OMB No: OMB 0412-0550.

Form No.: AID 1570-13 and 1570-14.

Title: Narrative/Time-Line and Report on Commodities (Quarterly Reports).

Type of Review: Renewal of Information Collection.

Purpose: The purpose of this information collection is to properly respond to the annual competition among applicants who apply on behalf of their sponsored overseas institutions, independent reviewers and ASHA need to assess the strength and capability of the U.S. organizations, the overseas institutions and the merits of their proposed projects. Easily accessible historical records on past accomplishments and performance by repeat USOs, would speed the grant making process and provide documented reasons for both successful and unsuccessful applications.

Respondents: 70.

Total annual responses: 656.

Total annual hours requested: 1,824 hours.

OMB Number: OMB 0412-0012.

Form Number: AID 282.

Title: Supplier's Certificate Agreement with the U.S. Agency for International Development Invoice-and-Contract Abstract.

Type of Submission: Renewal of Information Collection.

Purpose: The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) finances goods and related services under its Commodity Import Program which are contracted for by public and private entities in the countries receiving the USAID assistance. Since USAID is not a party to these contracts, USAID needs some means to collect information directly from the suppliers of the goods and related services and to enable USAID to take an appropriate action against them in the event they do not comply with the applicable regulations. USAID does this by security from the suppliers, as a condition for the disbursement of funds a certificate and agreement with USAID which contains appropriate representations by the suppliers.

Respondents: 400.

Total annual responses: 2,400.

Total annual hours requested: 1,200 hours.

The proposal will issue a grazing permit for 634 cow/calf pairs and 8 horses. Annual Operating Plan would adjust the number of livestock allowed per year to resource conditions. The grazing strategy would be a deferred rotation system, with season of use running from about May 15 to October 15. Fencing, livestock trailing, water improvements, cattleguards, and riders would be used to manage the distribution of livestock and forage utilization, to avoid livestock grazing in some meadows and riparian areas, and to increase livestock control in sensitive areas. Approximately 22 miles of fence would be constructed, to split three pastures, exclude six meadows, and protect two springs. Dense thickets of small trees that currently impede the gathering of livestock would be precommercially thinned on 1500 acres to improve livestock movement, increase the understory diversity, reduce the risk of wildfire, and improve tree growth and vigor.

Preliminary issues include the effects of grazing on the environment, especially headwater meadows, and effects on species protected under the Endangered Species Act, specifically the Little Colorado spinedace and the Mexican spotted owl.

The environmental analysis process for the Buck Springs Range Allotment was initiated on June 25, 1998. An Interdisciplinary Team of Forest Service resource specialists, and representatives from the Arizona Game and Fish Department, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, and the allotment permittee, developed a guiding document for watershed recovery before undertaking an analysis of the allotment. They described the many factors affecting watershed conditions within the allotment, including elk and livestock grazing, recreation, transportation system, and introduced aquatic species. In a cooperative effort, the agencies making up the team developed the East Clear Creek Watershed Recovery Strategy for the Little Colorado Spinedace and Other Riparian Species to address many of those factors. Using the document to guide actions proposed for the Buck Springs Range Allotment, the Team developed objectives and proposed management practices for the allotment.

The resulting Proposed Action was mailed to 209 individuals, organizations and cooperating resource agencies for review and comment in April 1999. From comments received, the Team developed statements to capture the substantive issues and developed 6 additional alternatives other than the proposed action. If you commented during this scoping period, these comments are already incorporated into the analysis. Some of these alternatives differ in grazing strategies, utilization levels, permitted numbers of livestock, pastures utilized, and improvements required, and are briefly described as follows:

• Proposed action as discussed above.

• No graze for a 10-year period.

• Continue current grazing management (no action).

• Continue deferred rotation and rely heavily on herding to affect distribution of livestock and to protect sensitive riparian and headwater meadow habitats.

• Continue deferred rotation and emphasize the use of northern tier of pastures, with most southern pastures that include headwater meadows removed from the grazing land base.

• Implement a rest-rotation strategy, where one-half of the allotment is grazed each year. Distribution of livestock and use of sensitive drainages are addressed primarily through range improvements.

• Implement a rest-rotation strategy on the northern tier of pastures. Southern pastures with headwater meadows are removed from the grazing land base.

It is anticipated that environmental analysis and preparation of the draft and final environmental impact statements will take about six months. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement can be expected March of 2001 and the Final EIS in summer. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement extends 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register.

The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. To be the most helpful, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible and may address the adequacy of the statement or the merits of the alternatives discussed (see Council of Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3).

In addition, Federal court decisions have established that reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewers' position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp v. NRDC , 435 US 519, 553 (1978). Environmental objections that could have been raised at the draft stage may be waived if not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement. City of Angoon v. Hodel , 9th Circuit, (1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris , 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). The reason for this is to ensure that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them in the final environmental impact statement.

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

Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that revisions made after enactment of the law to NRCS State technical guides used to carry out highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law shall be made available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days the NRCS will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. Following that period a determination will be made by the NRCS regarding disposition of those comments and a final determination of change will be made.

Public reporting burden for this proposed collection of information is estimated to average .11 hours per response (6.6 minutes), including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Responses are voluntary and respondents will be required to respond only one time. Comments are requested on the proposed information collection concerning:

(a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;

(b) The accuracy of the Agency's burden estimates;

(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information to the Agency Clearance Officer, Ms. Jeannette Giovetti, BBG, M/AO, Room 1657A-1, 330 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20237, telephone (202) 205-9692, e-mail address JGiovett@IBB.GOV; or to the OMB Desk Officer for BBG, Mr. David Rostker, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Docket Library, Room 10202, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, Telephone (202) 395-3897.

Current Actions: The BBG is requesting reinstatement of this collection for a three-year period and approval for a revision to the burden hours.

Title: Interviews and Other Audience Research for Radio and TV Marti.

Abstract: Data from this information collection are used by BBG's Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB) in fulfillment of its mandate to evaluate effectiveness of Radio and TV Marti operations by estimating the audience size and composition for broadcasts; and assess signal reception, credibility and relevance of programming through this research.

Proposed Frequency of Responses:

Number of Respondents—4880.

Recordkeeping Hours—.11.

Total Annual Burden—560.

On April 28, 2000, the petitioner  1 requested an administrative review pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b) for three exporter/producer combinations that received zero rates in the less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) investigation and thus were excluded from the antidumping duty order only with respect to brake rotors sold through the specified exporter/producer combinations. 2

Also on April 28, 2000, the Department received timely requests from Hongfa Machinery (Dalian) Co., Ltd. (“Hongfa”) and Luoyang Haoxiang Brake Disc Factory (“Luoyang”) for a new shipper review of this antidumping duty order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c). In their requests for a new shipper review and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i) and (iii)(A), Hongfa and Luoyang each certified that it did not export the subject merchandise to the United States during the period covered by the original LTFV investigation, and that it is not affiliated with any company which exported subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation. Hongfa and Luoyang also certified that their export activities are not controlled by the central government of the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), Hongfa and Luoyang submitted documentation establishing the date on which the merchandise was first entered for consumption in the United States, the volume of that first shipment, and the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States.

On May 22, 2000, the excluded exporter/producer combinations submitted a letter in which they contended that the Department did not have the basis for conducting an administrative review of them because they were excluded from the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the PRC. On May 26, 2000, the Department initiated an administrative review covering the exporter/producer combinations which received zero rates in the LTFV investigation only with respect to their U.S. sales of brake rotors produced by companies other than those included in the excluded exporter/producer combinations noted above ( see Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews (65 FR 35320, June 2, 2000)). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(d), the Department also initiated a new shipper review covering Hongfa and Luoyang on May 26, 2000. See Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review, 65 FR 35322 (June 2, 2000).

On June 5 and 6, 2000, we issued a questionnaire to each PRC company listed in the brake rotor initiation notices. On June 28, 2000, the Department provided the parties an opportunity to submit publicly available information for consideration in these preliminary results. On June 29, 2000, Hongfa and Luoyang requested an extension of time until July 21, 2000, to file their responses to the antidumping duty questionnaire, which the Department subsequently granted on July 7, 2000.

Also on June 29, 2000, both respondents agreed to waive the time limits applicable to the new shipper review and to permit the Department to conduct the new shipper review concurrently with the administrative review. Therefore, the Department issued a Federal Register notice stating that it intended to conduct the new shipper review concurrent with the administrative review ( see Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary and Final Results of the Fourth New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review, 65 FR 51294 (August 23, 2000)).

On July 7, 2000, each of the exporters which received zero rates in the LTFV investigation stated that during the POR it did not make U.S. sales of brake rotors produced by companies other than those included in its respective excluded exporter/producer combination. On July 21, 2000, Hongfa and Luoyang submitted their questionnaire responses. On July 26, 2000, the petitioner requested an extension of time until October 18, 2000, to submit publicly available information in this proceeding. On July 31, 2000, the Department granted the petitioner's request and extended the time limit for the submission of publicly available information by all parties.

On September 8, 2000, the petitioner submitted a letter in which it requested that the Department conduct verification of: (1) The responses submitted by the two respondents in the new shipper review; (2) the no-shipment claims made by the exporters named in the three exporter/producer combinations excluded from the antidumping duty order; and (3) the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation (“MOFTEC”) and National Industrial and Commercial Administration Bureau (“NICAB”). On September 14, 2000, the Department issued a decision memorandum which outlined the Department's reasons for conducting a review of the exporter/producer combinations receiving rates of zero in the LTFV investigation with respect to shipments of merchandise produced by manufacturers other than those in the respective excluded exporter/producer combinations ( see September 14, 2000, Memorandum from the team to Louis Apple, Office Director). On September 15, 2000, the petitioner submitted comments on the questionnaire responses submitted by Hongfa and Luoyang. On September 25, 2000, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Hongfa and Luoyang. On September 29, 2000, Hongfa and Luoyang requested an extension of time until October 16, 2000, to file their responses to the supplemental questionnaire, which the Department subsequently granted on October 6, 2000.

In order to substantiate the claims made by the exporter/producer combinations excluded from the order that they did not ship merchandise from producers other than those covered by their exclusion, on September 27, 2000, the Department conducted a data query on brake rotor entries made during the POR from all exporters named in the excluded exporter/producer combinations. As a result of the data query on September 28, 2000, the Department requested that the Customs Service confirm the actual manufacturer for specific entries associated with the excluded exporter/producer combinations.

On October 4, 2000, in response to the petitioner's September 8, 2000, letter requesting the verification of all respondents in these reviews, the Department informed the petitioner that it (1) did intend to conduct verification of the responses submitted by Hongfa and Luoyang; (2) did not intend to conduct verification of the sales records of the exporters named in the three exporter/producer combinations unless the results of its Customs data query of U.S. entries of brake rotors during the POR revealed that an excluded exporter shipped brake rotors produced by a firm other than the producer named in the corresponding excluded exporter/producer combination; and (3) did not intend to visit MOFTEC or NICAB because the information provided by the petitioner in its September 8, 2000, submission did not serve as a sufficient basis for conducting such visits ( see the October 4, 2000, Letter from Louis Apple, Office Director, to Mr. Leslie A. Glick for further details).

