Paragraph (a)(i) of additional U.S. note 5 to chapter 17 of the HTS provides in pertinent part as follows:

These provisions of paragraph (a)(i) of additional U.S. note 5 to chapter 17 of the HTS authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to establish the total amounts (expressed in terms of raw value) for imports of raw cane sugar and certain other sugars, syrups, and molasses that may be entered under the subheadings of the HTS subject to the lower tier of duties of the tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) for entry during the fiscal year beginning October 1. Allocations of the quota amounts among supplying countries and areas will be made by the United States Trade Representative.

I hereby give notice, in accordance with paragraph (a) of additional U.S. note 5 to chapter 17 of the HTS, that an aggregate quantity of up to 1,362,000 metric tons, raw value, or raw cane sugar described in subheading 1701.11.10 of the HTS may be entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption during the period from October 1, 1999, through September 30, 2000. Of this quantity, 1,135,000 metric tons is immediately available, to be allocated by the United States Trade Representative, and the remaining 227,000 metric tons will be held in reserve for possible allocation if warranted by market conditions.

I will issue Certificates of Quota Eligibility (CQEs) to allow the Philippines, Brazil, and the Dominican Republic to ship up to 25 percent of their respective initial country allocations at the low-tier tariff during each quarter of FY 2000. Australia, Guatemala, Argentina, and Peru will be allowed to ship up to 50 percent of their respective initial country allocations in the first six months of FY 2000. Unentered allocations, during any quarter or six month period, may be entered in any subsequent period. For all other countries, CQEs corresponding to their respective country allocations may be entered at the low-tier tariff at any time during the fiscal year. If additional country allocations result from the reserved TRQ quantity, they may be entered subsequent to their announcement by the United States Trade Representative.

I have further determined, in accordance with paragraph (a) of additional U.S. note 5 to chapter 17 of the HTS, that an aggregate quantity of up to 60,000 metric tons, raw value, of certain sugars, syrups, and molasses described in subheadings 1701.12.10, 1701.91.10, 1701.99.10, 1702.90.10, and 2106.90.44 or the HTS may be entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption during the period from October 1, 1999 through September 30, 2000. I have further determined that out of this quantity of 60,000 metric tons, the quantity of 14,656 metric tons, raw value, is reserved for the importation of specialty sugars. These TRQ amounts may be allocated among supplying countries and areas by the United States Trade Representative.

Mexico's access to the U.S. market under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is established at 25,000 metric tons raw value. That access is for either raw or refined sugar, but total access under the refined sugar allocation and the raw-sugar allocation is not to exceed 25,000 metric tons. Mexico's access for either a raw or refined sugar is established pursuant to Annex 703.2 of the NAFTA.

The ARC was created by the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 (Reform Act), as an independent commission, to evaluate Amtrak's performance and to make recommendations to Amtrak for achieving further cost containment, productivity improvements, and financial reforms. In addition, the Reform Act provides: that the Council is to monitor cost savings from work rules established under new agreements between Amtrak and its labor unions; that the Council submit an annual report to Congress that includes an assessment of Amtrak's progress on the resolution of productivity issues; and that, after a specified period, the Council has the authority to determine whether Amtrak can meet certain financial goals specified under the Reform Act and, if it finds that Amtrak cannot, to notify the President and the Congress.

The ARAA prescribes that the Council is to consist of eleven members, including the Secretary of Transportation and ten others nominated by the President and the leadership of the Congress. Members serve a five-year term.

The objective of the survey is to evaluate the success of the NMFS Office for Law Enforcement community-oriented policing program for Endangered Species Act (ESA) enforcement for anadromous species in the Pacific Northwest.

The information will be gathered through both voluntary self-administered surveys and in-depth interviews.

OMB Number : None.

Form Number : None.

Type of Review : Regular submission.

Affected Public : Individuals or households; Federal government; State, local, or tribal government.

Estimated Number of Respondents : 880.

Estimated Time Per Response : 20 minutes for a survey, 80 minutes for an interview.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours : 375.

Annual Cost to Public : $700.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

This is the first meeting for the newly-established Skate Advisory Panel. Advisors will meet to review advisory panel policies and elect a chairman. The Skate Committee will join them for a workshop on skate species identification. There will be a presentation of the final Skate Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report and development and approval of a scoping document for Skate Fishery Management Plan. The committee will review a timeline for scoping.

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

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

November 27, 2000, 1:30 p.m. - 5:30 p.m. - Joint Snapper Grouper Committee and Advisory Panel Meeting;

The Snapper Grouper Committee and Advisory Panel will meet jointly to review snapper grouper species assessments and reports, review the Compliance Report, review framework items including the use of powerheads, quota overruns and other items as necessary. The Committee and Advisory Panel will also hear a report on the status of the red porgy assessment and projections peer review.

November 28, 2000, 8:30 a.m. - 10 a.m. - Joint Snapper Grouper Committee and Advisory Panel Meeting (continued);

The Snapper Grouper Committee and Advisory Panel will meet to develop Committee recommendations for ranking marine reserves criteria and for the National Artificial Reef Plan.

November 28, 2000, 10 a.m. to 12 noon - Marine Reserves Committee Meeting;

The Marine Reserves Committee will meet to develop recommendations on the Gray's Reef Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), discuss development of a strategy to incorporate Gray's Reef in the Council's marine reserve process, review and develop comments and recommendations on the NMFS draft White Paper, develop recommendations for ranking marine reserves criteria and review the status of a closed area lawsuit in the Gulf of Mexico.

November 28, 2000, 1:30 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. - Dolphin Wahoo Committee Meeting;

The Dolphin Wahoo Committee will meet to review the actions of the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico Councils regarding the Dolphin Wahoo FMP and revisions to the FMP specific to the other Council's actions.

November 28, 2000, 3:30 p.m. - 5 p.m. - Joint Red Drum Committee and South Atlantic Board Meeting;

The Red Drum Committee will meet jointly with the South Atlantic Board to receive a briefing on the process for transferring red drum management to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) and provide directions to staff.

November 29, 2000, 8:30 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. - South Atlantic Board Meeting;

The South Atlantic Board will meet to discuss the coordination of fish contaminant sampling and hear presentations on the 2001-05 management plan, trawl survey results and the data management web page and data access items.

November 29, 2000, 10:30 a.m. - 12 noon - Advisory Panel Selection Committee Meeting (closed session);

The Advisory Panel Selection Committee will meet to review membership applications and develop recommendations.

November 29, 2000, 1:30 p.m. - 5:30 p.m. - Controlled Access Committee Meeting;

The Controlled Access Committee will meet to hear a NMFS presentation on vessel capacity issues and develop recommendations, review options for rock shrimp controlled access and develop recommendations to staff.

November 30, 2000, 8:30 a.m. - 12 noon - Joint Law Enforcement Committee and Advisory Panel Meeting;

The Law Enforcement Committee and Advisory Panel will meet to hear reports on the South Carolina/NMFS cooperative law enforcement grant and the status of Congressional funding for law enforcement, develop recommendations for ranking marine reserve criteria, review the status of Vessel Monitoring Systems in the Southeast, discuss law enforcement benefits of requiring the use of vessel operator permits, review options for rock shrimp controlled access, hear a report on NOAA General Counsel enforcement related activities, review the Compliance Report and discuss the law enforcement aspects of the use of powerheads.

November 30, 2000, 1:30 p.m. - 5:15 p.m. - Council Session.

From 1:30 p.m. - 1:45 p.m. , the Council will call the meeting to order, adopt the agenda and approve minutes from the September 2000 meeting.

From 1:45 p.m. - 2:30 p.m. , the Council will hold a public comment period on any proposed changes to the Dolphin Wahoo FMP (beginning at 1:45 p.m.), hear a report from the Dolphin Wahoo Committee and as necessary modify the FMP and re-approve it for submission to the Secretary of Commerce.

From 2:30 p.m.- 3 p.m. , the Council will hear a report from the Law Enforcement Committee including their recommendations for ranking marine reserves criteria.

From 3 p.m. - 3:45 p.m. , the Council will hold a public comment period on any Council proposed framework changes to the Snapper Grouper FMP (beginning at 3:00 p.m.), hear a report from the Snapper Grouper Committee and make a decision on framework actions.

From 3:45 p.m. - 4:15 p.m. , the Council will hear a report from the Marine Reserves Committee, consider the Gray's Reef MOU, develop a strategy to incorporate Gray's Reef in the Council's marine reserve process and develop comments and recommendations on the NMFS draft White Paper.

From 4:15 p.m. - 4:45 p.m. , the Council will hear a report from the Controlled Access Committee and develop comments on vessel capacity issues.

From 4:45 p.m. - 5:15 p.m. , the Council will hear a report from the Advisory Panel Selection Committee and appoint new advisory panel members (closed session).

December 1, 2000, 8:30 a.m.- 12 noon - Council Session

From 8:30 a.m. - 9 a.m. , the Council will hear a report from the Red Drum Committee and provide directions to staff.

From 9 a.m. - 9:15 a.m. , the Council will hear a report from staff updating economic activities and issues.

From 9:15 a.m. - 9:30 a.m. , the Council will hear a report from staff updating social activities and issues.

From 9:30 a.m. - 10 a.m. , the Council will hear a report on the status of the Bluefish FMP from the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council.

From 10 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. , the Council will hear a presentation on the NMFS Southeast Regional Office's permit program.

From 10:30 a.m. - 11 a.m. , the Council will hear a presentation on Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultations from the NMFS.

From 11 a.m. - 11:10 a.m. , the Council will hear an update on the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program.

From 11:10 a.m. - 11:20 a.m. , the Council will hear a report on the Ecosystem Management Workshop.

From 11:20 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. , the Council will hear NMFS Status Reports on 2000/01 Mackerel Framework, the resubmitted Calico Scallop FMP and the resubmitted Sargassum FMP. Council will also hear NMFS Status Reports on Landings for Atlantic king mackerel, Gulf king mackerel (eastern zone), Atlantic Spanish mackerel, Snowy grouper & Golden tilefish, wreckfish, greater amberjack and south Atlantic Octocorals.

From 11:30 p.m.- 12 noon , Council will hear agency and liaison reports and discuss other business and upcoming meetings.

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

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES ) by November 20, 2000.

Special shift from Categories 647/648 to Categories 347/348 is being partially canceled, raising the limit for Categories 647/648 and lowering the limit for Categories 347/348.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 64 FR 71982, published on December 22, 1999). Also see 64 FR 54870, published on October 8, 1999.

The Bilateral Textile Agreement, effected by exchange of notes dated May 30 and June 1, 1986, as amended and extended, and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated July 13, 2000 between the Governments of the United States and Nepal establish limits for the period January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001.

These limits may be revised if Nepal becomes a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the United States applies the WTO agreement to Nepal.

In the letter published below, the Chairman of CITA directs the Commissioner of Customs to establish the 2001 limits.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 64 FR 71982, published on December 22, 1999). Information regarding the 2001 CORRELATION will be published in the Federal Register at a later date.

The import restraint limits for textile products, produced or manufactured in Pakistan and exported during the period January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001 are based on limits notified to the Textiles Monitoring Body pursuant to the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC).

In the letter published below, the Chairman of CITA directs the Commissioner of Customs to establish the 2001 limits.

Carryforward and special carryforward that has been applied to the 2000 limits is being deducted from the 2001 limits.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 64 FR 71982, published on December 22, 1999). Information regarding the 2001 CORRELATION will be published in the Federal Register at a later date.

The current limit for certain categories are being adjusted for swing and carryover.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 64 FR 71982, published on December 22, 1999). Also see 64 FR 51961, published on September 27, 1999.

The import restraint limits for textile products, produced or manufactured in the United Arab Emirates and exported during the period January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001 are based on limits notified to the Textiles Monitoring Body pursuant to the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC). Some limits have been reduced for carryforward used.

In the letter published below, the Chairman of CITA directs the Commissioner of Customs to establish limits for the 2001 period. The 2001 levels for Categories 315 and 361 are zero.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notices 64 FR 71982, published on December 22, 1999). Information regarding the 2001 CORRELATION will be published in the Federal Register at a later date.

The import restraint limits for textile products, produced or manufactured in Uruguay and exported during the period January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001 are based on limits notified to the Textiles Monitoring Body pursuant to the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC).

In the letter published below, the Chairman of CITA directs the Commissioner of Customs to establish the 2001 limits.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 64 FR 71982, published on December 22, 1999). Information regarding the 2001 CORRELATION will be published in the Federal Register at a later date.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: New.

Title: Evaluation of the State Grants Program and Teacher Recruitment Grants Program of Title II of the Higher Education Act.

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public:

Businesses or other for-profit; State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 2,200.

 Burden Hours: 1,000.

Abstract: In 1999, the federal government funded a major effort toward increasing teacher quality through the State Grants Program and Teacher Recruitment Grants Program. Together, the programs allow states, institutions of higher education, and/or local education agencies to increase the quality of the teacher workforce through certification reform, recruitment efforts, alternative certification routes, and accountability measures. This evaluation looks at both programs to determine how federal funds were spent, what issues arose in implementing the programs, and the impact of the programs.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , or should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, D.C. 20202-4651. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO_IMG_Issues@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Jacqueline Montague at (202) 708-5359 or via her internet address Jackie_Montague@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

The Office of EERE supports DOE's strategic objectives of increasing the efficiency and productivity of energy use, while limiting environmental impacts; reducing the vulnerability of the U.S. economy to disruptions in energy supplies; ensuring that a competitive electric utility industry is in place that can deliver adequate and affordable supplies with reduced environmental impacts; supporting U.S. energy, environmental, and economic interests in global markets; and delivering leading-edge technologies. A key component of this program is the support of information dissemination, public outreach, training and related technical analysis and technical assistance activities to: (1) Stimulate increased energy efficiency in transportation, buildings, and industry and increased use of renewable energy; and (2) accelerate the adoption of new technologies to increase energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy. The purpose of this solicitation is to further these objectives through financial assistance in the following areas:

Office of Power Technologies (OPT) —The primary mission of this Office is to lead the national effort to develop solar and other renewable energy technologies and to accelerate their acceptance and use on a national and international level. Also, OPT develops advanced high temperature superconducting power equipment and energy storage systems, addresses advanced technology needs for transmission and distribution systems, and provides information and technical assistance on electric utility restructuring issues. Financial assistance applications will be requested for information dissemination, public outreach, and related technical analysis activities involving several specific renewable technologies such as wind, hydrogen and geothermal technologies. Also, proposals will be requested to perform the following activities: information dissemination, technical assistance, and outreach relating to electric utility restructuring; and co-sponsorship of conferences involving the power technologies sector.

Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT) —The mission of this Office is to improve the energy efficiency and pollution prevention performance of U.S. industry. The Office has a particular focus on nine industries, including the aluminum, steel, metal casting, glass, forest and paper products, chemicals, petroleum refining, agriculture, and mining industries. At the national level, the Office has successfully facilitated the development of industry visions and technology roadmaps with these nine industries. Financial assistance applications will be requested to support information dissemination and outreach to facilitate multi-States implementation of the Industries of the Future program.

Office of Transportation Technologies (OTT) —The mission of this Office is to support the development and use of advanced transportation vehicles and alternative fuel technologies which will reduce energy demand, particularly for petroleum; reduce criteria pollutant emissions and greenhouse gas emissions; and enable the U.S. transportation industry to sustain a strong competitive position in domestic and world markets. Financial assistance applications will be requested to conduct workshops and conferences related to the Clean Cities Program and to provide technical assistance and outreach to Western Hemispheric countries to promote the adoption of Clean Cities Programs or similar volunteer programs to expand the use of alternative fuels and alternative fuel technologies.

Office of Building Technology, State and Community Programs (BTS) —The mission of this Office is to develop, promote, and integrate energy technologies and practices to make buildings more efficient and affordable and communities more livable. Financial assistance applications will be requested to support information dissemination, public outreach, and related technical analysis activities for the following BTS priorities: Addressing the efficient and renewable energy technology information deficit among commercial building constructors, owners, and managers; promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy utilization as a public value for residential builders and home buyers; increasing the availability of energy efficient school design, retrofit and technical resource information for school board members and school administrators; preparing the building trades, building operators, and building managers for the new generation of efficient and renewable energy technologies; promoting the widespread installation of dedicated compact fluorescent lamp fixtures; and strengthening the Rebuild America Program through outreach activities with stakeholder organizations representing facility managers, business officials, and policy makers at colleges and universities, State and local governments, elementary and secondary schools, and public and other low-income housing.

Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) —The mission of this Program is to assist agencies in achieving the federal energy management goals and to disseminate information to states, local governments and the public on innovative approaches to the use of energy. Financial assistance will be requested to support several specific program areas such as a national lighting certification program for lighting professionals.

The Office of the Assistant Secretary for EERE has the overall management responsibility for the entire Office of EERE, including the OPT, OTT, OIT, BTS, and the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP). Financial assistance applications will be requested to support information dissemination, outreach, and related analysis activities under Program Area 6A, Technology and Systems Integration: Information Dissemination, Outreach, and Related Analysis, for projects which have the objectives to:

(1) Encourage the design, development, and adoption of energy efficiency and/or renewable energy systems that incorporate two or more technologies, or incorporate technology(ies) supported by at least two DOE program offices (including at least one from EERE), and that have identified potential for multiple applications across sectors;

(2) Stimulate greater technology integration and systems integration activities, including multi-application product development (a) within the energy efficiency and renewable energy sector ( e.g., multi-feedstock/multi-product biorefineries; distributed power generation technologies, applications, and grid interface issues; combined heat-and-power systems; industrial, commercial, and district-energy concepts; on-site clean fuel production and automotive fueling systems; and active/passive commercial building energy management systems); and (b) between EERE and the fossil energy sector ( e.g., coal/biomass co-firing; higher efficiency natural gas technologies; multi-fuel micro-turbines; carbon extraction and sequestration technologies);

(3) Encourage the design, development, and adoption of EERE technology-based strategies for accomplishing environmental and human health objectives under the Clean Air Act and other environmental laws and policies, particularly at the State and local government level;

(4) Encourage the use of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and other computer-assisted analytical, planning, and decision-support tools to assist communities to evaluate the energy, environmental, and economic impacts and costs of various options for energy generation, distribution, and use; and

(5) Develop financial risk and liability models for investments in EERE technologies and systems in order to assist investors and other stakeholders to evaluate financial risk exposure resulting from energy investment choices.

In addition, financial assistance applications will be requested to support region-wide technical assistance activities in developing countries and countries in transition to support the development of human and institutional capabilities related to EERE by governmental entities, not-for-profit organizations, and industry organizations. The region-wide activities must encompass one of the following regions: Latin America, Africa, South Asia, or Eastern Europe, and encompass several countries within that region.

Million Solar Roofs Initiative (MSRI) —The purpose of the MSRI is to spur the installation of solar energy systems on one million U.S. buildings by 2010. The initiative seeks to catalyze market demand through the elimination of barriers to the use of solar energy systems on buildings and the establishment of State and Community Partnerships. Applications will be requested under this solicitation to develop information, training, and workshops to assist in the elimination of specific barriers. A separate solicitation providing direct support to Million Solar Roofs State and Community Partnerships will be issued by the Golden Field Office not later than January 2001.

Additional information about the programs of the Office of EERE can be obtained at the Office's Internet site at http://www.eren.doe.gov/ee.html.

With the publication of this notice Western is withdrawing the previously proposed rates published on March 3, 2000 (65 FR 11569). Due to significant unexpected increases in the prices of energy in the California electric markets, the rates proposed in the March 3, 2000, Federal Register notice would be insufficient to recover the project costs. Therefore, Western rescinds those proposed rates and will disregard all public input associated with the rescinded proposed rates.

This Federal Register notice will initiate the public process to replace the existing approved rates that expire September 30, 2002. The proposed new rates for CVP firm power are designed to recover an annual revenue requirement that includes the investment repayment, interest, purchase power costs, transmission, operation and maintenance expense, and any charges or credits associated with the creation, termination, or modification to any tariff, contract, or schedule approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). A cost-of-service study allocates the projected annual revenue requirement for firm power between capacity and energy.

The capacity revenue requirement includes: (i) 100 percent of capacity purchase costs; (ii) 50 percent of the investment repayment; (iii) 50 percent of the interest expense; (iv) 50 percent of the operation and maintenance expense allocated to power; and (v) 100 percent of CVP and COTP transmission expense. Projected CVP and COTP transmission revenue and 50 percent of projected CVP project use revenue reduce the annual costs that determine the capacity revenue requirement.

The energy revenue requirement includes: (i) 100 percent of energy purchase costs; (ii) 50 percent of the investment repayment; (iii) 50 percent of the interest expense; and (iv) 50 percent of the operation and maintenance expense allocated to power. Projected surplus power revenue and 50 percent of projected CVP project use revenue reduce annual costs to determine the energy revenue requirement.

The resulting capacity/energy revenue requirement split varies from 30 percent allocated to capacity from April 1, 2001, through September 30, 2001, to 15 percent allocated to capacity from October 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. The average capacity/energy revenue requirement split for the rate period is 22 percent to capacity and 78 percent to energy. The variation in the capacity/energy revenue requirement split is due to fluctuations in energy purchase costs and seasonal CVP hydro generation.

Western also developed new proposed rates for CVP firm power with the transmission revenue requirement removed from the firm power revenue requirement. These rates would apply if Western joins the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and if the CAISO uses the transmission revenue requirement to develop a regional transmission rate. Western has not made a decision on joining the CAISO. The decision to join the CAISO is not part of this rate adjustment public process. These new proposed power rates with the transmission revenue requirement removed are designed to recover an annual revenue requirement that includes investment repayment, interest, purchase power, operation and maintenance expense, and any charges or credits associated with the creation, termination, or modification to any tariff, contract, or schedule approved by FERC.

A cost-of-service study allocates projected annual revenue requirement for firm power between capacity and energy. The capacity revenue requirement includes: (i) 100 percent of capacity purchase costs; (ii) 50 percent of the investment repayment; (iii) 50 percent of the interest expense; and (iv) 50 percent of the operation and maintenance expense allocated to power.

Fifty percent of the projected CVP project use revenue reduces the annual cost to determine the capacity revenue requirement. The energy revenue requirement includes: (i) 100 percent of energy purchase costs; (ii) 50 percent of the investment repayment; (iii) 50 percent of the interest expense; and (iv) 50 percent of the operation and maintenance expense allocated to power. Projected surplus power revenue and 50 percent of the projected CVP project use revenue reduce the annual cost to determine the energy revenue requirement.

The resulting capacity/energy revenue requirement split varies from 24 percent allocated to capacity from April 1, 2001, through September 30, 2001, to 11 percent allocated to capacity from October 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. The average capacity/energy revenue requirement split for the rate period is 17 percent to capacity and 83 percent to energy. The variation in the capacity/energy revenue requirement split is due to fluctuations in energy purchase costs and seasonal CVP hydro generation.

For both sets of firm power rates described above, Western will pass through to its customers any additional costs or credits that may be charged or credited to Western as the result of the creation, termination, or modification of any tariff, contract, schedule or other documents approved by FERC. When possible, Western will pass through directly to each customer FERC approved costs or credits in the same manner Western receives these costs or credits. If the FERC approved costs or credits are charged to Western in such a way that a direct pass through to each customer is not possible, Western will distribute the FERC approved costs or credits to each customer in a manner consistent with the rate design used in developing the proposed rates.

The new proposed rates for CVP firm power and the applicable revenue requirement split between capacity and energy are in Table 1.

The proposed rates for CVP firm power with the transmission revenue requirement removed and applicable revenue requirement split between capacity and energy are in Table 1A.

The Deputy Secretary of the Department of Energy (DOE), approved the existing Rate Schedule CV-F9 for CVP commercial firm power on September 19, 1997 (Rate Order No. WAPA-77, 62 FR 50924, September 29, 1997). FERC confirmed and approved the rate schedule on January 8, 1998, under FERC Docket No. EF97-5011-000 (82 FERC ¶ 62,006). The existing Rate Schedule CV-F9 became effective on October 1, 1997, for the period ending September 30, 2002. Under Rate Schedule CV-F9, the composite rate on October 1, 2000, is 18.56 mills per kilowatthour (mills/kWh), the base energy rate is 10.51 mills/kWh and the capacity rate is $3.81 per kilowattmonth (kWmonth).

The proposed rates for CVP firm power will result in an overall composite rate increase of approximately 22 percent on April 1, 2001, when compared with the current CVP commercial firm power rates under Rate Schedule CV-F9. Table 2 provides a comparison of the current rates in Rate Schedule CV-F9 and the proposed rates along with the percentage change in the rates.

The proposed rates for CVP firm power with the transmission revenue requirement removed will result in an overall composite rate increase of approximately 13 percent on April 1, 2001, when compared with the current CVP commercial firm power rates under Rate Schedule CV-F9. Table 2A provides a comparison of the current rates in Rate Schedule CV-F9 and the proposed rates with the Transmission Revenue Requirement removed along with the percentage change in the rates.

This provision in Rate Schedule CV-F9 will remain the same under the proposed rates for CVP firm power.

This provision in Rate Schedule CV-F9 will remain the same under the proposed rates for CVP firm power.

The Revenue Adjustment Clause (RAC) provides for a comparison between the projected net revenues in the rate adjustment power repayment study to the actual net revenues. If the actual net revenue is more than the projected net revenue, CVP preference customers receive a credit. If actual net revenue is less than the projected net revenue, CVP preference customers may pay a surcharge, if needed, to make a minimum investment payment. The limit for the RAC credit or surcharge is $20 million, plus any purchase power contract adjustments during the fiscal year (FY) for which the RAC is being calculated.

The RAC is calculated annually and the associated distribution of the RAC credit or surcharge occurs during a 9-month period on power bills issued January through September. For customers whose RAC credits cannot be fully credited through nine equal monthly amounts, Western has the option to increase the RAC credit during August and September. The FY 2001 RAC calculation will be based on the net revenue for FY 2001, including revenues and expenses for October 2000 to March 2001, which is outside of the rate adjustment period. A RAC will be calculated for October through December 2004. The maximum RAC credit or surcharge for October through December 2004 is $10 million plus purchase power contract adjustments applied to the April to September 2005 bills.

The proposed rate for power scheduling service is $76.65 per hour and is based on costs incurred to provide the service. Power scheduling service provides for scheduling resources to meet load and reserve requirements.

The proposed rate for scheduling coordinator service is $76.65 per hour and is based on costs incurred to provide the service. Scheduling coordinator service provides scheduling, real-time dispatching, and financial settlements with the CAISO and/or power exchanges.

The proposed formula rate for firm CVP transmission includes two components:

Western will revise the rate from component 1 based on updated data as of April 30 of each year. Western will also revise the rate from component 1 if there is a change in component 1 of the CVP firm transmission rate of at least $.05 per kWmonth. The estimated rate resulting from the proposed formula rate for firm CVP transmission for April to September 2001 is $0.70 per kWmonth, a 37-percent increase from the existing rate of $0.51 per kWmonth, under Rate Schedule CV-FT3. Based on a contract agreement to provide transmission service in the future, the estimated rate resulting from the proposed formula rate for firm CVP transmission for FY 2002 is $.56 per kWmonth, a 10-percent increase from the existing rate of $.51 per kWmonth.

The estimated rate resulting from the proposed formula rate for nonfirm CVP transmission service for April to September 2001 is 1.00 mill/kWh. The proposed formula rate for nonfirm CVP transmission is based on the same two components used in the proposed formula rate for firm CVP transmission. A revision to the nonfirm rate resulting from component 1 will occur whenever component 1 of the firm transmission rate is revised. If the rates from the proposed formula rate are higher than other transmission rates in California, firm or nonfirm transmission service for 1 year or less may be sold at lower rates.

The proposed formula rate for CVP transmission service is based on a revenue requirement that recovers: (i) The costs for facilities that support the transfer capability of the CVP transmission system (excluding generation facilities and radial lines); (ii) the nonfacilities costs allocated to transmission; and (iii) any transmission-related costs or credits incurred by Western due to electric industry restructuring or other changes in the industry. The proposed formula rate includes Western's cost for scheduling, system control and dispatch service, and reactive supply and voltage control service associated with the transmission service. The proposed formula rate is applicable to existing CVP firm transmission service and future point-to-point transmission service.

Western will pass through transmission service costs or credits it incurs for delivering CVP power over a third party's transmission system to the requesting CVP customer. Rates under this schedule will be automatically adjusted as third party transmission costs or credits are adjusted.

If Western offers network integration transmission service, it will be consistent with FERC Order No. 888. The proposed formula rate is the product of the network customer's load ratio share times one-twelfth of the annual network integration transmission revenue requirement. The load ratio share is the network customer's hourly load coincident with Western's monthly CVP transmission system peak minus the coincident peak for all firm CVP (including reserved capacity) point-to-point transmission service, plus the reserved capacity of all firm point-to-point transmission service customers.

