funding will be based on the following: (1) Satisfactory progress of the grantee; (2) availability of funds; and (3) continuing need of the IHS or the program.

(i) Application Process:

(1) An IHS Recruitment Grant Application Kit may be obtained from the Grants Management Branch, Division of Acquisition and Grants Management, Indian Health Service, 801 Thompson Avenue, Reyes Building, Rockville, MD 20852, (301) 443-5204. This kit includes Standard Form PHS 5161-1 (Rev. 7/00); Standard Forms 424, 424A, and 424B (Rev. 7/97); Application Receipt Card—PHS 3038-1 (Rev. 4/97); instructions for preparing the program narrative; IHS Application Check List; a copy of the Federal Register Notice for Nursing Recruitment Grants; and a copy of Section 112 of the Act.

(2) The application must be signed and submitted by an individual authorized to act for the applicant and to assume on behalf of the applicant the obligations imposed by the terms and conditions of any award.

(3) The available funding level is inclusive of both direct and indirect costs. Because this project is for a training grant, the Department of Health and Human Services' policy limiting reimbursement of indirect cost to 8 percent of total direct costs (exclusive of trainee costs and expenditures for equipment) is applicable. This limitation applies to all institutions of higher education other than agencies of State and local government.

(4) Each application will be reviewed by the Grants Management Branch for eligibility, compliance with the announcement, and completeness. All acceptable applications will be subject to a competitive objective review and evaluation. An unacceptable application will be returned to the applicant without further consideration.

(5) Applicants will be notified by July 31, 2003, of their status as approved, approved unfunded, or disapproved.

(6) The project period may not exceed five years. Applications must include Narrative and Budget information for the entire anticipated project period. The application must comply with the following format:

(a) Table of Contents (one page)

(b) Narrative (up to five pages)

(c) Budget and Justification

(d) Appendix (Tribal resolution, verification of accreditation, résumé's and position descriptions of staff who will administer the program, an organizational chart of placement of the administrative staff within the Tribes or Tribal organization, and supporting documentation.

(j) Narrative: The following instructions for the preparation of the narrative are to be used in lieu of the instructions on pages 21-23 of form PHS 5161-1. The narrative section of the application must include: (1) Description of administration of the grant; (2) description of applicant's previous experience with nursing recruitment grants; (3) methodology for recruiting, selecting, paying, and monitoring students; (4) number of nurses to be funded; (5) justification of need; and (6) description of proposed payback services by graduates. The narrative section should be written in a manner that is clear to outside reviewers unfamiliar with activities of the applicant. It should be well organized, succinct, and contain all information necessary for reviewers to understand the project fully. The narrative may not exceed five single-spaced pages in length, excluding attachments, budget, and required documentation. Pages must be numbered. Provide a narrative for year two, three, four, and five of the project; however, provide information only for those narrative items which you anticipate will change from year to year.

(1) Describe the organization submitting the application, include an organizational chart in appendix showing the grant's placement within the organization.

(2) Describe who will be responsible for administering the grant project. In the appendix, provide biographical sketches (resumes) and position descriptions for the program director and key personnel as described on pages 21-23 of form 5161-1.

Describe any previous experience the organization has had with nursing recruitment grant programs including information on the types of grants and funding.

(1) Describes how students will be recruited to assure maximum distribution of information about the availability of the scholarships.

(2) Describe the process by which scholarship recipients will be selected to assure fairness and consistent treatment.

(3) List, and if necessary, explain the criteria to be used in selecting recipients.

(4) Describe how and when students will be paid.

(5) Describe the process of monitoring to assure acceptable academic standing (refer to Section D—PROGRAMMATIC OBJECTIVES).

Provide information on the types and numbers of nursing scholarships to be funded.

(1) A student must service one year for every year funded.

(2) The training institution must provide information on each scholarship recipient funded per semester, and academic year to the Section 112 Indian Health Service (IHS) Database.

(3) Indicate a plan for tracking placement of graduates and retention of nursing students in the nursing program.

(1) Provide a narrative addressing how the conduct of the program will be evaluated. Define the procedures for determining whether the proposed methodology has been successful in announcing and carrying out the project. An evaluation should be conducted annually.

(2) Provide a narrative addressing how results of the program will be evaluated to determine the success of the Tribal scholarship program. This should be done at the end of year four to assist the IHS in determining the effectiveness of the program in meeting Tribal needs for nurses.

(3) Provide potential effectiveness of the proposed project in carrying out the purposes of Section 112, with special emphasis on the objectives and methodology portion of the application. This includes relevance of project objectives to grant program objectives; appropriateness and soundness of the procedures for identifying, recruiting, and retaining target population(s); and feasibility of project within proposed resources in time frames.