On October 16, 2000, the Department received a supplemental questionnaire response from Hongfa, but did not receive a response from Luoyang. On October 18, 2000, Luoyang's counsel submitted a letter which stated that it was withdrawing its notice of appearance on behalf of Luoyang in the proceeding. Also on October 18, 2000, the petitioner submitted publicly available information for use in valuing the factors of production. On October 25, 2000, the respondents provided rebuttal publicly available information and comments on the publicly available information submitted by the petitioner.

On October 20, 2000, the Department provided a verification outline to Hongfa. Also on October 20, 2000, the Department issued a letter to Luoyang which provided the firm with an additional extension of time to submit its supplemental questionnaire response. The Department also notified Luoyang that if it did not provide its supplemental questionnaire response by October 26, 2000, the Department would (1) conclude that Luoyang was no longer participating in the proceeding; (2) cancel plans to conduct verification of Luoyang's response; and (3) use the facts available with respect to Luoyang for the preliminary results.

On October 23, 2000, the petitioner submitted a letter objecting to the extension of time the Department had granted to Luoyang for its supplemental response. On October 24, 2000, the Department placed on the record correspondence obtained from the U.S. Embassy in Beijing which indicated that Luoyang did not intend to participate further in the new shipper review ( see October 24, 2000, Memorandum from the case analyst to the file for further details). Also on October 24, 2000, the petitioner filed comments related to the Department's verification of Hongfa.

On October 25, 2000, the Department issued a memorandum stating that it preliminarily found no evidence that shipments of merchandise subject to the order were made by the three exporter/producer combinations during the POR. From October 30 through November 2, 2000, the Department conducted verification of the information submitted by Hongfa, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.307.

On November 15, 2000, the petitioner submitted a copy of a PRC law ( i.e., “Rules for the Implementation of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Foreign-Capital Enterprises”)(“Rules for Foreign-Capital Enterprises”) and claimed that the Department should resort to facts available with respect to Hongfa because Hongfa did not provide a copy of this law in its entirety at verification and because certain sections of the law allegedly demonstrate that the PRC government maintains de jure and de facto control over foreign-capital companies like Hongfa in the PRC. Moreover, the petitioner renewed its request that the Department conduct verification of MOFTEC and other PRC government entities based on the contents of the PRC law it submitted.

On November 30, 2000, the Department issued its verification report on Hongfa.

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

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

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

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

The period of review (“POR”) covers April 1, 1999, through March 31, 2000.

As provided in section 782(i)(2) of the Act, we verified information provided by Hongfa. We used standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's facilities and examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the verification report ( see the November 30, 2000, Hongfa verification report for further discussion).

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we have preliminarily determined that, during the POR, the three exporter/producer combinations which received zero rates in the LTFV investigation did not make shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Specifically, we preliminarily determined that during the POR, (1) neither CAIEC nor Laizhou CAPCO exported brake rotors to the United States that were manufactured by producers other than Laizhou CAPCO; (2) neither Shenyang Honbase nor Laizhou Luyuan exported brake rotors to the United States that were manufactured by producers other than Shenyang Honbase or Laizhou Luyuan; and (3) Xinjiang did not export brake rotors to the United States that were manufactured by producers other than Zibo ( see October 25, 2000, Memorandum from the case analyst to the file). In order to make this determination, we first examined POR subject merchandise shipment data maintained by the Customs Service. We then requested the Customs Service to examine the documentation filed at the U.S. port for selected entries made by the exporters at issue to determine the manufacturer of the merchandise. Based on the results of our query, we are preliminarily rescinding the administrative review because we found no evidence that the exporter/producer combinations subject to this review made U.S. shipments of the subject merchandise during the POR.

We are also preliminarily rescinding in part the fourth new shipper review with respect to Luoyang based on its decision not to submit a response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire and not to cooperate in this review which Luoyang itself requested. As a consequence of Luoyang's decision to discontinue participation in this review, the Department canceled verification of Luoyang's questionnaire response, including its separate rate information. Therefore, we consider Luoyang to be an uncooperative respondent and have made the adverse inference that Luoyang does not qualify for a separate rate. We, therefore, have treated Luoyang as part of the non-market economy (“NME”) entity. As part of the NME entity, Luoyang is not entitled to a rate as a new shipper, because the NME entity as a whole was subject to the LTFV investigation. For these reasons, we are rescinding the new shipper review with respect to Luoyang.

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

The cooperative respondent in the new shipper review, Hongfa, is wholly foreign-owned. Thus, for Hongfa, because we have no evidence indicating that it is under the control of the PRC government, a separate rates analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent from government control ( see Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate from the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 71104, 71105 (December 20, 1999); Preliminary Results of First New Shipper Review and First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 66703, 66705 (November 7, 2000); and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the People's Republic of China (“ Bicycles ”) 61 FR 19026 (April 30, 1996)).

With respect to the petitioner's November 15, 2000, claim that Hongfa should be denied a separate rate because it withheld information at verification, we find that Hongfa complied fully with the Department's request for information. Specifically, the Department requested Hongfa to provide documentation on the registered capital requirements for wholly-foreign owned companies in the PRC. In response to the Department's request for information, Hongfa provided an excerpt from the PRC law, Rules for Foreign-Capital Enterprises, which discussed the timeframe PRC companies (such as Hongfa) had in order to meet registered capital requirements for obtaining business licenses ( se e page five of the Hongfa verification report). Hongfa complied fully with the Department's request for information in this area. Thus, the petitioner's claim is without merit.

With respect to the petitioner's claim that certain sections of the PRC government document at issue indicate de jure and de facto government control of the export activities of wholly foreign-owned companies such as Hongfa, we note that the document in question does not contain compelling information which would lead us to believe that the PRC government exercises de jure or de facto control over all foreign-owned PRC companies. (For further discussion, see the control criteria of our separate rates test arising out of the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) and amplified in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (“ Silicon Carbide ”).) In Hongfa's case, since this company is wholly foreign-owned, it is not necessary to apply the separate rates test to it ( see discussion above). Therefore, the petitioner's claim that certain sections of the 1990 Rules for Foreign-Capital Enterprises indicate de jure and de facto government control is moot.

Finally with respect to the petitioner's request that the Department should conduct visits of MOFTEC and NICAB based on the requirements contained in the Rules for Foreign Enterprises, the Department does not consider the contents of that law to provide sufficient grounds for conducting visits at MOFTEC and NICAB in order to further interpret the regulations contained in the above-mentioned document.

To determine whether sales of the subject merchandise by Hongfa to the United States were made at LTFV, we compared the export price to the normal value, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below.

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

For Hongfa, we calculated export price based on packed, FOB foreign port prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling charges in the PRC, in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. Because foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling fees were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in a reminbi, we based those charges on surrogate rates from India ( see “Surrogate Country” section below for further discussion of our surrogate country selection). To value foreign inland trucking charges, we used a November 1999 average truck freight value based on price quotes from Indian trucking companies. We most recently used this rate in the second administrative review of brake rotors from the PRC ( see Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Third New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 65 FR 64664 (October 30, 2000) (which cites to the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” from Richard W. Moreland, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to Troy H. Cribb, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated October 24, 2000)) (“ Brake Rotors Second Administrative Review ”)). To value foreign brokerage and handling expenses, we relied on public information reported in the 1997-1998 antidumping duty new shipper review of stainless steel wire rod from India ( see also Brake Rotors Second Administrative Review ). Based on our verification findings, we revised the reported distance from Hongfa to the port of exportation ( see Hongfa verification report at page 3).

In its pre-verification comments, the petitioner claimed that Hongfa's POR sale is not a bona fide transaction due to the circumstances surrounding the sale. In prior cases, the Department has considered factors such as timing, sale price, transportation costs, other expenses borne by the importer, and whether the merchandise was resold by the importer at a loss to determine whether a sale was a bona fide transaction ( see Preliminary Results of First New Shipper Review and First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China , 65 FR 66703, 66706 (November 7, 2000)) (“ Mushrooms from the PRC”). (See also Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 63 FR 47232 (September 4, 1998) and American Silicon Technologies v. United States , CIT Slip Op. 00-84 (July 17, 2000).) As described in the Hongfa verification report, we verified that Hongfa made only one sale to the U.S. market during the POR and that Hongfa has made no other sales to the United States since the POR ( i.e., as of the date of verification). Therefore, unlike Mushrooms from the PRC, we could not compare sales prices for the subject merchandise during the POR with sales prices after the POR. Moreover, we have no evidence on the record to support a conclusion that the price for the reviewed sale is not commercially reasonable or the result of arm's-length bargaining. There is also no record evidence that the importer resold the merchandise at a loss. Furthermore, the transportation costs and other expenses borne by the importer based on the respondent's terms of sale are consistent with those incurred by other importers of the subject merchandise in previous administrative reviews, new shipper reviews and the LTFV investigation. In addition, while the sale occurred shortly before the end of the POR, the timing of the transaction is not a basis in-and-of-itself to render the transaction less than bona fide ( see Mushrooms from the PRC, 65 at FR 66706). Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, we have determined Hongfa's sale to be a bona fide transaction for purposes of this review.

In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as a NME country. Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is a NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority ( see Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews, Partial Rescission of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Rescission of a New Shipper Review: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China , 65 FR 60399, 60404 (October 11, 2000). None of the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated normal value in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries.

Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value a NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or more market economy countries that (1) are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country, and (2) are significant producers of comparable merchandise. India and Indonesia are among the countries comparable to the PRC in terms of overall economic development ( see June 12, 2000, Memorandum from the Office of Policy to the case analyst). In addition, based on publicly available information placed on the record, India is a significant producer of the subject merchandise. Accordingly, we considered India the primary surrogate country for purposes of valuing the factors of production because it meets the Department's criteria for surrogate country selection. Where we could not find surrogate values from India, we used values from Indonesia.

In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated normal value based on the factors of production which included, but were not limited to: (A) hours of labor required; (B) quantities of raw materials employed; (C) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and (D) representative capital costs, including depreciation. We used the factors reported by Hongfa which produced the brake rotors it exported to the United States during the POR. To calculate normal value, we multiplied the reported unit factor quantities by publicly available Indian or Indonesian values. Based on our verification findings, we revised (1) the factor for lug bolts; (2) the factor for packing labor; and (3) the distances from Hongfa to each of its suppliers ( see page three of the Hongfa verification report and December 18, 2000, Memorandum from case analyst to the file).

In its October 18, 2000, publicly available information submission, the petitioner argued that the Department should use price data from International Business Information Services (“IBIS”) rather than from the Indian government publication Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India (“Monthly Statistics”) to value a number of direct and packing material inputs because the IBIS data is (1) the most contemporaneous with the POR; (2) it is based on Indian Customs statistics; and (3) it has been used to value inputs in previous NME cases. In its October 25, 2000, rebuttal comments, the respondent pointed out that the IBIS data, though more contemporaneous to the POR than Monthly Statistics , is less representative of the import prices paid for the inputs in question because the values the petitioner submitted from IBIS either were based on specific shipments from only a few market economy countries or the values were not specific to the input reported by the respondent. After considering the data and arguments made by the parties with respect to this issue, for these preliminary results, we have relied on data from Monthly Statistics rather than IBIS to value the inputs in question because either the former data were more representative of Indian import prices or the latter data did not allow the Department to value properly the factor reported by the respondent ( see detailed discussion below).