The proposed formula rate for network integration transmission service is based on a revenue requirement that recovers: (i) The costs for facilities that support the transfer capability of the CVP transmission system (excluding generation facilities and radial lines); (ii) the nonfacilities costs allocated to transmission; and (iii) any transmission-related costs or credits incurred by Western due to electric industry restructuring or other changes in the industry. The proposed formula rate includes Western's cost for scheduling, system control and dispatch service, and reactive supply and voltage control service needed to provide the transmission service.

The proposed formula rate for COTP transmission includes two components:

The estimated rates resulting from the proposed formula rate for firm COTP transmission service for April 2001 to March 2002 are: Summer—$0.94 per kWmonth, winter—$1.12 per kWmonth, and spring—$1.00 per kWmonth. These rates resulting from the proposed formula rate result in a 30-percent decrease during the summer, a 16-percent decrease during the winter, and a 25-percent decrease during the spring compared to the existing rate of $1.34 per kWmonth.

The proposed formula rate for nonfirm COTP transmission is based on the same two components used in the proposed formula rate for firm COTP transmission. The estimated rates resulting from the proposed formula rate for nonfirm transmission service for April 2001 to March 2002 are: Summer—1.29 mills/kWh, winter—1.54 mills/kWh, and spring—1.37 mills/kWh. These rates for nonfirm COTP transmission service result in an 11-percent decrease during the summer, a 6-percent increase during the winter, and a 5-percent decrease during the spring compared to the existing rate of 1.45 mills/kWh. If the rates from the proposed formula rate are higher than other transmission rates in California, firm or nonfirm transmission service for 1 year or less may be sold at lower rates.

Rates resulting from the proposed formula rate for COTP transmission service are based on a revenue requirement that recovers: (i) Western's share of costs for facilities that support the transfer capability of the COTP; (ii) Western's share of the nonfacilities costs allocated to transmission; and (iii) any transmission-related costs or credits incurred by Western due to electric industry restructuring or other changes in the industry. The rates resulting from the proposed formula rate include Western's cost for scheduling, system control and dispatch service, and reactive supply and voltage control service associated with transmission service. The proposed formula rate would apply to existing COTP transmission service and future point-to-point transmission service.

Western will provide ancillary services, subject to availability, at the proposed rates in Table 3. Western designed these proposed rates to recover only the costs it incurs for providing the service(s). If these cost-based rates are higher than other ancillary service rates in California, sales of ancillary services of 1 year or less may be sold at lower rates.

Since the proposed rates constitute a major rate adjustment as defined by the procedures for public participation in general rate adjustments, as cited below, Western will hold both a public information forum and a public comment forum. After reviewing public comments, Western will recommend provisional rates for approval on an interim basis by the DOE Deputy Secretary.

These proposed rates for the CVP and COTP are established pursuant to the DOE Organization Act, 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352; the Reclamation Act of 1902, ch. 1093, 32 Stat. 388, as amended and supplemented by subsequent enactments, particularly section 9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939, 43 U.S.C. 485h(c); and other acts that specifically apply to the projects involved.

By Amendment No. 3 to Delegation Order No. 0204-108, published November 10, 1993 (58 FR 59716), the Secretary of Energy delegated: (1) The authority to develop long-term power and transmission rates on a nonexclusive basis to Western's Administrator; and (2) the authority to confirm, approve, and place into effect on a final basis, to remand, or to disapprove such rates to FERC. In Delegation Order No. 0204-172, effective November 24, 1999, the Secretary of Energy delegated the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Deputy Secretary. Existing DOE procedures for public participation in power rate adjustments (10 CFR part 903) became effective on September 18, 1985 (50 FR 37835).

All brochures, studies, comments, letters, memoranda, or other documents made or kept by Western for developing the proposed rates are available for inspection and copying at the Sierra Nevada Regional Office, 114 Parkshore Drive, Folsom, California.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis if a final rule is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and there is a legal requirement to issue a general notice of a proposed rulemaking. Western has determined that this action does not require a Regulatory Flexibility analysis since it is a rulemaking involving rates or services for public property.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. ; Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508); and DOE NEPA Regulations (10 CFR part 1021), Western has determined that this action is categorically excluded from the preparation of an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement.

Western has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no clearance of this notice by Office of Management and Budget is required.

Western has determined that this rule is exempt from congressional notification requirements under 5 U.S.C. 801 because the action is a rulemaking of particular applicability relating to rates or services and involves matters of procedure.

The existing long-term rate for SLCA/IP firm power is designed to recover an annual revenue requirement based on repaying power investment; paying interest, purchased power, operation, maintenance, and replacement expenses; and repaying irrigation assistance costs, as required by law.

The Deputy Secretary of the Department of Energy (DOE) approved the existing Rate Schedule SLIP-F6 for SLCA/IP firm power on March 23, 1998 (Rate Order No. WAPA-78). The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) confirmed and approved the rate schedule on July 17, 1998, in FERC Docket No. EF98-5171-000. The existing Firm Power Rate Schedule expires on March 31, 2003. Under Rate Schedule SLIP-F6, the energy rate is 8.10 mills/kWh, and the capacity rate is $3.44 per kilowattmonth (kWmonth). The composite rate (revenue requirements per kWh usage) is 17.57 mills/kWh.

The proposed rate formula adder is needed to provide additional revenue to fund near-term purchased power costs and to increase the working capital balance in the CRSP Basin Fund. Higher-than-normal purchased power expenses have resulted from lower-than-expected hydrology conditions, higher-than-normal purchase power prices, and the summer test release for endangered fish from Glen Canyon Dam (GCD).

The rate formula adder will be applied during the next 3 fiscal years (FY) from February 1, 2001, through September 30, 2003. The following proposed formulas will be used to determine the rate formula adder:

The RN is divided by the projected energy sales as shown in the existing ratesetting study to determine the additional composite rate needed.

Based upon the most recent data available at the time of this publication, the proposed rate formula adder for FY 2001 (which is proposed to be effective February 1, 2001) is expected to be an additional 5.1 mills/kWh for energy and $2.17 per kWmonth for capacity. The proposed composite rate adder is 11.02 mills/kWh.

At the end of FY 2001, an update of the data in the rate formula adder will indicate the adder for the following FY. At the end of the Winter Season each year, FY data and current projections will be reviewed to determine if the FY rate formula adder needs to be revised. If needed, a mid-FY revision to the adder would be made at this time. The Winter Season is the period from October 1 to March 31. The Summer Season is the period from April 1 to September 30. The rate formula adder calculations that are updated each FY will provide for an increase in the CRSP Basin Fund working capital balance until it reaches $60 million by the end of FY 2003. Customers will be notified in September of each year as to the next FY rate formula adder. In March of each year, the customers will be notified if a mid-FY revision is required. The rate formula adder will be charged by adding an additional capacity and energy rate to the SLIP-F6 rate. The table below displays the existing rate and the estimated rate formula adders for the next 3 FYs.

At the public information forums on November 20 and 21, 2000, in Salt Lake City and Phoenix, CRSP MC staff will explain in detail the rate formula adder and its application for the period of February 1, 2001, through September 30, 2001, and also provide estimates for the following 2 FYs.

The proposed rate formula adder is highly dependent upon hydrology conditions of the Upper Colorado River Basin, volatility of purchased power prices, potential of continuing test flows this summer at GCD, and the CRSP Basin Fund cash balance. A discussion of these issues follows.

Water year (WY) 2000 ended on September 30, 2000. The unregulated inflow to Lake Powell during the run-off season was 4.35 million acre-feet (maf) or 56 percent of average.

Hydrological assumptions are used in preparing estimates for generation from the SLCA/IP facilities. This, combined with contractual commitments, gives Western its purchased power requirements. Releases assumed by Western for the Winter Season 2001 are from the 24-month study prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation in October 2000. For the Summer Season 2001, Western assumed an amount of water release which, when added to the Winter season releases, totaled 8.23 maf from GCD. Summer releases were patterned by month using a dry-year pattern. For all other SLCA/IP power facilities, the Reclamation 24-month study was used.

Western may need to purchase electrical power from other utilities to support its minimum contractual commitment referred to as Sustainable Hydro Power (SHP). Given the water conditions previously described, Western developed estimates of the purchased power amounts required to provide the SHP amounts for each season. For the Winter Season 2001, Western included purchased power prices for which Western has already contracted. For the Summer Season 2001, Western's estimates of purchased power prices were derived from the New York Merchantile Exchange's (NYMEX) Palo Verde Electricity futures prices at the time the analysis was prepared.

Test flows at GCD are possible again next summer, as a result of an obligation the Bureau of Reclamation has under the conditions of a biological opinion (a requirement under the Endangered Species Act). Test flows occur in minimum-flow years. The probability of such an occurrence in FY 2001 is 34 percent.

The CRSP Basin Fund ended FY 2000 with a balance of about $42.5 million in cash. The lower-than-normal balance was mainly due to the high cost of purchased power prices during July, August, and September 2000. The need to purchase additional power was compounded by the low environmental test flows from GCD.

Purchase arrangements for energy needed to meet contractual obligations have been made for the Winter Season 2001. These purchases were at much higher costs than normal and adversely affected the CRSP Basin Fund's cash flow. Monthly revenues into the CRSP Basin Fund normally run from $10 million to $14 million per month; expenditures for purchased power are now at these levels. Any spending on transmission, replacements, and operation and maintenance costs will result in a negative cash flow during months when purchased energy costs are equivalent to or greater than revenue inflows.

In the event of another year where hydrology conditions are significantly below average and where low test flows from GCD are required, the CRSP Basin Fund working capital would be insufficient at the present rate.

Since the proposed rate formula adder constitutes a major rate adjustment as defined at 10 CFR 903.2, both public information forums and public comment forums will be held. However, the consultation and comment period has been shortened because of the financial hardship faced by the CRSP Basin Fund. After reviewing public comments, Western will recommend that the proposed rate formula adder or a revised proposed rate formula adder be approved on an interim basis by the DOE Deputy Secretary.

The proposed rate formula adder to the SLCA/IP firm power rates is being established pursuant to the Department of Energy Organization Act, 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352; the Reclamation Act of 1902, ch. 1093, 32 Stat. 388, as amended and supplemented by subsequent enactments, particularly section 9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939, 43 U.S.C. 485h(c); and other acts specifically applicable to the projects involved.

By Amendment No. 3 to Delegation Order No. 0204-108, published November 10, 1993 (58 FR 59716), the Secretary of DOE delegated (1) the authority to develop long-term power and transmission rates on a nonexclusive basis to the Administrator of Western; and (2) the authority to confirm, approve, and place into effect on a final basis, to remand, or to disapprove such rates to FERC. In Delegation Order No. 0204-172, effective November 24, 1999, the Secretary of Energy delegated the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Deputy Secretary. Existing DOE procedures for public participation in power rate adjustments are found at 10 CFR part 903.

All studies, comments, letters, memorandums, or other documents made or kept by Western for developing the proposed rates are and will be made available for inspection and copying at the CRSP Management Center, located at 150 East Social Hall Avenue, Suite 300, Salt Lake City, UT 84111-1534.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis if a final rule is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and there is a legal requirement to issue a general notice of proposed rulemaking. Western has determined that this action does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis since it is a rulemaking of particular applicability involving rates or services applicable to public property.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. ); Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508); and DOE NEPA Regulations (10 CFR part 1021), Western determined that this action is categorically excluded from the preparation of an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement.

Western has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no clearance of this notice by the Office of Management and Budget is required.

Western has determined that this rule is exempt from Congressional notification requirements under 5 U.S.C. 801 because the action is a rulemaking of particular applicability relating to rates or services and involves matters of procedure.

This action applies to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to specifically describe all the entities potentially affected by this action. The Agency believes that a wide range of stakeholders will be interested in technical briefings on organophosphate pesticides, including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates, the chemical industry, pesticide users, and members of the public interested in the use of pesticides on food. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

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

To access information about organophosphate pesticides, you can also go directly to the Home Page for the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/op/. In addition, a brief summary of the diazinon revised risk assessment is now available at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/op/status.htm/, as well as in paper as part of the public version of the official record as described in Unit I.B.2.

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record under docket control number OPP-34225A. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

This document announces the Agency's intention to hold a technical briefing for the organophosphate pesticide, diazinon. The Agency is presenting the revised risk assessments for diazinon to interested stakeholders. This technical briefing is designed to provide stakeholders with an opportunity to become even more informed about an organophosphate's risk assessment. EPA will describe in detail the revised risk assessment: Including the major points (e.g., contributors to risk estimates); how public comment on the preliminary risk assessment affected the revised risk assessment; and the pesticide use information/data that was used in developing the revised risk assessment. Stakeholders will have an opportunity to ask clarifying questions. In addition, representatives of the USDA will provide ideas on possible risk management.

The technical briefing is part of the pilot public participation process that EPA and USDA are now using for involving the public in the reassessment of pesticide tolerances under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), and the reregistration of individual organophosphate pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The pilot public participation process was developed as part of the EPA-USDA Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee (TRAC), which was established in April 1998 as a subcommittee under the auspices of EPA's National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology. A goal of the pilot public participation process is to find a more effective way for the public to participate at critical junctures in the Agency's development of organophosphate pesticide risk assessment and risk management decisions. EPA and USDA began implementing this pilot process in August 1998 in response to Vice President Gore's directive to increase transparency and opportunities for stakeholder consultation.

On the day of the technical briefing, in addition to making copies available at the meeting site, the Agency will also release for public viewing the diazinon revised risk assessments and related documents to the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch and the OPP Internet web site that are described in Unit I.B.1. In addition, the Agency will issue a Federal Register notice to provide an opportunity for a 60-day public participation period during which the public may submit risk management and mitigation ideas and recommendations and proposals for transition.

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

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

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

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number PF-980. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as confidential business information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, ecluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number PF-980 in the subject line on the first page of your response.

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

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

3. Electronically . You may submit your comments electronically by e-mail to: opp-docket@epa.gov, or you can submit a computer disk as described above. Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Electronic submissions will be accepted in Wordperfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format. All comments in electronic form must be identified by docket control number PF-980. Electronic comments may also be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

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

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

1. Eplain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

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

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

5. Provide specific eamples to illustrate your concerns.

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

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

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

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

EPA has received a pesticide petition PP 0F6207 from FMC Corporation, 1735 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR 180.418 by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide zeta-cypermethrin (±-a-Cyano(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl (±) cis, trans 3-(2,2-dichloroethenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate) in or on the raw agricultural commodities (RAC): wheat, grain at 0.15 parts per million (ppm); wheat, forage, at 2.5 ppm; wheat, hay at 6.0 ppm; wheat, straw at 6.5 ppm; wheat, bran at 0.20 ppm; sorghum, grain, at 0.50 ppm; sorghum, forage at 0.10 ppm; sorghum, fodder at 1.5 ppm; tomatoes at 0.10 ppm; peppers at 0.30 ppm; peas and beans (dried, succulent, and edible podded) at 0.50 ppm; soybeans at 0.05 ppm; poultry, meat at 0.05 ppm; poultry, meat by-products at 0.05 ppm; poultry, fat at 0.05 ppm and, eggs at 0.05 ppm; meat of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and, sheep at 0.3 ppm; fat of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep at 0.30 ppm; and, milk, fat at 0.2 ppm (reflecting 0.01 ppm in whole milk).