(4) Demonstrate capability of the applicant to successfully conduct the project, including organizational and scholarly commitment to the recruitment, education, and retention of students.

(5) The submission of verifying documentation when an applicant claims preference in order to be given priority.

Preference is given for programs which: (1) Provide a preference to AI/AN; (2) train nurse midwives or nurse practitioners; (3) are interdisciplinary; or (4) are conducted in cooperation with a center for gifted and talented AI/AN students established under section 5324 (a) of the Indian Education Act of 1988. Consideration will be given to the relationship of project objectives to Indian Health manpower's deficiencies, indicating the number of potential AI/An students to be contacted and recruited as well as potential cost per student recruited; (6) those projects that have the potential to serve a greater number of AI/AN will be given first consideration; (7) the soundness of the fiscal plan for assuring effective utilization of grant funds; and (8) the completeness and responsiveness of the application.

(k) Budget: An itemized estimate of costs must be provided on Standard Form 424A. All applications shall include funding requirements for the second, third, fourth and fifth budget periods. Project funding will be based on an average of $18,500 per scholarship. Projects must be for a minimum of five scholarship per academic year for all nursing programs.

A resolution from the Tribal government specifically supporting this grant project must accompany the application submission. Resolution shall address the Tribal government's commitment to placement of program graduates. Applications by Tribal organizations will not require resolution(s) if the current Tribal resolution(s) under which they operate would encompass the proposed grant activities. A statement of proof of a copy of the current operational resolution must accompany the application. If a resolution or a statement is not submitted, the application will be considered incomplete and will be returned without consideration.

(1) Review Process and Criteria: Applications that meet eligibility requirements, are complete, and conform to this announcement will be reviewed by an Ad Hoc Review Committee. Applications will be reviewed against established criteria. The Ad Hoc Review Committee will assign a numerical score to each application, which will be used to rank applications. The Program Director will consider geographic location in order to limit only one grant within an IHS Area.

Applications will be evaluated against the following criteria and weights:

(m) Results of the Review: Successful applicants will be notified through official Notice of Grant Award (NGA) documents. The NGA will state the amount of the Federal funds awarded, the terms and conditions of the grant award, the effective date of the award, the project period, and the budget period.

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

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

This notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Certified Eligibility for Adjustments for Damage or Neglect.

OMB Control Number, if applicable: 2502-0349.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: This information collection is needed to permit a one-time certification by mortgagees that they have acquired hazard insurance acceptable to HUD at a reasonable rate. The information collection will also permit the mortgagee to convey fire damaged properties without a surcharge to the claim.

Agency form numbers, if applicable: None.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: The estimated total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection is 125; the number of respondents is 250 generating 250 annual responses; the frequency of response is on occasion; and the estimated time needed to prepare the response is 30 minutes.

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

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities ( see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). We plan to submit a request to OMB to renew its approval of the collection of information related to the annual certification of hunting and sport fishing licenses issued by States, territories, and local governments. We are requesting a 3-year term of approval for this information collection activity. Federal agencies may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this collection of information is 1018-0007.

The Service administers grant programs authorized by the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669-669b, 669-669k) and the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 777-777m). These Acts require that States annually certify their hunting and fishing license sales. The Service uses the information collected to determine apportionment and distribution of funds under these Acts. We are proposing minimal changes to the forms we use to collect this information.

Title: Annual Certification of Hunting and Sport Fishing Licenses Issued. ( Note: This collection consists of two parts: Part 1, Certification, and Part 2, Summary.)

OMB Approval Number: 1018-0007.

Service Form Number(s): 3-154a (Part 1) and 3-154b (Part 2).

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

Description of Respondents: State, territorial (the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa), and local governments, and others receiving grant funds.

Total Annual Burden:

We invite comments on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on respondents, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities ( see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). We plan to submit a request to OMB to renew its approval of the collection of information for the Grant Agreement and Amendment to Grant Agreement. We are requesting a 3-year term of approval for this information collection activity. Federal agencies may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this collection of information is 1018-0049.