The Department's selection of the surrogate values applied in this determination was based on the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices to make them delivered prices. For those values not contemporaneous with the POR and quoted in a foreign currency, we adjusted for inflation using wholesale price indices published in the International Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics.

To value pig iron, ferrosilicon, and ferromanganese, we used April 1998-December 1998 average import values from Monthly Statistics. For steel scrap and lubrication oil, we used April 1998-August 1998 average import values from Monthly Statistics. For limestone, we used an April 1998-March 1999 average import value from Monthly Statistics rather than the May 1999-March 2000 IBIS value. Monthly Statistics provided a more representative Indian import value for limestone because it covers all imports of limestone into India. The IBIS data appears to be based on a limited number of shipments of limestone to India. Furthermore, one of those limestone shipments is from an unknown exporting country accounting for 51 percent of the total import value based on the IBIS data.

The brake rotors Hongfa produced during the POR use lug bolts and ball bearing cups. Because we could not obtain a product-specific price from India to value lug bolts ( see Bicycles, 61 FR at 19040 (Comment 17)), we used a January-March 1999 product-specific import value from the Indonesian government publication Foreign Trade Statistical Bulletin. To value ball bearing cups, we used an April 1998-December 1998 average import value from Monthly Statistics.

To value coking coal, we used an April 1998-August 1998 average import price from Monthly Statistics. We also added an amount for loading and additional transportation charges associated with delivering coal to the factory based on June 1999 Indian price data contained in the periodical Business Line. To value firewood, we used a 1991 domestic value from the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations' working paper, Wood Materials from Non-Forest Areas, which is the most recent value available for this input. To value electricity, we used data from the Indian publications 1995 Conference of Indian Industries: Handbook of Statistics and The Center for Monitoring Indian Economy and the methodology used in two recent NME cases. ( See Persulfates from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 65 FR 46691, 46692 (July 31, 2000); Manganese Metal from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 30067, 30068 (May 10, 2000); and Preliminary Results Valuation Memorandum).

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

To value selling, general, and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses, factory overhead and profit, we used the 1998 financial data of Jayaswals Neco Limited and the 1998-1999 financial data of Kalyani Brakes Limited (“Kalyani”) and Rico Auto Industries Limited (“Rico”).

Where appropriate, we removed from the surrogate overhead and SG&A calculations the excise duty amount listed in the financial reports ( see Brake Rotors Investigation, 62 FR at 9164). We made certain adjustments to the ratios calculated as a result of reclassifying certain expenses contained in the financial reports. In utilizing the financial data of the Indian companies, we treated the line item labeled “stores and spares consumed” as part of factory overhead because stores and spares are not direct materials consumed in the production process. Based on publicly available information, we considered the molding materials ( i.e., sand, bentonite, coal powder, steel pellets, lead powder, and waste oil) to be indirect materials included in the “stores and spares consumed” category of the financial statements. We based our factory overhead calculation on the cost of manufacturing. We also included interest and/or financial expenses in the SG&A calculation. In addition, we only reduced interest and financial expenses by amounts for interest income if the Indian financial report noted that the income was short-term in nature. Where a company did not distinguish interest income as a line item within total “other income,” we used the ratio of interest income to total other income as reported for the Indian metals industry in the Reserve Bank of India Bulletin to calculate the interest income amount. For example, if an Indian company's financial statement indicated that the company had miscellaneous receipts or other income under the general category “other income,” we applied a ratio (based on data contained in Reserve Bank of India Bulletin ) to that miscellaneous receipts or other income figure in the financial statement to determine the amount associated with short-term interest income. To avoid double-counting, we treated the line item “packing, freight, and delivery charges” as expenses to be valued separately. Specifically, to determine the packing expense, we used Hongfa's reported packing material factors. We used the corrected distance (per verification findings) to determine the foreign inland freight expense ( see page three of the Hongfa verification report for further discussion). For a further discussion of other adjustments made, see the Preliminary Results Valuation Memorandum.

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

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

To value corrugated cartons and steel strip, we used April 1998-December 1998 average import values from Monthly Statistics . For plastic bags, we used an April 1997-March 1998 average import value for plastic bags from Monthly Statistics because that data (which was based on plastic bag imports from 18 market economy countries) was a more representative Indian import value for plastic bags than the more contemporaneous IBIS data (which was based on one shipment from one country). To value adhesive tape and nails, we used April 1998-March 1999 average import values from Monthly Statistics because the data (which was based on imports of adhesive tape from 26 market economy countries and imports of nails from 10 market economy countries) was also more representative of Indian import prices for tape and nails than the more contemporaneous IBIS data (which was based on one shipment of tape and 12 shipments of nails from one country). To value pallet wood, we used an April 1995-March 1996 import value per kilogram from Monthly Statistics rather than values obtained after March 1996, because the more contemporaneous values appeared aberrational relative to the overall value of the subject merchandise ( see Brake Rotors Second Administrative Review ). Moreover, we used the value per kilogram from Monthly Statistics rather than the more contemporaneous value per piece from IBIS because the value from IBIS did not indicate the size or weight of a piece of wood in a manner which would have allowed the Department to value the factor reported by the respondent.

We preliminarily determine that the following margin exists for Hongfa during the period April 1, 1999, through March 31, 2000:

We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held on January 31, 2001.

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

Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in case briefs and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested parties may be submitted not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, will be due not later 37 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties are also encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited.

The Department will issue the final results of these administrative and new shipper reviews, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.

The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. In order to estimate the entered value, we will subtract applicable movement expenses from the gross sales value. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct Customs to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties all entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which the importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.50 percent). For entries subject to the PRC-wide rate, Customs shall assess ad valorem duties at the rate established in the LTFV investigation. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to Customs upon completion of this review.

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

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of these administrative and new shipper antidumping duty administrative reviews for all shipments of brake rotors from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Hongfa will be the rate established in the final results; (2) the cash deposit rate for PRC exporters who received a separate rate in a prior segment of the proceeding will continue to be the rate assigned in that segment of the proceeding; (3) the cash deposit rate for the PRC NME entity (including Luoyang) will continue to be 43.32 percent; and (4) the cash deposit rate for non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

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

These administrative and new shipper administrative reviews and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(1) and (2)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1) and (2)(B)) and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.214.

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

On August 31,1999, Tubos de Acero de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (“TAMSA”) and Hylsa S.A. de C.V. (“Hylsa”) requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods (“OCTG”) from Mexico. The Department initiated this review on September 24, 1999. See 64 FR 53318 (October 1, 1999). On September 12, 2000, the Department published the preliminary results of the review in the Federal Register (65 FR 54998). The final results are due no later than January 10, 2001.

We determine that it is not practicable to complete the final results of this review within the original time limits mandated by section 751 (a)(3)(A) of the Act. The Department is therefore extending the time limit for completion of the final results until no later than March 12, 2001. See Decision Memorandum from Richard Weible to Joseph A. Spetrini, dated December 29, 2000, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Commerce building.

This extension of the time limit is in accordance with section 751 (a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2).

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) are to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the Department's) regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (2000).

On October 30, 2000, the Department published a notice of initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Italy, covering the period January 4, 1999 through June 30, 2000 (65 FR 64662). The preliminary results are currently due no later than April 2, 2001.

Because of the complex issues enumerated in the Memorandum from Edward C. Yang to Joseph A. Spetrini, Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Administrative Review of Certain Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Italy , dated January 2, 2001, and on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU) of the Main Commerce Building, Room B-099, we find that it is not practicable to complete this review by the scheduled deadline. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of review by 90 days ( i.e. , until July 2, 2001).

The National Reconnaissance Office systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on December 20, 2000, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, ‘Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,’ dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

The Department of the Army systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on December 19, 2000, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, ‘Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,’ dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

The Department of the Army systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on December 19, 2000, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, ‘Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,’ dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

The Department of the Army systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The specific changes to the records systems being amended are set forth below followed by the notices, as amended, published in their entirety. The proposed amendments are not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

The Department of the Army notices for records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act was submitted on December 19, 2000, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, ‘Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,’ dated February 8, 1996, (61 FR 6427, February 20, 1996).

Evaluation/Assignment of Academic Instructors (February 22, 1993, 58 FR 10002).

Pursuant to subsection (o) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, (5 U.S.C. 552a), the DoD and OPM have concluded an agreement to conduct a computer matching program between the agencies. The purpose of the match is to exchange personal data between the agencies for identification of individuals who are improperly receiving military retired pay.

A copy of the computer matching agreement between the OPM and DoD is available upon request to the public. Requests should be submitted to the address caption above or to the Chief, Retirement Inspection Branch, Room 2309, Retirement and Insurance Service, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW, Washington, DC 20415.

Set forth below is a public notice of the establishment of the computer matching program required by paragraph 6.c. of the Office of Management and Budget Guidelines on computer matching published on June 19, 1989, at 54 FR 25818.

The matching agreement, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act, and an advance copy of this notice were submitted on December 20, 2000, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget pursuant to paragraph 4d of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, ‘Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records about Individuals,’ dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

Notice of a Computer Matching Program between the Office of Personnel Management, and the Department of Defense for Retired Military Pay.

A. Participating agencies: Participants in this computer matching program are the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC), Department of Defense (DoD). The Office of Personnel Management is the source agency, i.e., the activity disclosing the records for the purpose of the match. The DMDC is the specific recipient activity or matching agency, i.e., the agency that actually performs the computer matching.

B. Purpose of the match: The purpose of this agreement is to establish the conditions for a computer matching program between the OPM as the source agency and DMDC as the recipient agency. The goal of the match is to identify individuals who are improperly receiving credit for military service in their civil service annuities or annuities based on the “guaranteed minimum” disability formula. This match will identify and/or prevent erroneous payments under the CSRA and FERSA Pay system.

C. Authority for conducting the match: It is OPM's responsibility to monitor retirement and survivor benefits paid under 5 U.S.C. 8331 (CSRA), et seq. and 5 U.S.C. 8401 (FESRA), et seq. Specifically, 5 U.S.C. 8332 is the legal authority for CSRA and 5 U.S.C. 8411 is the legal authority for FESRA for determining whether military service may be credited for civil service retirement purposes.

D. Records to be matched: The systems of records described below contain an appropriate routine use provisions which permits disclosure of information between agencies.

OPM will use the system of records identified as OPM/Central-1, ‘Civil Service Retirement and Insurance Records,’ published at 60 FR 63081, December 8, 1995, as amended at 63 FR 45881, August 27, 1998 and at 65 FR 25775, May 3, 2000.

DoD will use the system of records identified as S322.10 DMDC, ‘Defense Manpower Data Center Data Base,’ published at 65 FR 43302, July 13, 2000.

E. Description of computer matching program: The OPM will provided DMDC with an electronic file which contains specified data elements of individual CSRA and FESRA annuitants. Upon receipt of the electronic file, DMDC will perform a computer match using all nine digits of the SSN's in the OPM file against the DMDC computer database on military retired pay data.

The data will be matched to identify those individuals who are being paid in apparent violation of law, i.e., the civil service annuity is based on military service other than that which was awarded (1) on account of a service connected disability incurred in combat with an enemy of the United States; (2) on account of a service connected disability caused by an instrumentality of war and incurred in the line of duty during a period of war; or (3) based on non-regular ( i.e., reserve) service under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 12731-12739.