1. Plant metabolism . The metabolism of cypermethrin in plants is adequately understood. Studies have been conducted to delineate the metabolism of radiolabelled cypermethrin in various crops all showing similar results. The residue of concern is the parent compound only.

2. Analytical method . There is a practical analytical method for detecting and measuring levels of cypermethrin in or on food with a limit of detection that allows monitoring of food with residues at or above the levels set in these tolerances (gas chromatography with electron capture detection (GC/ECD).

3. Magnitude of residues . Crop field trial residue data from studies conducted at the maimum label rates for wheat, sorghum, peas, beans, soybeans, tomatoes, and peppers show that the proposed zeta-cypermethrin tolerances on wheat, grain at 0.15 ppm; wheat, forage, at 2.5 ppm; wheat, hay at 6.0 ppm; wheat, straw at 6.5 ppm; wheat, bran at 0.20 ppm; sorghum, grain, at 0.50 ppm; sorghum, forage at 0.10 ppm; sorghum, fodder at 1.5 ppm; tomatoes at 0.10 ppm; peppers at 0.30 ppm; peas, and beans (dried, succulent, and edible podded) at 0.50 ppm; soybeans at 0.05 ppm; will not be eceeded when the zeta-cypermethrin products labeled for these uses are used as directed.

1. Acute toxicity . For the purposes of assessing acute dietary risk, FMC has used the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 10.0 milligrams/kilograms (mg/kg)/day from the zeta-cypermethrin acute neurotoxicityy study in rats. The lowest effect level (LEL) of 50.0 mg/kg/day was based on clinical signs. This acute dietary endpoint is used to determine acute dietary risks to all population subgroups.

2. Genotoxicty . The following genotoxicity tests were all negative: In vivo chromosomal aberration in rat bone marrow cells; in vitro cytogenic chromosome aberration; unscheduled DNA synthesis; chinese hampster ovary/hypoanthine guanine phophoribosyl transferase (CHO/HGPRT) mutagen assay; weakly mutagenic; gene mutation (Ames).

3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity . No evidence of additional sensitivity to young rats was observed following prenatal or postnatal exposure to zeta-cypermethrin.

i. A 2--generation reproductive toxicity study with zeta-cypermethrin in rats demonstrated a NOAEL of 7.0 mg/kg/day and a LOAEL of 27.0 mg/kg/day for parental/systemic toxicity based on body weight, organ weight, and clinical signs. There were no adverse effects in reproductive performance. The NOAEL for reproductive toxicity was considered to be >45.0 mg/kg/day (the highest dose tested).

ii. A developmental study with zeta-cypermethrin in rats demonstrated a maternal NOAEL of 12.5 mg/kg/day and a LOAEL of 25 mg/kg/day based on decreased maternal body weight gain, food consumption and clinical signs. There were no signs of developmental toxicity at 35.0 mg/kg/day, the highest dose level tested.

iii. A developmental study with cypermethrin in rabbits demonstrated a maternal NOAEL of 100 mg/kg/day and a LOAEL of 450 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight gain. There were no signs of developmental toxicity at 700 mg/kg/day, the highest dose level tested.

4. Subchronic toxicity . Short- and intermediate-term toxicity. The NOAEL of 10.0 mg/kg/day based on clinical signs at the LEL of 50.0 mg/kg/day in the zeta-cypermethrin acute neurotoxicity study in rats would also be used for short- and intermediate-term MOE calculations (as well as acute, discussed in (1) above).

5. Chronic toxicity — i. The reference dose (RfD) of 0.005 mg/kg/day for zeta-cypermethrin is based on a NOAEL of 1.0 mg/kg/day from a cypermethrin dog chronic study and an uncertainty factor of 200 (used to account for the differences in the percentage of the biologically active isomer). The endpoint effect of concern was based on gastrointestinal disturbances.

ii. Cypermethrin is classified as a Group C chemical (possible human carcinogen with limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals) based upon limited evidence for carcinogenicity in female mice; assignment of a Q* has not been recommended.

6. Animal metabolism . The metabolism of cypermethrin in animals is adequately understood. Cypermethrin has been shown to be rapidly absorbed, distributed, and excreted in rats when administered orally. Cypermethrin is metabolized by hydrolysis and oidation.

7. Metabolite toxicology . The Agency has previously determined that the metabolites of cypermethrin are not of toxicological concern and need not be included in the tolerance epression.

8. Endocrine disruption . No special studies investigating potential estrogenic or other endocrine effects of cypermethrin have been conducted. However, no evidence of such effects were reported in the standard battery of required toxicology studies which have been completed and found acceptable. Based on these studies, there is no evidence to suggest that cypermethrin has an adverse effect on the endocrine system.

1. Dietary exposure —i. Food . Permanent tolerances, in support of registrations, currently eist for residues of zeta- cypermethrin on cottonseed, pecans, lettuce, head, onions, bulb, cabbage, and, livestock commodities of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep (along with the associated meat and milk tolerances). For the purposes of assessing the potential dietary exposure for these eisting and the subject proposed tolerances, FMC has utilized available information on anticipated residues, monitoring data and percent crop treated as follows:

a. Acute exposure and risk . Acute dietary exposure risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a one day or single exposure. For the purposes of assessing acute dietary risk for zeta-cypermethrin, FMC has used the NOAEL of 10.0 mg/kg/day from the zeta-cypermethrin acute neurotoxicity study in rats. The LEL of 50.0 mg/kg/day was based on clinical signs. This acute dietary endpoint is used to determine acute dietary risks to all population subgroups. Available information on anticipated residues, monitoring data and percent crop treated was incorporated into a Tier 3 analysis, using Monte Carlo modeling for commodities that may be consumed in a single serving. These assessments show that the margins of exposure (MOE) are significantly greater than the EPA standard of 100 for all subpopulations. The 95th percentile of exposure for the overall U.S. population was estimated to be 0.000630 mg/kg/day (margin of exposure (MOE) of 15884); 99th percentile 0.002184 mg/kg/day (MOE of 4577); and 99.9th percentile 0.010260 mg/kg/day (MOE of 974). The 95th percentile of exposure for all infants <1 year old was estimated to be 0.000599 mg/kg/day (MOE of 16682); 99th percentile 0.005656 mg/kg/day (MOE of 1768); and 99.9th percentile 0.029094 mg/kg/day (MOE of 343). The 95th percentile of exposure for nursing infants < 1 year old was estimated to be 0.000172 mg/kg/day (MOE of 58054); 99th percentile 0.000967 mg/kg/day (MOE of 10336); and 99.9th percentile 0.004937 mg/kg/day (MOE of 2025). The 95th percentile of exposure for non-nursing infants < 1 year old (the most highly exposed population subgroup) was estimated to be 0.000760 mg/kg/day (MOE of 13155); 99th percentile 0.011082 mg/kg/day (MOE of 902); and 99.9th percentile 0.032957 mg/kg/day (MOE of 303). The 95th percentile of exposure for children 1 to 6 years old and children 7 to 12 years old was estimated to be, respectively, 0.000936 mg/kg/day (MOE of 10681) and 0.000644 mg/kg/day (MOE of 15524); 99th percentile 0.002768 mg/kg/day (MOE of 3612) and 0.001945 (MOE of 5141); and 99.9th percentile 0.012752 mg/kg/day (MOE of 784) and 0.006688 (MOE of 1495). The 95th percentile of exposure for females (13+/nursing) was estimated to be 0.000602 mg/kg/day (MOE of 16602); 99th percentile 0.002340 mg/kg/day (MOE of 4273); and 99.9th percentile 0.011387 mg/kg/day (MOE of 878). Therefore, FMC concludes that the acute dietary risk of zeta-cypermethrin, as estimated by the dietary risk assessment, does not appear to be of concern.

b. Chronic exposure and risk . The RfD of 0.0125 mg/kg/day for zeta- cypermethrin is based on a NOAEL of 1.0 mg/kg/day from a cypermethrin dog chronic study and an uncertainty factor of 200 (used to account for the differences in the percentage of the biologically active isomer). The endpoint effect of concern was based on gastrointestinal disturbances. A chronic dietary exposure/risk assessment has been performed for zeta-cypermethrin using the above RfD. Available information on anticipated residues, monitoring data and percent crop treated was incorporated into the analysis to estimate the anticipated residue contribution (ARC). The ARC is generally considered a more realistic estimate than an estimate based on tolerance level residues. The ARC are estimated to be 0.000151 mg/kg body weight (bwt)/day and utilize 3.0% of the RfD for the overall U. S. population. The ARC for nursing infants (<1 year) and non-nursing infants (<1 year) (subgroup most highly exposed) are estimated to be 0.000024 mg/kg bwt/day and 0.000335 mg/kg bwt/day and utilizes 0.5% and 6.7% of the RfD, respectively. The ARC for children 1-6 years old and children 7-12 years old are estimated to be 0.000285 mg/kg bwt/day and 0.000168 mg/kg bwt/day and utilizes 5.7 percent and 3.4 percent of the RfD, respectively. The ARC for females (13+/nursing) are estimated to be 0.000144 mg/kg bwt/day and utilizes 2.9 percent of the RfD. Generally speaking, the EPA has no cause for concern if the total dietary exposure from residues for uses for which there are published and proposed tolerances is less than 100 percent of the RfD. Therefore, FMC concludes that the chronic dietary risk of zeta-cypermethrin, as estimated by the dietary risk assessment, does not appear to be of concern.

ii. Drinking water . Laboratory and field data have demonstrated that cypermethrin is immobile in soil and will not leach into groundwater. Other data show that cypermethrin is virtually insoluble in water and etremely lipophilic. As a result, FMC concludes that residues reaching surface waters from field runoff will quickly adsorb to sediment particles and be partitioned from the water column. Further, a screening evaluation of leaching potential of a typical pyrethroid was conducted using EPA's Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM3). Based on this screening assessment, the potential concentrations of a pyrethroid in groundwater at depths of 1 and 2 meters are essentially zero (<<0.001 parts per billion(ppb)). Surface water concentrations for pyrethroids were estimated using PRZM3 and exposure Analysis Modeling System (EXAMS) using standard EPA cotton runoff and Mississippi pond scenarios. The maimum concentration predicted in the simulated pond was 0.052 parts per billion. Concentrations in actual drinking water would be much lower than the levels predicted in the hypothetical, small, stagnant farm pond model since drinking water derived from surface water would normally be treated before consumption. Based on these analyses, the contribution of water to the dietary risk estimate is negligible. Therefore, FMC concludes that together these data indicate that residues are not epected to occur in drinking water.

2. Non-dietary exposure . Zeta-cypermethrin is registered for agricultural crop applications only, therefore non-dietary exposure assessments are not warranted.

In consideration of potential cumulative effects of cypermethrin and other substances that may have a common mechanism of toxicity, to our knowledge there are currently no available data or other reliable information indicating that any toxic effects produced by cypermethrin would be cumulative with those of other chemical compounds; thus only the potential risks of cypermethrin have been considered in this assessment of its aggregate exposure. FMC intends to submit information for the EPA to consider concerning potential cumulative effects of cypermethrin consistent with the schedule established by EPA on August 4, 1997 (62 FR 42020) (FRL-5734-6) and other EPA publications pursuant to the Food Quality Protection Act.

1. U.S. population . Based on a complete and reliable toxicology database, the RfD for zeta-cypermethrin is 0.005 mg/kg/day, based on a NOAEL of 1.0 mg/kg/day from the cypermethrin dog chronic study and an uncertainty factor of 200. Available information on anticipated residues, monitoring data and percent crop treated was incorporated into an analysis to estimate the Anticipated Residue Contribution (ARC) for 26 population subgroups. The ARC is generally considered a more realistic estimate than an estimate based on tolerance level residues. The ARC are estimated to be 0.000151 mg/kg body weight (bwt)/day and utilize 3.0 percent of the RfD for the overall U. S. population. The ARC for nursing infants (<1 year) and non-nursing infants (<1 year) (subgroup most highly exposed) are estimated to be 0.000024 mg/kg bwt/day and 0.000335 mg/kg bwt/day and utilizes 0.5 percent and 6.7 percent of the RfD, respectively. The ARC for children 1-6 years old and children 7-12 years old are estimated to be 0.000285 mg/kg bwt/day and 0.000168 mg/kg bwt/day and utilizes 5.7 percent and 3.4 percent of the RfD, respectively. The ARC for females (13+/nursing) are estimated to be 0.000144 mg/kg bwt/day and utilizes 2.9 percent of the RfD. Generally speaking, the EPA has no cause for concern if the total dietary exposure from residues for uses for which there are published and proposed tolerances is less than 100 percent of the RfD. Therefore, FMC concludes that the chronic dietary risk of zeta-cypermethrin, as estimated by the aggregate risk assessment, does not appear to be of concern. For the purposes of assessing acute dietary risk for zeta-cypermethrin, FMC has used the NOAEL of 10.0 mg/kg/day from the zeta-cypermethrin acute neurotoxicity study in rats. The LEL of 50.0 mg/kg/day was based on clinical signs. This acute dietary endpoint is used to determine acute dietary risks to all population subgroups. Available information on anticipated residues, monitoring data and percent crop treated was incorporated into a Tier 3 analysis, using Monte Carlo modeling for commodities that may be consumed in a single serving. These assessments show that the margins of exposure (MOE) are significantly greater than the EPA standard of 100 for all subpopulations. The 95th percentile of exposure for the overall U. S. population was estimated to be 0.000630 mg/kg/day (MOE of 15884); 99th percentile 0.002184 mg/kg/day (MOE of 4577); and 99.9th. percentile 0.010260 mg/kg/day (MOE of 974). The 95th percentile of exposure for all infants < 1 year old was estimated to be 0.000599 mg/kg/day (MOE of 16682); 99th percentile 0.005656 mg/kg/day (MOE of 1768); and 99.9th percentile 0.029094 mg/kg/day (MOE of 343). The 95th percentile of exposure for nursing infants < 1 year old was estimated to be 0.000172 mg/kg/day (MOE of 58054); 99th percentile 0.000967 mg/kg/day (MOE of 10336); and 99.9th percentile 0.004937 mg/kg/day (MOE of 2025). The 95th percentile of exposure for non-nursing infants < 1 year old (the most highly exposed population subgroup) was estimated to be 0.000760 mg/kg/day (MOE of 13155); 99th percentile 0.011082 mg/kg/day (MOE of 902); and 99.9th percentile 0.032957 mg/kg/day (MOE of 303). The 95th percentile of exposure for children 1 to 6 years old and children 7 to 12 years old was estimated to be, respectively, 0.000936 mg/kg/day (MOE of 10681) and 0.000644 mg/kg/day (MOE of 15524); 99th percentile 0.002768 mg/kg/day (MOE of 3612) and 0.001945 (MOE of 5141); and 99.9th percentile 0.012752 mg/kg/day (MOE of 784) and 0.006688 (MOE of 1495). The 95th percentile of exposure for females (13+/nursing) was estimated to be 0.000602 mg/kg/day (MOE of 16602); 99th percentile 0.002340 mg/kg/day (MOE of 4273); and 99.9th percentile 0.011387 mg/kg/day (MOE of 878). Therefore, FMC concludes that there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from acute exposure to zeta-cypermethrin.