Under the authority of the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669-669i), the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 777-777l), the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 757a-757g), the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), the Clean Vessel Act (16 U.S.C. 777c), the Sportfishing and Boating Safety Act (16 U.S.C. 777g-1), and the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 3951-3956), we administer several grant programs. We use the information collected in grant applications and agreements to make awards under these grant programs. The information collected on the grant applications and agreements helps us determine whether the estimated cost of the grant project is reasonable, the cost sharing is consistent with the applicable program statutes, and sufficient Federal funds are available for obligation. The State or other grantee uses the grant application forms and agreements to request funds and identify proposed cost sharing. Grantees complete an Amendment to Grant Agreement to request a change to a previously approved Grant Agreement. We use the Amendment to Grant Agreement to revise a previous funding obligation or otherwise document the approval of a revision. The Grant Agreement and Amendment to Grant Agreement that we will submit to OMB for approval are modified slightly to lesson the burden on the public and to make them easier for the Service to use.

Title: Grant Agreement and Amendment to Grant Agreement.

OMB Approval Number: 1018-0049.

Service Form Number(s): 3-1552 (Grant Agreement) and 3-1591 (Amendment to Grant Agreement).

Frequency of Collection: Annually.

Description of Respondents: State, territorial (the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa), and local governments, and others receiving grant funds.

Total Annual Burden:

We invite comments on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on respondents, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

A conservation bank is a parcel of land containing natural resource values that are conserved and managed in perpetuity for listed species and used to offset impacts to the comparable resource values on non-bank lands occurring elsewhere. The bank is specifically managed and protected by the banker or designee for its natural resource values. The values of the natural resources are translated into quantified “credits.” The bank owner sells habitat “credits” to parties that need to compensate for the environmental impacts of their activities. A conservation bank is a free-market enterprise that offers landowners economic incentives to protect natural resources, saves developers time and money by providing them with certainty of pre-approved compensation lands, and provides long-term protection of habitat. Conservation banking creates a collaborative incentive based approach where habitat for listed species is treated as an asset rather than a liability.

The Service has already entered into several agreements with landowners to establish conservation banks, mainly in the southwest and the southeast areas of the country. We believe that guidance will help establish conservation banks in other parts of the country. Please refer to the ADDRESSES section of this notice for information on how to obtain a copy of the guidance.

On February 14, 2003, the State of Alaska filed an application for a recordable disclaimer of interest affecting five water bodies described below. The State asserts these water bodies are navigable and, under the Equal Footing Doctrine, the State of Alaska gained title to lands underlying navigable waters upon statehood. The State's evidence of navigability of the Black River, the Salmon Fork, the Grayling Fork, and Bull Creek include administrative determinations made by the BLM, dated March 28, 1980, and July 22, 1983. A decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Alaska v. United States , 201 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 1997), which discusses the historic uses of the Black River, was also submitted as evidence with the application.

The water bodies included in the application are that portion of the bed of the Black River and Black River Slough, between the ordinary high water marks on its banks from its confluence with the Porcupine River, within T. 21 N., R. 13 E., Fairbanks Meridian, Alaska, to its confluence with the Wood River within T. 13 N., R. 27 E., Fairbanks Meridian; the Salmon Fork to the International Boundary; the Grayling Fork to the International Boundary; Bull Creek to Section 5, T. 13 N., R. 31 E., Fairbanks Meridian. Also included within the State's application are all interconnecting sloughs associated with these water bodies.

The State of Alaska did not identify any known adverse claimant or occupant of the affected lands.

We are notifying the public that the 2002 revision of the Criteria is final. Section 3405(e) of the CVPIA (Title 34 Pub. L. 102-575), requires the Secretary of the Interior to establish and administer an office on Central Valley Project water conservation best management practices (BMPs) that shall develop Criteria for evaluating the adequacy of all Plans developed by project contractors, including those Plans required by section 210 of the RRA. Also, according to section 3405(e)(1), the Criteria must be developed “* * * with the purpose of promoting the highest level of water use efficiency reasonably achievable by project contractors using best available cost-effective technology and best management practices.”

The Criteria states that all parties (Contractors) that contract with Reclamation for water supplies (except any contractor who receives under 2,000 acre feet, municipal and industrial contracts under 3,300 people served, and agricultural contracts under 2,000 irrigable acres) must prepare Plans that contain the following information:

Reclamation will evaluate Plans based on the Criteria. The CVPIA requires Reclamation to evaluate, and revise if necessary, the Criteria every 3 years. The Criteria were previously revised in 1996 and 1999.

Public comment on revision of the 2002 Criteria was received and generally incorporated. No significant changes were made to the draft Criteria. A copy can be found at the following Web site: http://www.mp.usbr.gov/watershare/documents/files/cvpia/final2002cvpiacriteria.pdf. A copy can also be obtained by contacting persons at the address below. The 2002 Criteria will now be used to evaluate Plans submitted after the date of this publication