The data elements provided by OPM for the match file will contain the names, addresses, social security number, date of birth, OPM retirement claim number, OPM provision retired codes, and annuity payment and service data of individuals currently receiving benefits from OPM.

The DMDC database contains approximately 1.9 million records of military retired personnel.

F. Individual notice and opportunity to contest: Due process procedures will be provided by OPM to those individuals matched (hits) consisting of OPM'S verification of debt; a minimum of 30-day written notice to the debtor explaining the debtor's rights; opportunity for the debtor to examine and copy OPM documentation relating to the debt; provision for debtor to seek the OPM review of the debt (or in the case of the salary offset provision, opportunity for a hearing before an individual who is not under the supervision or control of the agency); and opportunity for the individual to enter into a written agreement satisfactory to the OPM for repayment. Only when all of the steps have been taken will OPM disclose information, pursuant to a routine use, to effect an administrative or salary offset. Unless the individual notifies OPM within 30 days from the date of the notice, OPM will infer that the data provided the individual is accurate and correct and will take the next step, as authorized by law, to recoup the delinquent debt.

G. Inclusive dates of the matching program: This computer matching program is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget and Congress. If the mandatory 30 day period for public comment has expired and if no objections are raised by either Congress or the Office of Management and Budget within 40 days of being notified of the proposed match, the computer matching program becomes effective and the respective agencies may begin the exchange of data at a mutually agreeable time and will be repeated on an bi-annual basis. By agreement between OPM and DoD, the matching program will be in effect and continue for 18 months with an option to extend for 12 additional months unless one of the parties to the agreement advises the other by written request to terminate or modify the agreement.

H. Address for receipt of public comments or inquiries: Director, Defense Privacy Office, 1941 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 920 Arlington, VA 22202-4502. Telephone (703) 607-2943.

The Department of the Navy's record system notices for records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act was submitted on December 19, 2000, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (61 FR 6427, February 20, 1996).

The Department of the Navy's record system notices for records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act was submitted on December 19, 2000, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, ‘Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,’ dated February 8, 1996, (61 FR 6427, February 20, 1996).

Section 605 of the HEA authorizes the International Research and Studies Program. Under this program, the Secretary awards grants and contracts for—

(a) Studies and surveys to determine the needs for increased or improved instruction in modern foreign languages, area studies, or other international fields, including the demand for foreign language, area, and other international specialists in government, education, and the private sector;

(b) Studies and surveys to assess the use of graduates of programs supported under Title VI by governmental, educational, and private sector organizations and other studies assessing the outcomes and effectiveness of programs so supported;

(c) Evaluation of the extent to which programs assisted under Title VI that address national needs would not otherwise be offered;

(d) Comparative studies of the effectiveness of strategies to provide international capabilities at institutions of higher education;

(e) Research on more effective methods of providing instruction and achieving competency in foreign languages, area studies, or other international fields;

(f) The development and publication of specialized materials for use in foreign language, area studies, and other international fields, or for training foreign language, area, and other international specialists;

(g) Studies and surveys of the uses of technology in foreign language, area studies, and international studies programs;

(h) Studies and evaluations of effective practices in the dissemination of international information, materials, research, teaching strategies, and testing techniques throughout the education community, including elementary and secondary schools; and

(i) Research on applying performance tests and standards across all areas of foreign language instruction and classroom use.

In fiscal year 2000, 19 new grants ($1,893,600) and 15 continuation grants ($1,981,400) were awarded under the International Research and Studies Program. These grants are active currently and will be monitored through progress reports submitted by grantees. Grantees have 90 days after the expiration of the grant to submit the products resulting from their research to the Department of Education for review and acceptance.

A number of completed research projects resulting from grants made during prior fiscal years have been received during the past year. These are listed below.

To obtain a copy of a completed study, contact the author at the given address.

The NNSA is responsible for providing the Nation with nuclear weapons and ensuring that those nuclear weapons remain safe, secure, and reliable. As one of the major production facilities, the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant has been DOE's primary site for enriched uranium processing and storage, and one of the manufacturing facilities for maintaining the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. In recent years, the emphasis of the U.S. weapons program has shifted from developing and producing new weapons to dismantlement and maintenance of a smaller stockpile.

The Y-12 Draft SWEIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts from continued operation of the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant, and the construction and operation of new facilities for two of Y-12's missions: HEU Materials Storage mission and Special Materials mission. Alternatives considered for the HEU Materials Storage mission include constructing and operating a new HEU Materials Facility at one of two candidate sites, or expanding and operating Building 9215. Three candidate sites are evaluated for a new Special Materials Complex for the Special Materials mission at Y-12. More specifically, the Y-12 Draft SWEIS analyzes potential impacts on land uses, transportation, socioeconomics, geology and soils, hydrology, biological resources, air quality/noise, site facilities and support activities, waste management, and cultural resources. In addition, environmental justice, radiological and chemical impacts during normal operations, and effects of accidents on workers and the public are included in the assessment. A disclaimer statement was mistakenly printed on the inside cover of each volume of the Draft SWEIS. DOE wishes to inform the public that the information contained in the Draft SWEIS is accurate and complete. Please disregard this disclaimer statement.

The preferred alternative is to construct and operate a new HEU Materials Storage Facility and a new Special Materials Complex. Preferred sites on Y-12 for these new facilities have not been selected, but will be identified in the Y-12 Final SWEIS. The Y-12 Final SWEIS is scheduled to be completed in August 2001. A Record of Decision would be issued no sooner than 30 days after the Y-12 Final SWEIS is issued.

35 U.S.C. 209 provides the Department with authority to grant exclusive licenses in Department-owned inventions, if, among other things, the agency finds that the public will be served by the granting of the license. The statute requires that no exclusive license may be granted unless public notice of the intent to grant the license has been provided, and the agency has considered all comments received, in response to that public notice, before the end of the comment period.

PhA Environmental Restoration Corporation, of Oak Hill, Virginia, has applied for exclusive license to practice the inventions embodied in U.S. Patent Nos. 5,324,661 and 5,326,703, and has plans for commercialization of the inventions.

The exclusive licenses will each be subject to a license and other rights retained by the U.S. Government, and other terms and conditions to be negotiated. DOE intends to negotiate to grant the licenses, unless, within 60 days of this notice, the Assistant General Counsel for Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property, Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585, receives in writing any of the following, together with supporting documents:

(i) A statement from any person setting forth reasons why it would not be in the best interests of the United States to grant either of the proposed licenses; or

(ii) An application for a nonexclusive license to either invention, in which applicant states that he already has brought either invention to practical application or is likely to bring either invention to practical application expeditiously.

The Department will review all timely written responses to this notice, and will proceed with negotiating the licenses if, after consideration of written responses to this notice, a finding is made that the licenses are in the public interest.

The EIS will assess the environmental consequences of the agreement which BPA proposes with Umatilla Generating Company, L.P., and of any modifications to the transmission system needed to provide an electrical connection under the terms of the agreement. In addition to these Federal actions, the EIS will consider the environmental consequences of construction and operation of the Umatilla Generating Project.

The proposed project has several components. They include an electrical connection at BPA's McNary Substation for the Umatilla Generating Company, L.P.; a natural-gas-fired, combined-cycle combustion turbine; electric-power-generation plant (Umatilla Generating Project); a natural-gas pipeline; and new and modified electric-power-transmission lines. All proposed facilities would be located within Umatilla County, Oregon.

The Umatilla Generating Project is proposed by the Umatilla Generating Company, L.P., an independent power producer. They would build and operate the power plant, and would also pay for the construction of approximately three-quarters of a mile of new transmission lines and modification of approximately 11 miles of existing transmission lines owned by the Umatilla Electric Cooperative. The new transmission lines would be owned by the Umatilla Electric Cooperative. PG&E Gas Transmission-Northwest Corporation (GTN) or Cascade Natural Gas would build a natural-gas pipeline up to 5 miles in length to supply fuel to the power plant.

A. Proposed Action. The proposed Umatilla Generating Project would be a combustion turbine/combined-cycle electric power plant with a nominal generating capacity of 550 megawatts. The energy facility site would be located about 4 miles southwest of the city of Hermiston and about one-half mile west of the existing Hermiston Generating Plant.

The proposed Umatilla Generating Project would consist of two essentially identical combustion turbine generators, two heat-recovery steam generators (HRSG) and one steam turbine. The proposed generating project would be fueled by natural gas from the existing GTN pipeline that passes approximately 5 miles south of the energy facility site. Natural gas would be burned in the combustion turbines. Expanding gases from combustion would turn rotors within the turbines that are connected to electric generators. The hot gases exhausted from the combustion turbines would be used to raise steam in the HRSGs. Steam from the HRSGs would be expanded through a steam turbine that drives its own electric generator.

Water would be needed at the facility to generate steam and cool the steam process. Water would be supplied from the Port of Umatilla's regional water supply pipeline that currently extends to the Hermiston Generating Plant. A recirculating cooling system employing mechanically induced draft evaporative cooling towers would be used to minimize water use. Water would be added to the cooling system to compensate for evaporative losses (make-up water) and blowdown. Blowdown is the water bled from the cooling system to limit the build-up of salts. Blowdown would be conveyed by pipeline to Madison Farms, located approximately 3 miles south of the proposed generating project, where it would be applied to crops.

The proposed Umatilla Generating Project would deliver electric power to the regional power grid at BPA's McNary Substation in Umatilla using the Umatilla Electric Cooperative's existing Westland-McNary Transmission Line. A new 230-kilovolt (kV) radial transmission line tap would be constructed to connect the switchyard at the proposed Umatilla Generating Project to the Westland-McNary Transmission Line. Presently, the transmission line consists of one 115-kV circuit and one 230-kV circuit. The existing 115-kV line would be removed and replaced with a 230-kV line. BPA would modify the McNary Substation to accept electric power from the Umatilla Generating Project.

In addition, the section of the 115-kV transmission line between the Umatilla Generating Project and the Hermiston Generating Plant would be reconductored for 230 kV. This portion of the circuit reconductoring would increase the overall efficiency and reliability of the transmission line.

B. Process to Date. BPA is the lead Federal agency for the project EIS. The State of Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council is currently evaluating the Application for a Site Certificate for the Umatilla Generating Project submitted by the Umatilla Generating Company, L.P. Oregon's site evaluation process, like NEPA, provides opportunity for public participation. Umatilla Generating Company, L.P., held a public informational meeting on December 7, 2000. Umatilla Generating Company, L.P., expects to submit an application for Air Contaminant Discharge and Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit for the proposed project to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality in January 2001.

C. Alternatives Proposed for Consideration. Alternatives thus far identified for evaluation in the EIS are: (1) The proposed action, and (2) no action. Other alternatives may be identified through the scoping process.

D. Identification of Environmental Issues. BPA intends to prepare an EIS addressing both the Umatilla Generating Project and the associated electric power interconnection facilities. BPA decided to prepare the EIS for two reasons: (1) The Umatilla Generating Project would depend on the modifications at BPA's McNary Substation to connect with BPA's transmission grid, and (2) no other Federal or State agency is currently preparing an EIS on the proposed project. Because no other EIS is being prepared, the scope of BPA's EIS will cover both the interconnection elements and the Umatilla Generating Project.