2. Infants and children — i. General . In assessing the potential for additional sensitivity of infants and children to residues of zeta-cypermethrin, FMC considered data from developmental toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit, and a 2-generation reproductive study in the rat. The data demonstrated no indication of increased sensitivity of rats to zeta-cypermethrin or rabbits to cypermethrin in utero and/or postnatal exposure to zeta-cypermethrin or cypermethrin. The developmental toxicity studies are designed to evaluate adverse effects on the developing organism resulting from pesticide exposure during prenatal development to one or both parents. Reproduction studies provide information relating to effects from exposure to the pesticide on the reproductive capability of mating animals and data on systemic toxicity. FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA may apply an additional margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for pre- and post-natal toxicity and the completeness of the database.

ii. Developmental toxicity studies . In the prenatal developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits, there was no evidence of developmental toxicity at the highest doses tested (35.0 mg/kg/day in rats and 700 mg/kg/day in rabbits). Decreased body weight gain was observed at the maternal LOAEL in each study; the maternal NOAEL was established at 12.5 mg/kg/day in rats and 100 mg/kg/day in rabbits.

iii. Reproductive toxicity study . In the 2-generation reproduction study in rats, offspring toxicity (body weight) and parental toxicity (body weight, organ weight, and clinical signs) was observed at 27.0 mg/kg/day and greater. The parental systemic NOAEL was 7.0 mg/kg/day and the parental systemic LOAEL was 27.0 mg/kg/day. There were no developmental (pup) or reproductive effects up to 45.0 mg/kg/day, highest dose tested.

iv. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity — a. Prenatal . There was no evidence of developmental toxicity in the studies at the highest doses tested in the rat (35.0 mg/kg/day) or in the rabbit (700 mg/kg/day). Therefore, there is no evidence of a special dietary risk (either acute or chronic) for infants and children which would require an additional safety factor.

b. Postnatal . Based on the absence of pup toxicity up to dose levels which produced toxicity in the parental animals, there is no evidence of special postnatal sensitivity to infants and children in the rat reproduction study.

v. Conclusion . Based on the above, FMC concludes that reliable data support use of the standard 100-fold uncertainty factor, and that an additional uncertainty factor is not needed to protect the safety of infants and children. As stated above, aggregate exposure assessments utilized significantly less than 1% of the RfD for either the entire U.S. population or any of the 26 population subgroups including infants and children. Therefore, it may be concluded that there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to cypermethrin residues.

There are no Codex, Canadian or Mexican residue limits for residues of zeta-cypermethrin in or on wheat (grain, forage, hay, straw, and bran), sorghum (grain, forage and fodder), tomatoes, peppers, peas and beans (dried, succulent and edible podded), and soybeans.

EPA has received a pesticide petition PP 1F3994 from FMC Corporation, 1735 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR 180.418 by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide zeta-cypermethrin (±-a-Cyano(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl (±) cis, trans 3-(2,2-dichloroethenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate) in or on the raw agricultural commodities (RAC): Sunflower, seeds at 0.20 ppm; sunflower, oil at 0.20 ppm, poultry, meat at 0.05 ppm, poultry, meat by-products at 0.05 ppm, poultry, fat at 0.05 ppm and eggs at 0.05 ppm, meat of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep at 0.3 ppm, fat of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep at 2.0 ppm, and milk, fat at 1.0 ppm (reflecting 0.2 ppm in whole milk).

1. Plant metabolism . The metabolism of cypermethrin in plants is adequately understood. Studies have been conducted to delineate the metabolism of radiolabelled cypermethrin in various crops all showing similar results. The residue of concern is the parent compound only.

2. Analytical method . There is a practical analytical method for detecting and measuring levels of cypermethrin in or on food with a limit of detection that allows monitoring of food with residues at or above the levels set in these tolerances (Gas Chromatography with Electron Capture Detection GC/ECD.

3. Magnitude of residues . Crop field trial residue data from studies conducted at the maimum label rates for sunflowers show that the proposed zeta-cypermethrin tolerances on sunflower, seeds at 0.20 ppm, sunflower, oil at 0.20 ppm.

1. Acute toxicity . For the purposes of assessing acute dietary risk, FMC has used the NOAEL of 0.5 mg/kg/day based on the NOAEL of 1.0 mg/kg/day from the cypermethrin chronic toxicity study in dogs and a correction factor of two to account for the differences in the percentage of the biologically active isomer. The LOAEL of 5.0 mg/kg/day was based on gastrointestinal disturbances observed in the first week of the study. This acute dietary endpoint is used to determine acute dietary risks to all population subgroups.

2. Genotoxicty . The following genotoxicity tests were all negative: In vivo chromosomal aberration in rat bone marrow cells; in vitro cytogenic chromosome aberration; unscheduled DNA synthesis; CHO/HGPRT mutagen assay; weakly mutagenic: Gene mutation (Ames).

3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity . No evidence of additional sensitivity to young rats was observed following prenatal or postnatal exposure to zeta-cypermethrin.

i. A 2-generation reproductive toxicity study with zeta-cypermethrin in rats demonstrated a NOAEL of 7.0 mg/kg/day and a LOAEL of 27.0 mg/kg/day for parental/systemic toxicity based on body weight, organ weight, and clinical signs. There were no adverse effects in reproductive performance. The NAOEL for reproductive toxicity was considered to be > 45.0 mg/kg/day (the highest dose tested (HDT)).

ii. A developmental study with zeta-cypermethrin in rats demonstrated a maternal NOAEL of 12.5 mg/kg/day and a LOAEL of 25 mg/kg/day based on decreased maternal body weight gain, food consumption and clinical signs. There were no signs of developmental toxicity at 35.0 mg/kg/day, the highest dose level tested.

iii. A developmental study with cypermethrin in rabbits demonstrated a maternal NOAEL of 100 mg/kg/day and a LOAEL of 450 mg/kg/day based on decreased bwt gain. There were no signs of developmental toxicity at 700 mg/kg/day, the HDT.

4. Subchronic toxicity. Short- and intermediate-term toxicity. The NOAEL of 2.5 mg/kg/day from the cypermethrin chronic toxicity study in dogs and a correction factor of two to account for the differences in the percentage of the biologically active isomer would also be used for short- and intermediate-term MOE calculations. The LOAEL of 7.5 mg/kg/day was based on neurotoxic clinical signs which were displayed starting week one of the study.

5. Chronic toxicity — i. The reference dose (RfD) of 0.005 mg/kg/day for zeta-cypermethrin is based on gastrointestinal disturbances in a cypermethrin study in dogs with an uncertainty factor of 200 (used to account for the differences in the percentage of the biologically active isomer).

ii. Cypermethrin is classified as a Group C chemical (possible human carcinogen with limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals) based upon limited evidence for carcinogenicity in female mice; assignment of a Q* has not been recommended.

6. Animal metabolism . The metabolism of cypermethrin in animals is adequately understood. Cypermethrin has been shown to be rapidly absorbed, distributed, and excreted in rats when administered orally. Cypermethrin is metabolized by hydrolysis and oidation.

7. Metabolite toxicology . The Agency has previously determined that the metabolites of cypermethrin are not of toxicological concern and need not be included in the tolerance epression.

8. Endocrine disruption . No special studies investigating potential estrogenic or other endocrine effects of cypermethrin have been conducted. However, no evidence of such effects were reported in the standard battery of required toxicology studies which have been completed and found acceptable. Based on these studies, there is no evidence to suggest that cypermethrin has an adverse effect on the endocrine system.

1. Dietary exposure — i. Food . Permanent tolerances, in support of registrations, currently eist for residues of zeta-cypermethrin on cottonseed; pecans; lettuce, head; onions, bulb; and cabbage and livestock commodities of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep (along with the associated meat and milk tolerances). For the purposes of assessing the potential dietary exposure for these eisting and the subject proposed tolerances, FMC has utilized available information on anticipated residues, monitoring data and percent crop treated as follows:

a. Acute exposure and risk . Acute dietary exposure risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a one day or single exposure. For the purposes of assessing acute dietary risk for zeta-cypermethrin, FMC has used the NOAEL of 0.5 mg/kg/day based on the NOAEL of 1.0 mg/kg/day from the cypermethrin chronic toxicity study in dogs and a correction factor of two to account for the differences in the percentage of the biologically active isomer. The LOAEL of 5.0 mg/kg/day was based on gastrointestinal disturbances which were displayed during week one of this study. This acute dietary endpoint is used to determine acute dietary risks to all population subgroups. Available information on anticipated residues, monitoring data and percent crop treated was incorporated into a Tier 3 analysis, using Monte Carlo modeling for commodities that may be consumed in a single serving. These assessments show that the margins of exposure (MOE) are significantly greater than the EPA standard of 100 for all subpopulations. The 95th percentile of exposure for the overall U. S. population was estimated to be 0.000330 mg/kg/day (MOE of 1514); 99th percentile 0.001136 mg/kg/day (MOE of 440); and 99.9th percentile 0.002544 mg/kg/day (MOE of 196). The 95th percentile of exposure for all infants < 1 year old was estimated to be 0.000096 mg/kg/day (MOE of 5211); 99th percentile 0.000365 mg/kg/day (MOE of 1368); and 99.9th percentile 0.001438 mg/kg/day (MOE of 347). The 95th percentile of exposure for nursing infants < 1 year old was estimated to be 0.000040 mg/kg/day (MOE of 12532); 99th percentile 0.000194 mg/kg/day (MOE of 2575); and 99.9th percentile 0.000899 mg/kg/day (MOE of 556). The 95th percentile of exposure for non-nursing infants < 1 year old was estimated to be 0.000114 mg/kg/day (MOE of 4391); 99th percentile 0.000437 mg/kg/day (MOE of 1144); and 99.9th percentile 0.001732 mg/kg/day (MOE of 288). The 95th percentile of exposure for children 1 to 6 years old (the most highly exposed population subgroup) and children 7 to 12 years old was estimated to be, respectively, 0.000442 mg/kg/day (MOE of 1131) and 0.000413 mg/kg/day (MOE of 1209); 99th percentile 0.001355 mg/kg/day (MOE of 368) and 0.001349 (MOE of 370); and 99.9th percentile 0.003454 mg/kg/day (MOE of 144) and 0.002928 (MOE of 170). The 95th percentile of exposure for females (13+/nursing) was estimated to be 0.000306 mg/kg/day (MOE of 1635); 99th percentile 0.001174 mg/kg/day (MOE of 425); and 99.9th percentile 0.002583 mg/kg/day (MOE of 193). Therefore, FMC concludes that the acute dietary risk of zeta-cypermethrin, as estimated by the dietary risk assessment, does not appear to be of concern.

b. Chronic exposure and risk . The RfD of 0.005 mg/kg/day for zeta-cypermethrin is based on gastrointestinal disturbances in a cypermethrin study in dogs with an uncertainty factor of 200 (used to account for the differences in the percentage of the biologically active isomer). A chronic dietary exposure/risk assessment has been performed for zeta-cypermethrin using the above RfD. Available information on anticipated residues, monitoring data and percent crop treated was incorporated into the analysis to estimate the anticipated residue contribution (ARC). The ARC is generally considered a more realistic estimate than an estimate based on tolerance level residues. The ARC are estimated to be 0.000033 mg/kg body weight (bwt)/day and utilize 0.7 percent of the RfD for the overall U. S. population. The ARC for nursing infants (<1 year) and non-nursing infants (<1 year) are estimated to be 0.000009 mg/kg bwt/day and 0.000035 mg/kg bwt/day and utilizes 0.2 percent and 0.7 percent of the RfD, respectively. The ARC for children 1-6 years old (subgroup most highly exposed) and children 7-12 years old are estimated to be 0.000078 mg/kg bwt/day and 0.000052 mg/kg bwt/day and utilizes 1.6 percent and 1.0 percent of the RfD, respectively. The ARC for females (13+/nursing) are estimated to be 0.000033 mg/kg bwt/day and utilizes 0.7 percent of the RfD. Generally speaking, the EPA has no cause for concern if the total dietary exposure from residues for uses for which there are published and proposed tolerances is less than 100 percent of the RfD. Therefore, FMC concludes that the chronic dietary risk of zeta-cypermethrin, as estimated by the dietary risk assessment, does not appear to be of concern.

ii. Drinking water . Laboratory and field data have demonstrated that cypermethrin is immobile in soil and will not leach into groundwater. Other data show that cypermethrin is virtually insoluble in water and etremely lipophilic. As a result, FMC concludes that residues reaching surface waters from field runoff will quickly adsorb to sediment particles and be partitioned from the water column. Further, a screening evaluation of leaching potential of a typical pyrethroid was conducted using EPA's Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM3). Based on this screening assessment, the potential concentrations of a pyrethroid in groundwater at depths of 1 and 2 meters are essentially zero (<<0.001 parts per billion (ppb)). Surface water concentrations for pyrethroids were estimated using PRZM3 and exposure Analysis Modeling System (EXAMS) using standard EPA cotton runoff and Mississippi pond scenarios. The maimum concentration predicted in the simulated pond was 0.052 ppb. Concentrations in actual drinking water would be much lower than the levels predicted in the hypothetical, small, stagnant farm pond model since drinking water derived from surface water would normally be treated before consumption. Based on these analyses, the contribution of water to the dietary risk estimate is negligible. Therefore, FMC concludes that together these data indicate that residues are not epected to occur in drinking water.

2. Non-dietary exposure . Zeta-cypermethrin is registered for agricultural crop applications only, therefore non-dietary exposure assessments are not warranted.