The principal issues identified thus far for consideration in the Draft EIS with respect to the Umatilla Generating Project are as follows: (1) Air quality impacts, (2) noise impacts from plant operation, (3) aesthetic impacts, (4) socioeconomic impacts created by an influx of construction workers into a sparsely populated area, and (5) impacts on wildlife habitat. The principal issues identified thus far for consideration in the Draft EIS with respect to the electric power transmission facilities are as follows: (1) Impacts of transmission line construction on wetlands and wildlife habitat, (2) aesthetic impacts, and (3) cultural resource impacts.

These issues, together with any additional significant issues identified through the scoping process, will be addressed in the EIS.

The environmental protection student internship program is designed to provide undergraduate and graduate students from accredited universities and colleges with opportunities for environmental training experiences at EPA and other venues in which the student intern can receive a meaningful learning experience. The Program will be managed by the Office of Environmental Justice. EPA managers at Headquarters, Regional Offices, and Laboratories will develop and sponsor new training or research projects that will further the student interns' understanding of environmental and health protection issues and abatement techniques. The projects are sufficiently narrow in scope to allow the student to complete the project in a 3-6 month period by working full-time during the summer and/or part-time during the school year. Students selected to receive an internship are awarded a stipend based on their level of education and length of the project period.

EPA is expanding its institutional commitment to Environmental Stewardship and Health Protection. The Agency has identified several areas in which student interns would benefit by practical, on the job training experiences. These areas include but are not limited to:

• Environmental Policy, Regulation, & Law—Training in this area includes participation in the review and evaluation of existing policies and regulations, as well as the development of new policies. Training relating to compliance with policies and regulations is included.

• Environmental Management & Administration—This area focuses on providing training in how to implement and improve management goals; how to develop cooperative environmental management strategies.

• Environmental Science—This area focuses in training on field studies and laboratory research.

• Public Relations and Communications—This broad category provides the Intern with the opportunity to receive training relating to how public opinion affects environmental issues. Internet surveys, tools for presentations, creation of pamphlets for informing about environmental protection could be part of a training opportunity.

• Computer Programming and Development—The student intern would receive training relating to developing computer programs for reaching different stakeholders. A project of this type could easily be a training opportunity at a community or grassroots organization facility.

A primary objective of the EPA is to plan and support active stewardship of the environment, of the public health, and to sustain communities at a time of increased pressures on these resources and decreasing funds for programs. Part of the strategy is to transfer US EPA's technologies, techniques, and methods to the community-at-large, especially the next generation of environmental professionals is to both increase their capability and to increase their diversity. EPA's programs and activities offer unique training opportunities to develop skills that can be transferred to the non-Federal community. An effective mechanism to affect this transfer is through the establishment of a student internship program. This cooperative agreement between US EPA and the recipient will promote these objectives The statutes under which the US EPA will conduct this intern program include:

a. Clean Water Act, Section 104(b)(3): conduct and promote the coordination of research, investigations, experiments, training, demonstration, surveys, and studies relating to the causes, extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution.

b. Safe Drinking Water Act, Sections 1442(b)(3): develop, expand, or carry out a program (that may combine training, education, and employment) for occupations relating to the public health aspects of providing safe drinking water.

c. Solid Waste Disposal Act, Section 8001(a): conduct and promote the coordination of research, investigations, experiments, training, demonstrations, surveys, public education programs, and studies relating to solid waste management and hazardous waste management.

d. Clean Air Act, Section 103(b)(3): conduct and promote the coordination and acceleration of research, investigations, experiments, demonstrations, surveys, and studies related to the causes, effects (including health and welfare effects), extent, prevention, and control of air pollution.

e. Toxic Substances Control Act, Section 10(a): conduct research, development, and monitoring activities on toxic substances.

f. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, Section 20(a): conduct research on pesticides.

g. Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, Section 203: conduct research, investigations, experiments, training, demonstrations, surveys, and studies relating to the minimizing or ending of ocean dumping of hazardous materials and the development of alternatives to ocean dumping.

This EPA Intern Program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under 66.607 Training and Fellowships for the Environmental Protection Agency.

The objective of the program is to provide training opportunities to students interested in pursuing environmental careers. The proposed cooperative program will be administered by the Recipient in response to intern opportunities available at US EPA or other Federal or non-Federal organizations which offer opportunities for training in environmental protection.

In cooperation with EPA, the recipient will select and employ student interns to work on individual projects in response to internship opportunities established by the program offices within US EPA. Student interns are not EPA employees and the recipient, and cooperation with EPA, will develop an orientation program that will explain the intern's roles, responsibilities, and limitations. The student interns must be undergraduate students, graduate students, or college graduates who have been accepted into graduate programs and will begin their studies within 9 months of accepting an internship position. Student interns may be studying areas such as environmental science, earth science, environmental engineering, geodesy, chemistry, physics, oceanography, biology, fishery science, geography, resource economics, risk assessment, policy analysis, computer science, and law. The EPA Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR part 45.135(a), states that “Trainees must be citizens of the United States, its territories, or possessions, or lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence.”

All internship projects will be carried out under a written training plan with the technical guidance of a mentor or Technical advisor from EPA or another sponsoring organization. These projects must be designed to provide learning experiences for the Interns that will make them competitive for employment opportunities in both the public and private sector. Final details for individual training plans shall be developed by the recipient in consultation with the Project Officer or the individual Technical Advisor in accordance with the “Statement of Substantial Involvement between US EPA and the Recipient” described below.

The maximum period that a student intern may participate in the program on a full or part time basis with funding from EPA is six months. The Agency may fund one additional three month extension of an internship to enable the student to complete a project.

The recipient may establish environmental protection internship opportunities with organizations other than EPA. EPA may choose to fund and sponsor these internships or the recipient can obtain sponsorship or funding from non-EPA sources. Please note that under OMB Circular A-122 applicable to assistance agreements with non profit organizations, general fund-raising costs are not allowable.

There is not a fixed number of Internships per year under this program. The actual number will depend on opportunities and funding identified by offices within US EPA. Internships may be located at US EPA or at facilities of other organizations with missions relating to environmental protection. If interns are required to relocate to such locations for the duration of the internship, EPA will provide financial assistance to the recipient in an amount up to $500 to offset the interns relocation expenses. Interns will be provided individual project assignments for each internship.

Under this Cooperative Agreement, the Recipient shall make an effort to advertise and promote the availability of these internships to Native Americans, Hispanic, African, Asian and other minorities (including women) at all levels so as to provide opportunities for a diverse group of students to participate in this program.

1. Student Intern —Individual trainee who will be provided with and perform internships under this cooperative agreement.

2. Project Officer —The US EPA Project Officer is that individual specifically named by US EPA to manage this program.

3. Technical Advisor —The US EPA employee responsible for providing technical guidance on the specific project(s) assigned to the Intern and for the Intern's individual development and progress. Because the student interns will be employees of the recipient organization rather than the Agency, EPA technical advisors do not provide day to day supervision of student interns.

4. Intern Opportunity/Project —An opportunity for an internship which is documented and has funds obligated for its costs. In general, these opportunities will be assignments within existing US EPA programs and ongoing projects and will be performed at the site of the project an EPA facility. In some cases, the assignment may involve an intern training at locations other than an EPA facility such as a community organization facility; a non-profit organization facility; or a local government, state government, or tribal government facility.

1. $400 ($10.00/hr) 1-4 full years of academic study.

2. $500 ($12.50/hr) Undergraduate degree and acceptance in graduate school.

3. $600 ($15.00/hr) Undergraduate Degree and superior academic standard (top 1/3, 2.9/4 GPA overall, & 3.5/4 GPA in Major) and accepted into graduate school.

4. $700 ($17.50/hr) Completed 60 hrs Graduate level or completed Masters or law degree and accepted into PhD or L.L.M. program.

Unless included in the Intern opportunity description, overtime is not anticipated. In the event that overtime is required, the duration of the internship shall be reduced or additional funds shall be obligated or Compensatory time shall be given in lieu of overtime to pay for it.

5. In the event that an Intern voluntarily terminates or is terminated by the recipient for cause ( e.g. failing to carry out his or her training plan or engaging in disruptive behavior), the Recipient shall make every effort to select another intern and, if not practicable, advise EPA to de-obligate the remaining funds committed to the internship.

US EPA funding for this Program will be a minimum of $500,000 from FY01 funds during the first year. Each internship or group of internships, beyond the first, shall be funded as a separate amendment to the master agreement. There is no set timetable for announcement of Internships and they may occur throughout the year.

Cost sharing is not required for the internship program.

The US EPA Intern Program shall be awarded as a Cooperative Agreement since EPA anticipates that there will be substantial involvement between the EPA, the Recipient, and the Interns (after their selection).

In carrying out the work program set forth in the project description, US EPA and the Recipient agree to meet the programmatic objective of this agreement as stated.* US EPA involvement will consist of the following activities:

1. US EPA will provide descriptions of available student intern opportunities including academic background and prior work experience that would make the internship experience meaningful to the student.

2. EPA personnel will discuss internship opportunities with prospective interns and provide advice to the recipient relating to the “fit” between a prospective intern's academic background and work experience and the training available under the internship opportunity. However, EPA personnel will not select or make offers to prospective intern.

3. After considering EPA's advice, and making its own assessment of the fit between prospective interns' qualifications and interests and the internship opportunity, the Recipient is responsible for selecting the intern, making the offer of the internship, and arranging an orientation program and start date.

4. The recipient and EPA will collaboratively develop the student interns training plan. EPA will provide a technical advisor to interact with each student intern as the intern carries out his or her training plan. The technical monitor shall provide technical guidance and support to the Intern in developing the skills necessary to perform the work in the chosen environmental arena. However, EPA's technical advisor will not supervise the intern on a day to day basis. The Recipient must manage time and attendance and monitor the interns' progress towards completing his or her training plan.

5. EPA shall provide liaison to interact with the Recipient and Senior Management on the progress of meeting the programmatic objectives of this Cooperative Agreement.

*Summary Section: The programmatic objective of this intern program is to provide unique training opportunities for cooperative study, research, and development that would be of major benefit in advancing the number and diversity of environmental professionals.

Any non profit organization as described in OMB Circular A-122 may submit a proposal. Please note that there are restrictions on the extent to which EPA can award financial assistance to organizations described by Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code who engage in lobbying.

The initial Master Agreement shall be for a period of three (3) years. US EPA shall consider continued funding for the project upon: (a) Satisfactory progress toward the stated agreement goals, and the determination by US EPA that the continuation of the program would be in the best interest of the Government; and (b) availability of funds. The awards must have scopes of work that can easily be separated into annual increments of meaningful work which represent solid accomplishments if prospective funding is not made available to the applicant. This submission in no way obligates US EPA to extend this agreement, nor is this paragraph to be interpreted as a promise that future funds will be available. Stipend levels, and benefits may be adjusted for Cost of Living Allowances for each continuation year.

Funds to support the environmental professional intern program shall be given directly to the Recipient. Administrative costs shall be negotiated as part of the Master Agreement award and shall be based on and paid on a per Internship basis. These costs may be fixed, time dependent, Intern stipend dependent, or a combination as proposed by the Recipient.