In consideration of potential cumulative effects of cypermethrin and other substances that may have a common mechanism of toxicity, to our knowledge there are currently no available data or other reliable information indicating that any toxic effects produced by cypermethrin would be cumulative with those of other chemical compounds; thus only the potential risks of cypermethrin have been considered in this assessment of its aggregate exposure. FMC intends to submit information for the EPA to consider concerning potential cumulative effects of cypermethrin consistent with the schedule established by EPA on August 4, 1997 (62 FR 42020) (FRL-5734-6) and other EPA publications pursuant to the Food Quality Protection Act.

1. U.S. population . Based on a complete and reliable toxicology database, the RfD for zeta-cypermethrin is 0.005 mg/kg/day for zeta-cypermethrin based on gastrointestinal disturbances in a cypermethrin study in dogs with an uncertainty factor of 200 (used to account for the differences in the percentage of the biologically active isomer). Available information on anticipated residues, monitoring data and percent crop treated was incorporated into an analysis to estimate the Anticipated Residue Contribution (ARC) for 26 population subgroups. The ARC is generally considered a more realistic estimate than an estimate based on tolerance level residues. The ARC are estimated to be 0.000033 mg/kg body weight (bwt)/day and utilize 0.7 percent of the RfD for the overall U. S. population. The ARC for nursing infants (<1 year) and non-nursing infants (<1 year) are estimated to be 0.000009 mg/kg bwt/day and 0.000035 mg/kg bwt/day and utilizes 0.2 percent and 0.7 percent of the RfD, respectively. The ARC for children 1-6 years old (subgroup most highly exposed) and children 7-12 years old are estimated to be 0.000078 mg/kg bwt/day and 0.000052 mg/kg bwt/day and utilizes 1.6 percent and 1.0 percent of the RfD, respectively. The ARC for females (13+/nursing) are estimated to be 0.000033 mg/kg bwt/day and utilizes 0.7 percent of the RfD. Generally speaking, the EPA has no cause for concern if the total dietary exposure from residues for uses for which there are published and proposed tolerances is less than 100 percent of the RfD. Therefore, FMC concludes that the chronic dietary risk of zeta-cypermethrin, as estimated by the aggregate risk assessment, does not appear to be of concern.

The 95th percentile of exposure for the overall U. S. population was estimated to be 0.000330 mg/kg/day (MOE of 1514); 99th percentile 0.001136 mg/kg/day (MOE of 440); and 99.9th percentile 0.002544 mg/kg/day (MOE of 196). The 95th percentile of exposure for all infants < 1 year old was estimated to be 0.000096 mg/kg/day (MOE of 5211); 99th percentile 0.000365 mg/kg/day (MOE of 1368); and 99.9th percentile 0.001438 mg/kg/day (MOE of 347). The 95th percentile of exposure for nursing infants < 1 year old was estimated to be 0.000040 mg/kg/day (MOE of 12532); 99th percentile 0.000194 mg/kg/day (MOE of 2575); and 99.9th percentile 0.000899 mg/kg/day (MOE of 556). The 95th percentile of exposure for non-nursing infants < 1 year old was estimated to be 0.000114 mg/kg/day (MOE of 4391); 99th percentile 0.000437 mg/kg/day (MOE of 1144); and 99.9th percentile 0.001732 mg/kg/day (MOE of 288). The 95th percentile of exposure for children 1 to 6 years old (the most highly exposed population subgroup) and children 7 to 12 years old was estimated to be, respectively, 0.000442 mg/kg/day (MOE of 1131) and 0.000413 mg/kg/day (MOE of 1209); 99th percentile 0.001355 mg/kg/day (MOE of 368) and 0.001349 (MOE of 370); and 99.9th percentile 0.003454 mg/kg/day (MOE of 144) and 0.002928 (MOE of 170). The 95th percentile of exposure for females (13+/nursing) was estimated to be 0.000306 mg/kg/day (MOE of 1635); 99th percentile 0.001174 mg/kg/day (MOE of 425); and 99.9th percentile 0.002583 mg/kg/day (MOE of 193). Therefore, FMC concludes that there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from acute exposure to zeta-cypermethrin.

2. Infants and children — i. General . In assessing the potential for additional sensitivity of infants and children to residues of zeta-cypermethrin, FMC considered data from developmental toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit, and a 2-generation reproductive study in the rat. The data demonstrated no indication of increased sensitivity of rats to zeta-cypermethrin or rabbits to cypermethrin in utero and/or postnatal exposure to zeta-cypermethrin or cypermethrin. The developmental toxicity studies are designed to evaluate adverse effects on the developing organism resulting from pesticide exposure during prenatal development to one or both parents. Reproduction studies provide information relating to effects from exposure to the pesticide on the reproductive capability of mating animals and data on systemic toxicity. FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA may apply an additional margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for pre- and post-natal toxicity and the completeness of the database.

ii. Developmental toxicity studies . In the prenatal developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits, there was no evidence of developmental toxicity at the highest doses tested (35.0 mg/kg/day in rats and 700 mg/kg/day in rabbits). Decreased body weight gain was observed at the maternal LOAEL in each study; the maternal NOAEL was established at 12.5 mg/kg/day in rats and 100 mg/kg/day in rabbits.

iii. Reproductive toxicity study . In the 2-generation reproduction study in rats, offspring toxicity (body weight) and parental toxicity (body weight, organ weight, and clinical signs) was observed at 27.0 mg/kg/day and greater. The parental systemic NOAEL was 7.0 mg/kg/day and the parental systemic LOAEL was 27.0 mg/kg/day. There were no developmental (pup) or reproductive effects up to 45.0 mg/kg/day, HDT.

iv. Pre- and post-natal sensitivity — a. Pre-natal . There was no evidence of developmental toxicity in the studies at the highest doses tested in the rat (35.0 mg/kg/day) or in the rabbit (700 mg/kg/day). Therefore, there is no evidence of a special dietary risk (either acute or chronic) for infants and children which would require an additional safety factor.

b. Post-natal . Based on the absence of pup toxicity up to dose levels which produced toxicity in the parental animals, there is no evidence of special post-natal sensitivity to infants and children in the rat reproduction study.

v. Conclusion . Based on the above, FMC concludes that reliable data support use of the standard 100-fold uncertainty factor, and that an additional uncertainty factor is not needed to protect the safety of infants and children. As stated above, aggregate exposure assessments utilized significantly less than 1 percent of the RfD for either the entire U. S. population or any of the 26 population subgroups including infants and children. Therefore, it may be concluded that there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to cypermethrin residues.

There are no Codex, Canadian, or Mexican residue limits for residues of zeta-cypermethrin in or on sunflowers.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0806.

Title: Universal Service—Schools and Libraries Universal Service Program.

Form No.: FCC Forms 470 and 471.

Type of Review: Extension.

Respondents: Business or Other for Profit.

Number of Respondents: 40,000.

Estimated Time Per Response: 7.3 hrs (avg.).

Total Annual Burden: 660,000 hours.

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $0.

Frequency of Response: On occasion; Recordkeeping; Third Party Disclosure.

Needs and Uses: The Commission adopted rules providing support for all telecommunications services, internet access, and internal connections for all eligible schools and libraries. To participate in the program, schools and libraries must submit a description of the services desired to the Administrator via FCC Form 470. FCC Form 471 is submitted by schools and libraries that have ordered telecommunications services, internet access, and internal connections. The information is used to determine eligibility.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0819.

Title: Lifeline Assistance (Lifeline) Connection Assistance (Link Up) Reporting Worksheet and Instructions (47 CFR 54.400-54.417).

Form No.: FCC Form 497.

Type of Review: Extension.

Respondents: Business or Other for Profit.

Number of Respondents: 18,000.

Estimated Time Per Response: 3 hrs (avg.).

Total Annual Burden: 54,000 hours.

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $0.

Frequency of Response: On occasion; Monthly; Quarterly.

Needs and Uses: Eligible telecommunications carriers are permitted to receive universal service support reimbursement for offering certain services to qualifying low-income customers. The telecommunications carriers must file FCC Form 497 to solicit reimbursement. Collection of the data is necessary for the administrator to accurately provide settlements for the low-income programs according to Commission rules. FCC Form 497 has been revised to make it consistent with the requirements contained in CC Docket No. 96-45, FCC 00-208. In CC Docket No. 96-45, the Commission adopted measures to promote telecommunications subscribership within American Indian and Alaska Native tribal communities and mandated enhancements to the existing Lifeline and Link Up programs.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0798.

Title: FCC Application for Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Radio Service Authorization.

Form No.: FCC 601.

Type of Review: Revision of an existing collection.

Respondents: Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents: 240,320.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1.25 hours.

Total Annual Burden: 210,280 hours.

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $48,364,000, which includes application filing fees.

Needs and Uses: FCC 601 is used as the general application (long form) for market based licensing and site-by-site licensing in the Wireless Telecommunications Radio Services. The purpose of this revision is to make the necessary form changes for the Tribal Lands bidding credits, to make the necessary adjustments to the instructions for implementation of Coast and Ground Radio Services to ULS, to add a general certification statement for RF certification as adopted in Report and Order, FCC-96-326, and to further clarify various instructions for the applicants. We sought emergency clearance on these changes in order to allow form changes to be in place for the auctions scheduled for the beginning of November and are now seeking a 3 year clearance. The information is used by the Commission to determine whether the applicant is legally, technically and financially qualified to be licensed.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0935.

Title: Cable Industry Survey on Channel Capacity and Retransmission Consent.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 16.

Estimate Time Per Response: 12 hours.

Frequency of Response: One time reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 192 hours.

Total Annual Costs: $17,280.

Needs and Uses: The Commission will use the data collected in this survey to build a record and to determine how to proceed on the mandatory carriage issues in the pending rulemaking. The data gleaned from the survey will be incorporated in the next Report and Order in CS Docket NO. 98-120.

The Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service (the Joint Board) will hold an en banc hearing on Monday, November 13, 2000, at the 112th NARUC Annual Convention in San Diego, California. The Joint Board will discuss the Rural Task Force's recommendation regarding reform of the universal service support mechanism for rural carriers. Panelists representing a broad range of interests will present their views on the Rural Task Force's recommendation and questions from the Joint Board members will follow.

In the May 1997 Universal Service Order , 62 FR 32862, June 17, 1997, the Commission, acting on the recommendation of the Joint Board, encouraged the Joint Board to establish a Rural Task Force to provide “assistance in identifying the issues unique to rural carriers and analyzing the appropriateness of proxy cost models for rural carriers.” On September 17, 1997, the Joint Board announced the creation of the Rural Task Force and directed it to present a report to the Joint Board making specific recommendations on the establishment of a new mechanism for rural telephone companies. On September 29, 2000, the Rural Task Force submitted the Rural Task Force Recommendation To The Federal-State Joint Board On Universal Service.

The en banc hearing will be held from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. at the San Diego Marriott Hotel and Marina, 333 West Harbor Drive, in Marriot Hall 2. An agenda, including scheduled panelists, will be posted on the Joint Board's Web site next week ( http://www.fcc.gov/ccb/universal service/joint.htlm ). The hearing is open to the public and seating will be available on a first-come, first-served basis.

Internet users may listen to the real-time audio feed of the hearing by accessing the FCC Internet Audio Broadcast Home page ( http://www.fcc.gov/realaudio/ ). Step-by-step instructions on how to listen to the audio broadcast, as well as information regarding the equipment and software needed, are available on the FCC Audio Broadcast Home page. Audio tapes of the hearing may be purchased from Rollin Recording, 208 River Ranch Road, Boerne, Texas 78006, by calling 1-800-798-5468.

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.

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1961, 26 FR 6191, that the Commission has delegated to the Associate Director for Planning and Information the authority to disclose to the United Kingdom Office of Fair Trading and the United Kingdom Directorate for Trade and Industry information regarding consumer protection investigations involving U.K. businesses or consumers.

This delegation does not apply competition-related investigations. Disclosures shall be made only to the extent consistent with limitations on disclosure, including section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), section 21 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 57b-2, and Commission Rule 4.10(d), 16 CFR 4.10(d) and with the Commission's enforcement policies and other important interests. When the subject matter of the information to be shared raises significant policy concerns, staff shall consult with the Commission before disclosing such information.

Overweight and obesity is a significant public health problem because it increases risk for many chronic diseases and premature death. More than half of adults and 11 percent of children and adolescents in the United States are estimated to be overweight or obese. The prevalence has almost doubled among children and adolescents since 1980 and is increasing in both genders and among all population groups of adults. Total costs (medical costs and lost productivity) attributed to obesity amounted to an estimated $99 billion in 1995. Health People 2010, the nation's public health agenda, has identified overweight and obesity as one of ten Leading Health Indicators.

While the magnitude of the problem is great, the range of potential solutions is even greater. The design of successful prevention strategies will require the careful attention of many individuals and organizations working together. Prevention of overweight and obesity requires a broad array of strategies to promote healthy eating and increased physical activity. A number of activities are underway in public and private sectors related to the public health issue of obesity.

In preparation for the development of a national action plan to address overweight and obesity in the United States, comments are welcome from all interested stakeholders. Further opportunity for public input in development of the plan is envisioned during 2001.

Comments will be most useful if they include the following information:

(1) What you consider to be the three to five most important priorities for addressing overweight and obesity in the United States.

(2) How, as a nation, we should pursue these strategies.

(3) Your views on the most effective ways to address disparities among different segments of the population.

(4) (If applicable) A short summary of activities that your organization is engaged in or plans to engage in to address overweight and obesity. This information may become part of a publicly accessible website information center.

Comments received by November 26 will be summarized and made available at the listening session described below. Comments will be accepted through 5 p.m., E.S.T. on December 29, 2000.

To launch a process of developing a national action plan on overweight and obesity, Assistant Secretary for Health and Surgeon General David Satcher plans a listening session entitled Toward a National Action Plan on Overweight and Obesity: The Surgeon General's Initiative on December 7-8, 2000. The event will include invited panels of non-federal and nongovernmental organizations to discuss views on what the key elements of a national action plan on overweight and obesity should be, as well as time for discussion.

The meeting will be held on December 7, 2000 from 1 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. and on December 8, 2000 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. at the Lister Hill Auditorium in Bethesda, Maryland. The Lister Hill auditorium is located at Lister Hill Auditorium, Building 38A, NIH Campus, Bethesda, MD. The building is located near the Medical Center metro stop (red line train). Because seating is limited, registration is required and may be limited to one representative per organization. To register, please contact Ms. Susie Warner at (301) 897-2789 (telephone), (301) 897-9587 (facsimile), or on-line at www.sgobesity.niddk.nih.gov. If you require a sign language interpreter, please contact Ms. Warner by 5 p.m. E.S.T. on November 30, 2000. The meeting will be webcast live at videocast.nih.gov.