The total dollar amount of the indirect costs proposed in an application under this program must not exceed the indirect cost rate negotiated and approved by a cognizant Federal agency prior to the proposed effective date of the award.

Each Prospective Recipient shall submit a package containing completed:

1. SF-424 (including SF-424A & SF-424B). (Available on the Internet at http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/grants/#forms ).

2. A budget with necessary supporting details. This budget should be based on a hypothetical intern opportunity at a stipend level of $500 per week, with an allowance for required field trip travel of $2,000, and a relocation allowance of $500. Because it is anticipated that this agreement will be extended to include additional internships beyond the first, supporting information should be included to determine the full cost to the government of additional internships which may have any of the suggested stipend levels, have durations ranging 6 to 9 months, and be with or without relocation or travel allowances. This information should also contain details on what services and benefits are included ( i.e. sick leave, tax withholding, insurance, etc.) and their estimated cost to interns; as well as, what, if any, allowances are made for vacation leave and/or sick leave. Holidays observed by the office hosting the intern will be considered paid holidays.

3. Curriculum Vitae for each individual and critical senior staff assigned to the program,

4. Copy of a current approved Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement,

5. SF-LLL “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities”

6. “Certifications Regarding Lobbying Activities”

7. EPA Form 5700-49 “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters”

8. A narrative description of the applicant's proposed plan for carrying out its environmental professional internship program. This narrative shall include:

9. Proof of Status For First Time Eligible Non-Profit Applicants.

10. EPA Form 5700-48 “Procurement System Certification”

11. EPA Form 4700-4 “Pre-award Compliance Review report for All Applicants * * *.”

The Grant Application Kit can be obtained by calling 202-564-5310. It is also available in PDF format at http://www.epa.gov/ogd/appkit.htm.

You can also visit your local public library and copy the forms from the Federal Register in which this document is published; many federal offices use the forms and have copies available. A tutorial for grant applicants is available at: http://www.epa.gov/seahome/grants/src/grant.htm where the forms can be printed.

Responsiveness of the application to the programmatic objectives of the Intern program as noted in the Summary section and restated in the Type of Funding Instrument section above.

The proposals from applicants will be evaluated and ranked on a “high, medium or low” basis. High rankings are the most desirable. These rankings will be considered by EPA management in deciding which proposal, on balance, will provide the best value to both the Government and prospective interns. The evaluation factors that will be considered include:

1. Costs for operating the proposed Intern Program.

2. The applicant's proposed approach to carrying out the program and proposed time lines for filling internships.

3. Services and benefits available to the Interns relative to their cost to EPA, the applicant and the student interns

4. Proposed method for advertising for and pre-screening candidate Interns.

5. Past history of the prospective Recipient in operating similar programs.

6. Qualifications of proposed senior staff.

Each application will receive an independent, objective review by a panel qualified to evaluate the applications submitted. The Independent Review Panel, consisting of at least three individuals in addition to the Selecting Official US EPA Federal Program Officer, will review, evaluate, and rank all applications based on the criteria stated above. The final decision on award will be based upon the panel's overall ranking of the application and a determination by the Selecting Official that the Recipient's application meets the Project Funding Priorities.

EPA may provide additional financial support for travel and transportation for student interns assigned to EPA projects requiring field work as documented in the description of the Intern Opportunity and the Intern's training plan. The funds will be included as part of the original funding to the Recipient at the time the internship project is initiated or at a later date by way of an amendment. Student interns shall complete Recipient's travel approval form prior to each trip, complete a travel reimbursement form at the conclusion of each trip, and a travel experience report at the conclusion of each trip for the Recipient. The US EPA Technical Advisor shall sign the form to acknowledge the trip is consistent with the intern's training plan prior to any action by the Recipient. Travel advances for Interns shall be available from the Recipient as needed. All travel and transportation required for field work shall be paid by the Recipient out of funds included in the agreement.

This is a short term training program for students. Interns will not be used to replace US EPA employees formerly employed under the Office of Personnel Management student appointing authorities, to replace temporary or term appointments, or to replace or fill-in for full or part-time US EPA positions vacated by the Voluntary Separation Program or Reduction in Force. Participants will not be selected or used to perform personal services. The Recipient and the Agency shall avoid any actions that create the appearance that the intern is a Federal employee or is being used by EPA to obtain personal services. The relationship between the Recipient and Interns is that of Employer and Employee. The Recipient must provide a health benefits option, must deduct applicable state and federal taxes, and is responsible for payment, discipline, leave approval, termination, etc. for each Intern. Nothing in this agreement or its supplements shall be deemed to create an employer-employee relationship between the US EPA and an Intern. Former US EPA employees are not eligible for this program within two years of employment at US EPA. Former EPA employees must qualify as students to participate in the program.

(1) Federal Policies and Procedures. Recipients are subject to all Federal laws and Federal and USEPA policies, regulations, and procedures applicable to Federal financial assistance awards.

(2) Past Performance. Unsatisfactory performance under prior Federal awards will be considered in evaluating an applicant's proposal.

(3) Preaward Activities. If applicants incur any costs prior to an award being made, they do so solely at their own risk of not being reimbursed by the Government. Notwithstanding any verbal or written assurance that may have been received, there is no obligation on the part of the USEPA to cover pre-award costs except to the extent authorized at 40 CFR 30.25(f).

(4) No Obligation for Future Funding. If an application is selected for funding, the USEPA has no obligation to provide any additional future funding in connection with the award. Renewal of an award to increase funding or extend the period of performance is at the total discretion of the USEPA.

(5) Delinquent Federal Debts. No award of Federal funds shall be made to an applicant who has an outstanding delinquent Federal debt until either:

(6) Name Check Review. All non-profit applicants are subject to a name check review process. Name checks are intended to reveal if any key individuals Interned with the applicant have been convicted of or are presently facing criminal charges such as fraud, theft, perjury, or other matters which significantly reflect on the applicant's management honesty or financial integrity. Key individuals cannot be currently suspended, debarred, or otherwise ineligible from participating in Federal financial assistance.

(7) Primary Applicant Certifications. All primary applicants must submit a completed form CD-511, “Certifications Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters; Drug-free Workplace Requirements and Lobbying,” and the following explanations are hereby provided:

(8) False Statements. A False statement on an application is grounds for denial or termination of funds and grounds for possible punishment by a fine or imprisonment as provided in 18 U.S.C. 1001.

(9) Intergovernmental Review. Applications under this program are not subject to executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.”

This Supplementary Information Section is organized as follows:

Pursuant to section 304(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Environmental Protection Agency is announcing the availability of EPA's recommended section 304(a) human health water quality criterion for methylmercury. Section 304(a) human health ambient water quality criteria are numeric guidance values considered to be protective of human health for pollutant concentrations in aquatic media, such as ambient waters and edible tissues of aquatic organisms. EPA's recommended section 304(a) water quality criteria provide guidance for States and authorized Tribes to use in establishing water quality standards and, when adopted into water quality standards and approved for CWA purposes, may form a basis for controlling discharges or releases of pollutants. Section 304(a) water quality criteria also provide guidance to EPA when promulgating Federal regulations under CWA section 303(c) when such actions are necessary. Under the CWA and its implementing regulations, States and authorized Tribes are to adopt water quality criteria to protect designated uses. EPA's recommended human health water quality criteria do not substitute for the Act or regulations, nor are they regulations themselves. Thus, EPA's recommended section 304(a) water quality criteria do not impose legally binding requirements. States and authorized Tribes retain the discretion to adopt, where appropriate, other scientifically defensible water quality standards that differ from these recommendations. EPA may change the section 304(a) water quality criteria in the future.

Mercury is a complex multi-media pollutant that requires a more unique approach to source management, pollution reduction and control, and development of a water quality criterion than is typically required for a less complex pollutant. In the United States, humans are exposed primarily to methylmercury rather than to inorganic mercury. The dominant exposure pathway is through consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish rather than from ambient water. The water quality criterion published in this notice is for methylmercury, and it is expressed as a fish tissue (including shellfish) residue criterion rather than a water column criterion. Henceforth, EPA will refer to today's methylmercury water quality criterion as a fish tissue residue criterion, which should be understood to include shellfish as well. The Agency's basis for expressing the methylmercury water quality criterion in this format is discussed later in this notice and in more detail in the water quality criterion document titled Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury (USEPA, 2001), which is available today.

EPA recognizes that a fish tissue residue water quality criterion is new to States and authorized Tribes and will pose implementation challenges for traditional water quality standards programs. Water quality standards, water quality-based effluent limits, total maximum daily loads, and other activities generally employ a water column value. In this notice, EPA suggests approaches for relating the fish tissue residue water quality criterion to concentrations of methylmercury in water. EPA also plans to develop guidance to assist States and Tribes to implement this methylmercury water quality criterion in their water quality programs. EPA believes that the range of implementation issues would be addressed best through broad national implementation guidance, and will work to develop such guidance with input from the public. Mercury is highly persistent in the environment and reductions in environmental concentrations are likely to occur over years or decades. For many waterbodies the primary source of mercury pollution is through air deposition and not pont source discharge, EPA believes that flexibility may be appropriate as water quality standards based on this methylmercury water quality criterion are implemented. Flexible approaches will enable environmental protection to be achieved efficiently given the resource constraints that exist for both regulators and the regulated community.

This notice also discusses the unique aspects of mercury and methylmercury as an environmental pollutant; announces EPA's intention to publish methylmercury water quality criterion implementation guidance, which will support prevention and reduction of mercury contamination of surface water and fish; and invites the public to provide information and their views on approaches to prevent or reduce mercury pollution and to implement water quality standards for methylmercury.

This document has been approved for publication by the Office of Water, United States Environmental Protection Agency. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

Human health ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) are numeric values considered to be protective of human health for pollutant concentrations in aquatic media, such as ambient waters and edible tissues of organisms. Under section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), water quality criteria are based solely on data and scientific judgments about the relationship between pollutant concentrations and environmental and human health effects. Protective assumptions are made regarding potential human exposure intakes. Water quality criteria do not reflect consideration of economic impacts or the technological feasibility of meeting the pollutant concentrations in ambient water. Section 304(a)(1) of the CWA requires EPA to develop and publish, and from time to time revise, criteria for water quality accurately reflecting the latest scientific knowledge. EPA's recommended section 304(a) water quality criteria may serve as guidance for States and authorized Tribes in establishing water quality standards. The resulting standards may ultimately may provide a basis for controlling discharges or releases of pollutants. Section 304(a) water quality criteria also provide guidance to EPA when promulgating Federal regulations under CWA Section 303(c) when such actions are necessary.

In November 2000, EPA published the revised Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health (2000) (hereafter the 2000 Human Health Methodology (USEPA, 2000a). See 65 FR 66444 (November 3, 2000). Previous to this, recommended human health ambient water quality criteria were developed using the 1980 Ambient Water Quality Criteria National Guidelines (hereafter the 1980 Methodology; USEPA 1980). The 2000 Human Health Methodology incorporates significant scientific advances that have occurred over the last two decades, particularly in the areas of cancer and noncancer risk assessments (using new information, procedures, and published Agency Guidelines), exposure assessments (using new studies on human intake and exposure patterns, and new Agency Guidelines) and methodologies to estimate bioaccumulation in fish.

EPA intends to use the 2000 Human Health Methodology to develop new section 304(a) water quality criteria for additional pollutants and to revise existing section 304(a) water quality criteria. The 2000 Human Health Methodology is an important component of EPA's efforts to improve the quality of the Nation's waters and enhance the overall scientific basis of water quality criteria. Furthermore, the 2000 Human Health Methodology should help States and authorized Tribes address their unique water quality issues and make risk management decisions to protect human health consistent with section 303(c). It will also afford them greater flexibility in developing their water quality programs. The 2000 Human Health provides the detailed means for developing water quality criteria, including systematic procedures for evaluating cancer risk, noncancer health effects, human exposure, and bioaccumulation potential in fish.

One particular area of new science is in developing the Reference Dose (RfD) value. An RfD is an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of daily exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be protective without an appreciable risk of deleterious health effects during a lifetime. For noncarcinogenic pollutants, the process for deriving a level of exposure considered to be without appreciable risk of effect has evolved over time. EPA has developed guidance on assessing noncarcinogenic effects of chemicals and for the RfD derivation. The 2000 Human Health Methodology recommends consideration of other issues related to the RfD process including integrating reproductive and developmental, immunotoxicity, and neurotoxicity data into the calculation. In the 2000 Human Health Methodology, EPA recommends using quantitative dose-response modeling for the derivation of RfDs when the available data support its use. EPA has provided additional guidance (in its Risk Assessment Technical Support Document (USEPA, 2000b)) to States and authorized Tribes on conducting their own risk assessments.

For exposure assessment, States and authorized Tribes are encouraged to use local studies on human fish and shellfish consumption that better reflect local intake patterns and choices. In the absence of local data, EPA recommends separate default fish consumption values for the general population, recreational fishers and subsistence fishers. A factor to account for other sources of exposure, such as other fish, non-fish food, and air, is included when deriving AWQC for noncarcinogens and for carcinogens based on a nonlinear low-dose extrapolation. In other words, consumption of contaminated water and fish (including shellfish) are not the only exposures considered.

The 2000 Human Health Methodology places greater emphasis on the use of bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) for estimating potential human exposure to contaminants via the consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish than did the 1980 Methodology. BAFs reflect the accumulation of chemicals by aquatic organisms from all surrounding media (includes water, food, and sediment). Compared with bioconcentration factors, which reflect chemical accumulation by aquatic organisms from water only, BAFs are considered to be better predictors of chemical accumulation by fish and shellfish for chemicals where exposure from food and sediment is important ( e.g., highly persistent, hydrophobic chemicals). EPA prefers to use high quality field data ( e.g., water and fish data collected in the waterbody of interest) to derive BAFs over laboratory or model-derived estimates of BAFs. This preference is because field data best reflect site-specific factors that can affect the extent of bioaccumulation ( e.g., chemical metabolism, food web structure).

Water quality standards consist of designated uses, water quality criteria to protect those uses, a policy for antidegradation, and general policies for application and implementation. As part of the water quality standards triennial review process defined in section 303(c)(1) of the CWA, States and authorized Tribes are responsible for maintaining and revising water quality standards. Section 303(c)(1) requires States and authorized Tribes to review, and modify if appropriate, their water quality standards at least once every three years.

EPA's recommended section 304(a) water quality criteria form the basis for Agency decisions, both regulatory and nonregulatory, until superseded by EPA publication of new or revised section 304(a) water quality criteria. These recommended water quality criteria are used in the following ways: (1) As guidance to States and authorized Tribes in adopting water quality standards; (2) as guidance to EPA in promulgating Federal water quality standards; (3) to interpret a State's narrative water quality standard (in the absence of a State adopted numeric standard) in order to establish National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) water quality-based permit limits; and (4) for all other purposes of section 304(a) under the Act. It is important to emphasize the two distinct purposes that are served by the section 304(a) water quality criteria. The first is as guidance to the States and authorized Tribes in the development and adoption of water quality criteria that will protect designated uses ( e.g., aquatic life, primary contact recreation). The second is as the basis for promulgation of Federal water quality criteria for States or authorized Tribes when such action is necessary.

States and authorized Tribes must adopt water quality criteria that protect designated uses. See CWA section 303(c)(2)(A). Water quality criteria must be based on a sound scientific rationale and must contain sufficient parameters or components to protect the designated uses, See 40 CFR 131.11(a). Water quality criteria may be expressed in either narrative or numeric format. States and authorized Tribes may employ one of four approaches when adopting water quality criteria: (1) Establish numerical values based on section 304(a) recommended water quality criteria; (2) modify the section 304(a) recommended water quality criteria to reflect site-specific conditions; (3) use other scientifically defensible methods to derive protective water quality criteria; and (4) establish narrative water quality criteria where numeric criteria cannot be determined or to supplement numeric water quality criteria. See 40 CFR 131.11(b).

EPA encourages States and authorized Tribes to use EPA's CWA section 304(a) water quality criteria as guidance in adopting water quality standards consistent with section 303(c) of the CWA and the implementing Federal regulations at 40 CFR Part 131. These water quality criteria are contained in EPA's last compilation of National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. See 63 FR 68354, December 10, 1998; correction in 64 FR 19781, April 22, 1999. In the future, EPA will be publishing new and revised section 304(a) water quality criteria guidance for pollutants of high priority and national importance based upon the 2000 Human Health Methodology. Because this process will take time, EPA encourages States and authorized Tribes, prior to publication of a revised section 304(a) water quality criterion, to make appropriate changes when necessary to their water quality standards to reflect the guidance in the 2000 Human Health Methodology. EPA expects that it would promptly consider for approval any new or revised water quality criterion submitted by a State or authorized Tribe that is based on the 2000 Human Health Methodology.

Once EPA publishes new or revised section 304(a) water quality criteria guidance that reflects the 2000 Human Health Methodology, EPA expects States and authorized Tribes to reassess their water quality standards and, where necessary, establish new or revised water quality criteria consistent with one of the four approaches described above. With today's publication of this section 304(a) human health water quality criterion for methylmercury, EPA is withdrawing the previous ambient human health water quality criteria for mercury (see 63 FR 68354, December 10, 1998; correction in 64 FR 19781, April 22, 1999) as the recommended section 304(a) water quality criteria for States and authorized Tribes to use as guidance in adopting water quality standards. Implementation issues for this criterion are discussed in Section VIII of today's Notice.

EPA encourages States and authorized Tribes to develop and adopt water quality criteria to reflect local and regional conditions. In the 2000 Human Health Methodology, EPA published default values for risk level, fish intake, drinking water intake, and body weight for use by EPA or States in deriving human health water quality criteria. EPA also intends to publish default bioaccumulation factors and relative source contribution (RSC) factors as chemical-specific water quality criteria are developed or revised. EPA believes these default values result in water quality criteria protective of the general population. States and authorized Tribes may also use these default values when deriving their own water quality criteria, or they may use other values more representative of local conditions if data have been collected supporting the alternative values. However, when establishing a numeric value based on a section 304(a) water quality criterion modified to reflect site-specific conditions, or water quality criteria based on other scientifically defensible methods, EPA strongly cautions States and authorized Tribes not to selectively apply data in order to ensure water quality criteria less stringent than EPA's section 304(a) water quality criteria. Such an approach would inaccurately characterize risk.

On April 27, 2000, EPA published new regulations addressing its review and approval of water quality standards adopted by States and authorized Tribes. See 65 FR 24642 April 27, 2000. Under the new regulations, which are codified at 40 CFR 131.21(c)-(f), State or authorized Tribal water quality standards that were adopted, in effect, and submitted to EPA prior to May 30, 2000, are in effect for CWA purposes unless superseded by replacement Federal water quality standards. See 40 CFR 131.21(c). However, under the new regulation, State or authorized Tribal water quality criteria adopted and in effect after May 30, 2000, are in effect for CWA purposes only after EPA approval of any new or revised water quality standards. Therefore, any new or revised water quality criterion for methylmercury adopted by States or authorized Tribes would not take effect for CWA purposes until after EPA approves such standards.

The 1997 Mercury Study Report to Congress (The Mercury Study) (USEPA, 1997a) describes mercury emission sources, fate and transport, exposure to humans and wildlife, human health and ecological impacts of mercury exposure, and control technologies for air emissions. The most recent data and reviews on human health impacts are described and updated in the Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury (USEPA, 2001), that we are announcing the availability of today.

Based on the EPA's National Toxics Inventory, the highest emitters of mercury to the air include coal-burning electric utilities, municipal waste combustors, medical waste incinerators, chlor-alkali plants, hazardous waste combustors, and cement manufacturers. The Mercury Study estimated that the annual anthropogenic United States emissions of mercury in 1994-1995 was 158 tons. Roughly 87 percent of these emissions were from combustion sources, including waste and fossil fuel combustion. Contemporary anthropogenic emissions are only one part of the mercury cycle. Releases from human activities today are adding to the mercury reservoirs that already exist in land, water, and air, both naturally and as a result of previous human activities. The deposition of mercury from the atmosphere to land or water at any location comes from: (1) The natural global cycle (including re-emissions from the oceans); (2) regional sources; and (3) local sources. Local sources can include direct water discharges in addition to mercury from air emissions. Past uses of mercury, such as fungicide application to crops, are also a component of the present mercury burden in the environment. The Mercury Study estimated that, for 1995, the United States sources contributed approximately 3 percent (or 165 tons) of the total global mercury emissions (5,500 tons). The Mercury Study further estimated that, of United States anthropogenic mercury emissions, approximately one-third (52 tons) are deposited through wet and dry deposition within the lower 48 States. The remaining two-thirds (approximately 107 tons) of anthropogenically emitted mercury is transported outside of the United States' borders where it enters the global reservoir. In addition to mercury deposited from United States sources, approximately another 35 tons of mercury from the global reservoir is deposited for a total deposition of roughly 87 tons within the lower 48 States. In the United States, the highest deposition rates from anthropogenic and global contributions for mercury are predicted to occur in the southern Great Lakes and Ohio River valley, the Northeast and scattered areas in the South, with the Miami and Tampa areas having the most elevated levels in the South. The location of sources, the chemical species of mercury emitted, and the climate and meterology are key factors in where and how rapidly mercury deposition occurs.

Mercury cycles in the environment as a result of natural and human (anthropogenic) activities. The amount of mercury mobilized and released into the biosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial age. Most of the mercury in the atmosphere is elemental mercury vapor, which can circulate in the atmosphere for up to a year (USEPA, 1997a). Mercury in the atmosphere can be widely dispersed and transported thousands of miles from likely sources of emission (USEPA, 1997a). Inorganic mercury in the atmosphere, when either bound to airborne particles or in a gaseous form, is deposited to soils and waterbodies through wet and dry deposition events. Wet deposition as precipitation is the primary mechanism for transporting mercury from the atmosphere to surface waters and land. After it deposits, mercury can be emitted back to the atmosphere, either as a gas or associated with particles, to be re-deposited elsewhere. As it cycles among the atmosphere, land, and water, mercury undergoes a series of complex chemical and physical transformations, many of which are not completely understood. Most of the mercury that ends up in water, soil, sediments, and plants and animals is in the form of inorganic mercury salts and organic forms of mercury, such as methylmercury. Detailed discussions of mercury chemistry can be found in Nriagu (1979) and Mason et al. (1994).