FDA is announcing the availability of a report entitled “Report on FDA Plan for Statutory Compliance.” This report satisfies provisions outlined in section 406(b) of FDAMA, which charged FDA to develop a plan for meeting its statutory requirements, and to report on planned versus actual performance. The plan was published in November 1998. This report identifies accomplishments against that plan. As this report shows, in fiscal year 1999, FDA achieved significant gains in the six FDAMA objectives by combining the agency's traditional principles and practices with new approaches. In keeping with its traditional values, FDA continued providing a broad spectrum of consumer protections based on rigorous science-based standards. To strengthen its performance, FDA developed partnerships with stakeholders and stimulated cooperation and participation by making its activities more understandable and accessible to stakeholders. FDA's accomplishments include the following:

• New drugs and biological products are being reviewed and released to the public in record time,

• A nationwide food safety surveillance network has now been established which is helping to significantly reduce food-related illnesses and deaths, and

• Millions of consumers have wider and more timely access to information about their new medications.

FDA will continue working with Congress and our stakeholders to improve performance and to work towards meeting our statutory obligations under FDAMA.

HRSA's Maternal and Child Health Bureau has been involved in newborn screening and genetic testing for more than a decade. In 1989, Dr. C. Everett Koop, then Surgeon General, urged that all infants with significant hearing loss be identified by 12 months of age, and encouraged inclusion of this goal in the Public Health Service's “National Healthy People Goals 2000.” Since then, MCHB, acting in concert with the Centers for Disease Control and prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has made substantial progress in the adoption of universal newborn hearing screening and early intervention as the standard of care in the United States. The new “Healthy People 2010” includes a revised newborn hearing screening goal of identifying all newborns with significant hearing loss and enrolling them in a program of early intervention by age 6 months. All relevant professional organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, have endorsed the concept.

Also in 1989, MCHB's Division of Services for Children with Special Health Needs began efforts under the Special Projects of Regional and National Significance (SPRANS) authority of the Maternal and Child Health (MCH) Block Grant (Title V of the Social Security Act) to support implementation of universal newborn hearing screening prior to discharge through a series of demonstration projects to assess the effectiveness of new technologies and to provide technical assistance to a number of hospitals and States in establishing and maintaining universal newborn hearing screening and intervention programs. Resources developed by these projects can be found on-line at: http://www.usa.edu:8080/-ncham/consort.html, and http://www.colorado.edu/slhs/MDNC/index.html. This grant program will continue to operate in conjunction with the State Title V programs.

In 1999, following more than a decade of pioneering work in universal newborn hearing screening in hospitals nationwide, MCHB released a guide for hospitals wishing to initiate newborn hearing screening and intervention programs. The publication, “Early Identification of Hearing Loss—Implementing Universal Newborn Hearing Screening Programs,” is available free to hospitals and birthing centers around the country through the National Maternal and Child Health Clearinghouse and on the World Wide Web at http://www.nmchc.org. The guide is organized into areas to be considered in setting up this type of program, such as determining protocol in the participating hospital; choosing equipment; training; financing; managing data; and talking to parents, physicians, and hospital staff.

By the year 2000, about 35 percent of newborns were being screened for hearing loss before discharge. Hundreds of hospitals operate screening programs. Evidence is clear that implementation of universal newborn hearing screening substantially lowers the age at which children with congenital permanent hearing loss are identified and that children who are identified early do better on school related measures. In addition, technology is available to conduct cost-efficient, physiological screening universally prior to hospital discharge. In 1993, less than 5 percent of all infants were screened for hearing loss prior to hospital discharge. Most established programs are now able to screen more than 95 percent of all newborns prior to discharge and parental acceptance of the screening programs is high. Typically, one to three percent of those screened require referral for diagnostic evaluation. The cost of screening is approximately $25-$30 per infant.

As of September 200, about 24 States had enacted laws regarding hearing screening for all newborns. However, the vast majority of hospitals in this country still do not screen all infants prior to discharge.

Congressional support to expand universal newborn hearing screening and intervention to all States grew throughout the 1990's. In November 1999, Congress acted through both the appropriations and authorization processes to target increased resources to encourage State efforts. New legislative authority, enacted under Title VI of the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Act for FY 2000 (Pub. L. 106-113), represented a milestone in the effort to give newborns a healthy start in life.

In March 2000, using $3 million in FY 2000 funds appropriated under the new authority, MCHB was able to increase support for newborn hearing screening and intervention by awarding grants, totaling $3 million, to 22 States. These four-year grants are the most recent steps toward assuring that once babies are screened and diagnosed with a hearing loss, they and their families receive appropriate services that are coordinated at the community level with early intervention programs, ongoing family-to-family support and the child's medical home, i.e. , regular source of primary health care. Diagnosis is recommended by 3 months of age; intervention by 6 months.

The grants to be awarded under this announcement will extend the initiative MCHB began in March 2000, to an additional 25 to 31 States in FY 2001.

Title VI of the Departments of Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Act for FY 2000 (Pub. L. 106-113).

The purpose of these grants is to provide funds to States for the implementation of programs of statewide universal physiologic newborn hearing screening prior to hospital discharge with linkages to medical home, ongoing family-to-family support, diagnostic evaluation by three months of age, and enrollment in a program of early intervention by six months of age for those infants identified with hearing loss.

This program is open to State agencies with the capacity to implement a statewide universal newborn hearing screening and intervention program for all newborn infants in the State.

The total funding level for these grants is $5 million annually over a four-year project period, from March 31, 2001 through March 30, 2005. The project period consists of one or more budget periods, each generally of one year duration.

Funding for this grant program is contingent upon the availability of FY 2001 funds. Continuation of any project from one budget period to the next is subject to satisfactory performance, availability of funds, and program priorities. The initial budget period is expected to be 12 months, with subsequent budget periods being 12 months.

An estimated 25 to 31 awards will be made annually, with average first-year awards ranging from $100,000 to $200,000.

Preference will be given to States without a Universal Newborn Hearing Screening and Intervention grant from MCHB.

Applications for this grant program will be reviewed on the basis of the extent to which they address the following criteria:

(1) The degree to which the applicant provides a complete description of the current status of the State with respect to full implementation of a program of universal newborn hearing screening prior to hospital discharge, linkage to the infant's medical home, audiologic diagnosis by 3 months of age, ongoing family-to-family support and enrollment in a program of early intervention by 6 months.

(2) The degree to which the applicant provides an implementation plan to achieve full implementation of a sustainable statewide universal newborn hearing screening program, defined as the screening of 95 percent of infants prior to hospital discharge or in the first month of life. Elements of such a plan include:

(a) A state level advisory committee with appropriate representation of professionals who will be involved in the screening and followup program, families, and consumers of services for infants with hearing loss;

(b) The structure of the screening program, including informed consent procedures; screening methodology, procedures and personnel; timing and responsibility for documenting and communicating results;

(c) Procedures for assuring timely linkages of identified infants and families with the infant's medical home, ongoing family-to-family support and early intervention services (consistent with Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) [20 U.S.C. 1431 et seq. ]).

(d) Procedures for assuring that timely audiologic followup and diagnosis of infants suspected of hearing loss is carried out, including the availability of appropriately trained audiology personnel;

(e) A description of the data and tracking system for infants suspected to have or identified with significant hearing loss, including a description of relationships to other databases within the States that focus on infants and children, particularly the relationship of the newborn hearing screening data to the newborn metabolic screening data and tracking system and CDC's Early Hearing, Detection and Intervention (EHDI) reporting system; and

(f) A plan for professional and public education about the state newborn hearing screening program.

(3) The extent to which the estimated cost to the Government of the project is reasonable, considering the anticipated results;

(4) The extent to which the project personnel are well qualified by training and/or experience for their roles in the project and the applicant organization has adequate facilities and personnel;

(5) The extent to which the project will be integrated with the administration of MCH Block Grant programs and other related programs in the State.

(6) The inclusion of a well developed plan for evaluation, which documents, with data support, the successes (or failures) at each stage of the screening and intervention program. Funded programs will be required to report annually throughout the life of the grant. Data reporting will include the number of infants screened, number referred for audiologic diagnosis, number and age of infants receiving audiologic diagnosis, number of infants with a medical home, referral to family-to-family support and number and age at which identified infants are enrolled in early intervention services. OMB approval for the data reporting will be sought, as required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

Applicants should pay strict attention to addressing the above criteria as they are the basis upon which their applications will be judged.

This program has been determined to be a program which is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372 concerning intergovernmental review of Federal programs by appropriate health planning agencies, as implemented by 45 CFR Part 100. Executive Order 12372 allows States the option of setting up a system for reviewing applications from within their States for assistance under certain Federal programs. The application packages to be made available under this notice will contain a listing of States which have chosen to set up such a review system and will provide a single point of contact (SPOC) in the States for review. Applicants (other than federally-recognized Indian tribal governments) should contact their State SPOCs as early as possible to alert them to the prospective applications and receive any necessary instructions on the State process. For proposed projects serving more than one State, the applicant is advised to contact the SPOC of each affected State. The due date for State process recommendations is 60 days after the application deadline for new and competing awards. The granting agency does not guarantee to “accommodate or explain” for State process recommendations it receives after that date. (See Part 148, Intergovernmental Review of PHS Programs under Executive Order 12372 and 45 CFR Part 100 for a description of the review process and requirements).

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: Regulation of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac).

OMB Control Number, if applicable: 2502-0514.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: This notice requests a revision of a currently approved collection to accommodate additional data requirements necessitated by HUD's recent publication of a new implementing regulation to the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (FHEFSSA). On October 31, 2000, HUD published a rule at 24 CFR Part 81, to become effective January 1, 2001, which increased the levels of required affordable housing goal performance for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the GSEs). The rule also implemented certain changes to HUD's counting rules relative to how mortgages will be credited towards the housing goals and provided special incentives whereby the GSEs could earn additional housing goals credit for certain loan purchase activities. HUD's collection of information on the GSEs' business activities is needed to measure and monitor their compliance with statutorily mandated housing goals; to ensure the GSEs' compliance with counting rules, including the exclusion of high cost, predatory loans, from eligibility for goals credit; to foster a continuing dialogue between HUD, the GSEs, Congress, and the public on the activities of the GSEs with respect to affordable housing and underserved mortgage market issues; and to improve the operating of the housing finance market.

In accordance with HUD's regulation issued in 1995, the GSEs submit Quarterly Mortgage Reports, Annual Housing Activities Reports, Periodic Reports, and Other Information Analyses. This reporting remains unchanged in HUD's recently published regulation.

The mid-year second quarter Mortgage Report and the year-end Annual Mortgage Activities Report also must include year-to-date computerized loan level data. In order to accommodate the counting rule changes in HUD's new regulation, HUD proposes to increase its mid-year and year-end computerized loan level data collection requirement by about 36 percent over requirements imposed during the reporting period 1996-1999. The 36 percent increase includes data fields that are counted twice because the same data is collected from both single family and multifamily data sources. This action represents the first increase in HUD's data collection requirements since publication of the 1995 final rule. These new data collection requirements will enable HUD to monitor GSEs' compliance with new goals and counting conventions and will also permit HUD to make determinations relative to the effectiveness of certain incentives in promoting conventional mortgage lending activity to traditionally underserved borrowers and communities.

Agency Form Numbers, if applicable: None.

Estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of responses: The estimated number of respondents is 2, the total annual responses are approximately 87 reports, and the total annual hours of all responses, including reports and data collection, are estimated at 5,697 hours.

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

As set out in the notice published in the Federal Register on September 7, 2000, the objective of the review will be to gather information to assist the NAO to better understand and publicly report on occupational safety and health issues and compensation in cases of occupational injuries and illnesses raised in the submission, including the Government of Mexico's compliance with the obligations agreed to under Articles 3,4,5, and 7 of the NAALC.

The hearing will be conducted by the Secretary of the NAO or the Secretary's designee. It will be open to the public. All proceedings will be conducted in English, with simultaneous translation in English and Spanish provided. The public files for the submission, including written statements, briefs, and requests to present oral testimony, will be made a part of the appropriate hearing record. The public files will also be available for inspection at the NAO prior to the hearing.

The hearing will be transcribed. A transcript of the proceeding will be made available for inspection, as provided for in Section E of the procedural guidelines, or may be purchased from the reporting company.

Disabled persons should contact the Secretary of the NAO no later than November 28, 2000 if special accommodations are needed.

Written statements or briefs shall provide a description of the information to be presented or position taken and shall be legibly typed or printed. Requests to present oral testimony shall include the name, address, and telephone number of the witness, the organization represented, if any, and any other information pertinent to the request. Five copies of a statement or brief and a single copy of a request to present oral testimony shall be submitted to the NAO at the time of filing.

No request to present oral testimony will be considered unless accompanied by a written statement or brief. A request to present oral testimony may be denied if the written statement or brief suggests that the information sought to be provided is unrelated to the review of the submission or for other appropriate reasons. The NAO will notify each requester of the disposition of the request to present oral testimony.

In presenting testimony, the witness should summarize the written statement or brief, may supplement the written statement or brief with relevant information, and should be prepared to answer questions from the Secretary of the NAO or the Secretary's designee. Oral testimony will ordinarily be limited to a ten minute presentation, not including the time for questions. Persons desiring more than ten minutes for their presentation should so state in the request, setting out reasons why additional time is necessary.

The requirements relating to the submission of written statements or briefs and requests to present oral testimony may be waived by the Secretary of the NAO for reasons of equity and public interest.

The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting is as follows:

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

On October 3, 2000, the National Science Foundation published notice in the Federal Register of a waste management permit application received. The permit was issued on October 27, 2000 to: The Bancroft Arenesen Expedition, Permit No. 2001 WM-001.

On September 27, 2000, the National Science Foundation published notice in the Federal Register of a permit application received. The permit was issued on October 27, 2000 to: Robert A. Blanchette, Permit No. 2001-015.

Type of Request: Regular submission, proposal to reinstate with change a previously approved collection for which approval has expired (OMB control number 3316-0062).

Title of Information Collection: TVA Procurement Documents, including Invitation to Bid, Request for Proposal, Request for Quotation, and other related Procurement or Sales Documents.

Frequency of Use: On Occasion.

Type of Affected Public: Individuals or households, businesses or other for-profit, non-profit institutions, small businesses or organizations.

Small Business or Organizations Affected: Yes.

Federal Budget Functional Category Code: 999.

Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 24,500.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 50,000.

Estimated Average Burden Hours Per Request: 0.49.

Need For and Use of Information: TVA procures goods and services to fulfill its statutory obligations and sells surplus items to recover a portion of its investment costs. This activity must be conducted in compliance with a variety of applicable laws, regulations, and Executive Orders. Vendors and purchasers who voluntarily seek to contract with TVA are affected.

Type of Request: Regular submission, proposal to extend a currently approved collection of information (OMB control number 3316-0019).

Type of Information Collection: energy right ® Residential Program.

Frequency of Use: On occasion.

Type of Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Small Business or Organizations Affected: No.

Federal Budget Functional Category Code: 271.

Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 20,000.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 6,000.

Estimated Average Burden Hours Per Response: .3.

This information is used by distributors of TVA power to assist in identifying and financing energy improvements for their electrical energy customers.

Tims Ford Reservoir was completed in 1970 by TVA for the purposes of flood control, hydroelectric generation, recreation, and economic development. The reservoir is 34 miles long at full pool. There are approximately 250 miles of shoreline at normal summer pool (NSP). Following completion of the reservoir, the Tennessee Elk River Development Agency (TERDA), a state agency, developed subdivisions and recreational facilities on reservoir properties between 1970 and 1996. In 1996, the Tennessee General Assembly passed Public Chapter 816, which terminated TERDA and transferred all powers, duties, contractual obligations, functions and remaining land interests of the agency to TDEC. TDEC and TVA agreed by contract in 1998 to develop a comprehensive land management and disposition plan to determine specific uses of reservoir lands. This EIS and land management plan are in fulfillment of that contract. Originally, 21,863 acres of land were acquired for the Tims Ford Project. Reservoir acreage above NSP was 11,183. Subsequent transfers and sales of land for various commercial, industrial, residential, and recreational uses have resulted in a current balance of 6,453 acres of project lands above NSP. These lands are divided in ownership between TVA (1,854 acres) and TDEC (4,599 acres).

TVA and TDEC announced their proposal to prepare a Tims Ford Land Management Plan in October 1998 and held public scoping meetings on November 9, 1998 in Winchester, Tennessee and November 10, 1998 in Fayetteville, Tennessee. Written comments also were requested through publication of a notice in a newspaper and a website. As land allocation and scoping for the land plan developed, it became evident that increased levels of residential development would result from some of the alternatives. Accordingly, the agencies determined that an EIS would allow better understanding of the impacts of the various alternatives. On July 22, 1999, TVA issued a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS on alternatives for a land management plan at Tims Ford Reservoir. The Notice of Intent indicated that additional comments on the scope of issues to be addressed could be submitted in writing or through a website. These comments and previous comments from the 1998 scoping period were analyzed to determine the issues and alternatives to be considered in the EIS. A Notice of Availability for the Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on November 12, 1999. TVA and TDEC subsequently held public meetings in Winchester, Tennessee on November 30, 1999 and Tullahoma, Tennessee on December 2, 1999 to discuss the draft EIS and solicit comments on the draft. Comments were received at public meetings and by written responses thereafter from 268 people, agencies, and organizations. After considering all comments, the Final EIS was completed and distributed to commenting agencies and the public. A Notice of Availability for the Final EIS was published on July 7, 2000.

TVA initially considered four alternatives, including no action, for allocation of Tims Ford lands. The action alternatives were characterized as “Balanced Land Development and Conservation,” “Maximum Land Development,” and “Maximum Land Conservation.”

The alternatives were designed to vary in the amount of land allocated for residential development and for residential shoreline access. In response to public comments on the Draft EIS, TVA developed a fifth alternative, designated “Balanced Land Development with Conservation Partnership.” This alternative was designed to allow increased reservoir access while providing additional shoreline protection.

Under Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, TVA and TDEC would not adopt a jointly prepared plan. In the absence of a plan, TVA and TDEC would proceed with disposition or management of properties on a case-by-case basis. Because no joint plan would exist, the project lands could be considered for a variety of uses. More than likely, some amount of shoreline property (up to 45 percent of project lands) could eventually be considered for residential or commercial uses. About 22 percent already has been transferred to the state and local governments for recreational usage or are currently being used for recreational purposes such as parks and marinas. Those tracts (9 percent of project lands) identified during the planning process as containing rare species, wetlands, cultural resources, or unique natural features would likely be maintained in a protective category to facilitate TVA's and TDEC's compliance with laws relating to protection of sensitive resources. Approximately 20 percent of project lands would likely be managed for natural resource conservation because it has been deemed in the current planning process as not suitable or capable for development. The remaining 4 percent would be retained for use as TVA dam reservation (TVA project operation).

Under Alternative B, Balanced Land Development and Conservation, parcels totaling 938 acres would be available for residential development or residential access, with the rest of project lands allocated to natural resource-oriented and recreational uses. Cumulatively, 25 percent of project lands would be allocated to residential uses, 25 percent to recreation uses, and 36 percent to natural resource-oriented uses. As in Alternative A, approximately 9 percent of project lands would be allocated to sensitive resource management, and 4 percent to TVA project operations. Alternative B was identified as the agencies' preferred alternative in the Draft EIS.

Under Alternative B1, Balanced Land Development with Conservation Partnership, TVA modified Alternative B to respond to comments received on the draft EIS and plan. One parcel of 128 acres, which was previously allocated to residential development, was changed to a natural resource management allocation. In addition, a new zone was created, designated “conservation partnership,” for certain narrow shoreline strips of public land. On Tims Ford Reservoir, the agencies found numerous locations where the public land was narrow and does not provide sufficient conservation buffer to preserve water quality, conserve shoreline habitat, protect shorelines from long-term erosion, or retain shoreline aesthetics. It has also been TVA's experience that due to the close proximity of private lands to the lake, these narrow public land strips present unique management problems. Many of those who commented on the draft EIS stated that because of the close proximity of their property to the water's edge, they had an expectation of gaining water access under previous management policies. In the new zone, TVA would consider granting water access in the form of limited community water use facilities in exchange for a wider shoreline buffer zone. Cumulatively, Alternative B1 would result in 24 percent of project lands being allocated to residential uses, 25 percent to recreation, 37 percent to natural resource management, 9 percent to sensitive resource management, and 4 percent to project operations. Although the acreage difference between Alternative B and B1 is small, approximately 9 additional shoreline miles would be open for consideration of requests for community docks under Alternative B1. Alternative B1 was identified as the agencies' preferred alternative in the Final EIS.

Under Alternative C, Maximum Land Development, all parcels would be allocated for development except those that do not meet suitability and capability criteria, contain sensitive resources, or are less than 20 acres. This would result in 1,764 more acres of residential development than alternative B1. Cumulatively, residential development would encompass 41 percent of project lands, recreational development 25 percent, natural resource management 20 percent, sensitive resource management 9 percent, and TVA project operations 4 percent.

Under Alternative D, Maximum Land Conservation, no new development would occur outside of existing areas. All undeveloped lands would be considered unsuitable for development and would be allocated for natural resource conservation. This would result in 1,087 more acres allocated to natural resource conservation than alternative B1. Cumulatively, 17 percent of project lands would be allocated to residential development, 22 percent to recreation, 48 percent to natural resource management uses, 9 percent to sensitive resource management, and 4 percent to TVA project operations.

The EIS considered the environmental consequences of the alternatives on a wide variety of environmental resources. Under any alternative, sensitive resources such as endangered and threatened federal and state-listed species, cultural resources, and wetlands would be protected. Adoption of Alternative B1 would balance the competing demands of development and conservation. Development activities would cause the potential for adverse environmental impacts. However, through the inclusion of environmental safeguards to address water quality, ground water, riparian wildlife habitat, and parcel-specific protection measures, these impacts would be minimized.

During the EIS process, TVA also consulted with the Tennessee State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (EB), the United Keetoowah Band, the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, the Tennessee Commission of Indian Affairs, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma, and the Poarch Band of Creek Indians on the identification and evaluation of historic properties within the Area of Potential Effect for the Tims Ford Land Plan. Following release of the Final EIS, TVA, TDEC, SHPO, and EB executed a Memorandum of Agreement stipulating measures that will be carried out by TVA and TDEC prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities. This agreement allows phased identification, evaluation, and treatment of historic properties, and requires that prior to the transfer of the lands to third parties, TVA and TDEC will ensure that a preservation covenant to protect historic properties is included. These measures ensure that the effects of the Tims Ford Reservoir Land Management and Disposition Plan on historic properties have been taken into account.

Appendix B of the Final EIS contains summaries of and responses to the comments TVA received during the Draft EIS process. TVA received comments from 268 individuals and organizations. TVA gave the public the opportunity to provide comments on the Final EIS, which included the Conservation Partnership approach.

A total of 7 individuals commented on the Final EIS. Most of these comments were from property owners seeking to clarify whether they had access to the water, or seeking to appeal allocation decisions in the final EIS. TVA plans to consider those requests that are consistent with the land plan.

EPA also commented on the final EIS. Based on their review of the document, they stated that their ordered preferences for alternatives would be D, B1, B, and C. EPA stated that they would not oppose B1 as long as all development is consistent with the TVA Shoreline Management Initiative EIS/ROD, state water quality and other regulations as well as federal statutes associated with delegated programs, and as long as plan implementation is monitored for environmental impacts. EPA also commented on the environmental impacts of residential development for water quality, recreation, and TVA's grandfathering approach to existing docks. TVA agrees that residential development would need to be carefully monitored for compliance with existing regulations to avoid adverse water and air quality impacts.

The TVA Board decided to adopt the Tims Ford Land Management and Disposition Plan as described in Alternative B1 on August 29, 2000. The Tennessee State Building Commission decided to adopt the plan as described in Alternative B1 on September 14, 2000. TVA believes that Alternative B1 appropriately balances residential shoreline development, recreation use, and resource conservation needs in a way that maintains the quality of life and other important values associated with Tims Ford Reservoir. It recognizes the reality that previous decisions have already allowed residential development on portions of the shoreline, and previous management has created “expectations” for water access among those with shoreline property. It uses logical criteria for determining which stretches of shoreline could have water access, based on past decisions made by the agencies or on distance between the private property line and NSP. It provides a new zone involving partnerships for conservation that would result in the creation of wider shoreline buffers and more protection for water quality and riparian habitats. Finally, it makes an allocation change that would result in additional lands at the lower end of the reservoir being dedicated to natural resource conservation.

Like the other alternatives considered, Alternative B1 sets aside parcels containing sensitive resources and habitats in the Sensitive Resource Protection and Natural Resource Conservation categories. Even for lands that were considered suitable for and capable of development, Alternative B1 adopts commitments that would further minimize the potential for adverse impacts to the environment. These commitments are listed below, under Environmental Commitments.

TVA has concluded that Alternative D, which would allow no new land development outside of existing areas, is the environmentally preferable alternative. However, the authorizing legislation for Tims Ford Reservoir, the state legislation transferring lands to TDEC, and the local governments encourage the use of portions of the reservoir lands to foster the economic development of the area. TVA believes that Alternative B1 helps to meet the multiple objectives of the Tims Ford project, and would result in substantially better environmental protection than previous shoreline development practices.

The land plan envisioned in Alternative B1 advances TVA's commitment to resource stewardship and habitat protection through strong conservation approaches, including a new conservation partnership zone to increase shoreline buffers from a minimum of 50 feet to a maximum of 100 feet. Alternative B1 was formulated using environmentally protective measures. Some of these measures include use of a sensitive resource protection zone and retention of a public shoreline strip between the 888 and 895 foot contours. New proposals for access would be allowed using community docks rather than through individual docks, thus minimizing the area of shoreline that will be disturbed. For certain categories of access proposals, TVA would obtain additional shoreline buffers above the 895-foot contour. In addition, TVA is adopting the following measures to minimize environmental impacts:

• New residential development will be required to have groundwater protection plans submitted by the developer for approval prior to development.

• Throughout the construction phase of new subdivisions, periodic site checks will be conducted to ensure that BMPs are used to minimize erosion problems.

• Shoreline fringe wetlands will be avoided during any future development or permitting activities.

• Parcels containing uncommon terrestrial habitats or plants will be protected by avoidance during any future developmental activities. Sale deeds related to disposition will include conditions that require avoidance of the resource on the parcel.

• Livestock grazing on TVA property will be phased out as alternative water sources and pasture are obtained.

• The measures relating to identification, evaluation, and treatment of historic properties contained in the Memorandum of Agreement between TVA, Tennessee State Historic Preservation Officer, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, dated September 21, 2000, will be followed.

With the implementation of the above environmental protection measures, TVA has determined that adverse environmental impacts of future residential shoreline uses would be substantially reduced. These protective measures represent all of the practicable measures to avoid or minimize environmental harm that are associated with this alternative.

As TVA and TDEC implement the Tims Ford Land Management and Disposition Plan, the agencies will continue to work with all affected interests to promote environmentally sound stewardship of public lands.

Notice is hereby given that the Certificate of Authority issued by the Treasury to the above named Company, under the United States Code, Title 31, Sections 9304-9308, to qualify as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds is terminated effective immediately.

The Company was last listed as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds at 65 FR 40879, June 30, 2000.

With respect to any bonds currently in force with above listed Company, bond-approving officers may let such bonds run to expiration and need not secure new bonds. However, no new bonds should be accepted from the Company. In addition, bonds that are continuous in nature should not be renewed.

The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at http://www.fms.tres.gov/c570/index.html. A hard copy may be purchased from the Government Printing Office (GPO), Subscription Service, Washington, DC, telephone (202) 512-1800. When ordering the Circular from GPO, use the following stock number: 048-000-00536-5.

Questions concerning this notice may be directed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Financial Accounting and Services Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6A04, Hyattsville, MD 20782.

A Certificate of Authority as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds is hereby issued to the following Company under 31 U.S.C. 9304 to 9308. Federal bond-approving officers should annotate their reference copies of the Treasury Circular 570, 2000 Revision, on page 40889 to reflect this addition:

Company Name : Lexington National Insurance Corporation.

Business Address : 214 East Lexington Street, Baltimore, Maryland, 21202.

Phone : (410) 625-0800. Underwriting Limitation b/: $423,000.

Surety Licenses : c/: CA, CO, DE, FL, IN, MD, MS, NJ, PA.

Incorported In : Maryland.

Certificates of Authority expire on June 30 each year, unless revoked prior to that date. The Certificates are subject to subsequent annual renewal as long as the companies remain qualified (31 CFR Part 223). A list of qualified companies is published annually as of July 1 in Treasury Department Circular 570, with details as to underwriting limitations, areas in which licensed to transact surety business and other information.

The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570/index.html. A hard copy may be purchased from the Government Printing Office (GPO) Subscription Service, Washington, DC, Telephone (202) 512-1800. When ordering the Circular from GPO, use the following stock number: 048-000-00536-5.

Questions concerning this Notice may be directed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Financial Accounting and Service Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6A04, Hyattsville, MD 20782.