Mercury from air emissions can be deposited to watershed soils, where a portion of it can be methylated through soil microbial activity. Mercury in soils can be washed from the watershed into wetlands, lakes, streams, and rivers where microbial activity in sediments converts inorganic mercury to methylmercury. In particular, wetlands appear to be key environments for microbially enhanced conversion of mercury into methylmercury. Once in aquatic systems, mercury can exist in dissolved or particulate forms and can undergo a number of chemical transformations. Contaminated sediments at the bottom of surface waters can serve as an important mercury reservoir, with sediment-bound mercury recycling back into the aquatic ecosystem for decades or longer. Mercury also has a long retention time in soils; as a result, mercury that has accumulated in soils may continue to be released to surface waters and other media for long periods of time, possibly hundreds of years.

Methylmercury is highly bioaccumulative and is the form of mercury that bioaccumulates most efficiently in the aquatic food web. Methylation of mercury is a key step in the entrance of mercury into food chains. The biotransformation of inorganic mercury species to methylated organic species in water bodies can occur in the sediment and the water column. Inorganic mercury can be absorbed by aquatic organisms but is generally taken up at a slower rate and with lower efficiency than is methylmercury. Methylmercury continues to accumulate in fish as they age. Predatory organisms at the top of aquatic and terrestrial food webs generally have higher methylmercury concentrations because methylmercury is typically not completely eliminated by organisms and is transferred up the food chain when predators feed on prey; for example, when a largemouth bass feeds on a bluegill sunfish, which fed on aquatic insects and smaller fish, all of which could contain some amount of methylmercury that gets transferred to the predator. Nearly 100 percent of the mercury that bioaccumulates in upper trophic level fish (predator) tissue is methylmercury (Bloom, 1992; Akagi, 1995; Kim, 1995; Becker and Bigham, 1995). Methylmercury BAFs for upper trophic level freshwater and estuarine fish and shellfish typically consumed by humans generally range between 500,000 and 10,000,000 (Glass et al. 1999; Lores et al., 1998; Miles and Fink, 1998; Monson and Brezonik, 1998; Watras et al., 1998; Mason and Sullivan, 1997).

Numerous factors can influence the bioaccumulation of mercury in aquatic biota. These include, but are not limited to, the acidity (pH) of the water, length of the aquatic food chain, temperature, and dissolved organic material. Physical and chemical characteristics of a watershed, such as soil type and erosion or proportion of area that is wetlands, affect the amount of mercury that is transported from soils to water bodies. Interrelationships among these factors are poorly understood and are likely to be site-specific. No single factor (including pH) has been correlated with extent of mercury bioaccumulation in all cases examined. Two lakes that are similar biologically, physically, and chemically can have different methylmercury concentrations in water, fish, and other aquatic organisms (Cope et al., 1990; Grieb et al., 1990; Jackson, 1991; Lange et al., 1993). For more indepth discussions about the chemical, physical, and biological interactions affecting methylmercury bioaccumulation in aquatic organism see the compilation of papers in Mercury Pollution: Integration and Synthesis (Watras and Huckabee, 1994).

Because mercury methylation and entrance of methylmercury at the base of the food web is critical to the overall bioaccumulation process and magnitude of biomagnification, it is EPA's belief that reductions in the available pool of total mercury will ultimately lead to reduced concentrations in fish and shellfish typically consumed by humans. The extent to which concentrations of methylmercury will be reduced in fish and shellfish as a result of reduced pools of total mercury in the environment will be location specific and depend on the unique chemical, physical, and biological interactions that occur in a given system.

To derive section 304(a) water quality criteria for the protection of human health, EPA needs to conduct a human health risk assessment on the pollutant in question and gather information on the target population's exposure to the pollutant. Traditionally, EPA has expressed its section 304(a) water quality criteria guidance to protect human health in the form of pollutant concentrations in ambient surface water. To account for human exposure through the aquatic food pathway when deriving a water column-based water quality criterion, EPA uses national BAFs (USEPA, 2000a). A BAF is a ratio (in L/kg) that relates the concentration of a chemical in water to its expected concentration in commonly consumed aquatic organisms in a specified trophic level (USEPA, 2000a). A national BAF is meant to be broadly applicable to all waters in the United States, whereas a site-specific BAF is based on local data and integrates local spacial and temporal factors that can influence bioaccumulation. Some pollutants not only bioaccumulate, but also biomagnify in aquatic food webs. Biomagnification is a process whereby chemical concentrations increase in aquatic organisms of each successively higher trophic level due to increasing dietary exposures ( e.g., increasing concentrations from algae, to zooplankton, to forage fish, to predator fish). For pollutants that biomagnify, EPA's preferred approach for deriving national BAFs for use in deriving section 304(a) water quality criteria is to use empirical field data collected in the natural environment. With this preference in mind, EPA explored the feasibility of developing field-derived national methylmercury BAFs for each trophic level of the aquatic food chain consumed by humans ( i.e., trophic levels 2-4). Using Agency guidance on BAFs contained in the 2000 Human Health Methodology and procedures outlined in Volume III, Appendix D of the peer reviewed Mercury Study, EPA empirically derived draft national methylmercury BAFs for each trophic level of the aquatic food chain. The draft national BAFs were single value trophic level-specific BAFs calculated as the geometric mean of field data collected across the United States and reported in the open literature as well as other publically available reports. These draft methylmercury BAFs were compiled in a draft internal report and submitted to a panel of external scientific experts for peer review. The methylmercury water quality criterion document presents a summary of the draft internal BAF report as well as a summary of the peer review comments. The entire internal draft methylmercury BAF report and peer review report can be obtained from the Water Docket. See the Addresses section of today's Notice to obtain a copy of the BAF peer report from the Water Docket.

Within any given trophic level, the individual empirically derived draft methylmercury BAFs generally ranged up to two orders of magnitude. This range in BAFs reflects the various biotic factors (such as food chain interactions and fish age/size) and abiotic factors (such as pH and dissolved organic carbon). The large range in the individual empirically derived draft methylmercury BAFs results in uncertainty as to the ability of single trophic level-specific national methylmercury BAFs to accurately predict bioaccumulation of methylmercury in general across the waters of the United States. Presently, it is EPA's understanding that the mechanisms that underlie many of the influencing factors are not well understood and cannot be accurately predicted. As the science of methylmercury improves, in the future it may be possible to predict or model these processes and use such information to more accurately predict bioaccumulation. Until such time, EPA is unable to improve the predictive power of the methylmercury BAFs by universally accounting for influencing factors. This is not the case for other highly bioaccumulative pollutants, for example polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). For such pollutants, EPA has methods that improve the predictive capability of empirically derived or model predicted BAFs ( e.g., normalizing fish tissue concentrations to lipid and normalizing ambient water concentrations to dissolved and particulate organic carbon). EPA is actively involved in, and will continue to support, various types of research aimed at better understanding the fate of mercury in the environment and the processes that underlie methylmercury bioaccumulation. EPA hopes that results of new research will enable EPA to make better predictions about methylmercury bioaccumulation.

The BAF peer reviewers recognized the need for methylmercury BAFs and were supportive of most aspects of the methodology used to derive the draft national methylmercury BAFs. The peer reviewers did have issues with certain data used to derive the methylmercury BAFs and certain assumptions about food chain relationships. Overall, most of the peer reviewers believed that derivation of single-value trophic level-specific national BAFs for methylmercury that would be generally applicable to all waters of the United States under all conditions is difficult at best. This opinion was based on consideration of the highly site-specific nature of methylmercury bioaccumulation in aquatic environments and the large range in the empirically derived draft methylmercury BAFs. These peer reviewers recommended developing methylmercury BAFs on a more local or regional scale, if not on a site-specific basis. See the Addresses section of today's Notice to obtain a copy of the BAF peer report from the Water Docket.

After considering the various issues about mercury fate in the environment, the recent report by the National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council (NRC, 2000) on the toxicological effects of mercury (see Section V.A. of this Notice), and the methylmercury BAF peer review comments, EPA concluded that it is more appropriate at this time to derive a fish tissue (including shellfish) residue water quality criterion for methylmercury rather than a water column-based water quality criterion. EPA believes a fish tissue residue water quality criterion for methylmercury is appropriate for many reasons. A fish tissue residue water quality criterion integrates spacial and temporal complexity that occurs in aquatic systems and that affect methylmercury bioaccumulation. A fish tissue residue water quality criterion in this instance is more closely tied to the CWA goal of protecting the public health because it is based directly on the dominant human exposure route for methylmercury. The concentration of methylmercury is also generally easier to quantify in fish tissue than in water and is less variable in fish and shellfish tissue over the time periods in which water quality standards are typically implemented in water quality-based controls, such as NPDES permits. Thus, the data used in permitting activities can be based on a more consistent and measurable endpoint. Finally, this approach is consistent with how fish advisories are issued. Fish advisories for mercury are also based on the amount of methylmercury in fish tissue that is considered acceptable, although such advisories are usually issued for a certain fish or shellfish species in terms of a meal size. A fish tissue residue water quality criterion should enhance harmonization between these two approaches for protecting the public health.

Because EPA did not use national, empirically derived methylmercury BAFs to establish today's section 304(a) recommended methylmercury water quality criterion, EPA has deferred further efforts to derive national BAFs for methylmercury at this time. EPA notes, however, that there may be adequate field data for some waterbodies or geographical regions to derive, accurate predictive, site-specific methylmercury BAFs. EPA may reconsider developing national methylmercury BAFs in the future once more field data is available for a broader range of species and aquatic ecosystems, or once more information is available describing the mechanisms that affect bioaccumulation. Such information could enable EPA to more accurately predict methylmercury bioaccumulation on a broader scale given a certain total mercury concentration in water.

EPA is very aware of the multimedia character of mercury as an environmental contaminant. As has been discussed, releases of mercury are largely into the air, but releases directly into water and onto the land can also be significant. Moreover, statutory authority over mercury releases into various media are under the purview of all of EPA's statutes. To coordinate its various activities dealing with mercury, EPA issued a draft Mercury Action Plan for public comment in 1998 and expects to issue a revised Plan shortly. The Plan lays out a comprehensive program to address all aspects of the mercury problem from all sources and into all media, using all of the Agency's tools, and includes the issuance and implementation of this human health water-quality criterion. Some of the approaches currently employed to inform the public of the human health risks of mercury, and to manage, control, and reduce its release to the environment are briefly discussed below.

States and authorized Tribes have primary responsibility for protecting residents from the health risks of consuming contaminated noncommercially caught fish and wildlife. They do this by issuing fish consumption advisories for the general population, recreational and subsistence fishers, as well as for sensitive subpopulations (such as pregnant women, nursing mothers, and children). These advisories inform the public that unacceptable concentrations of chemical contaminants ( e.g., methylmercury and dioxins) have been found in local fish and wildlife. The advisories include recommendations to limit or avoid consumption of certain fish and wildlife species from specific waterbodies or, in some cases, from specific waterbody types ( e.g., all lakes). States typically issue five major types of advisories and bans to protect both the general population and specific subpopulations. When levels of chemical contamination pose a health risk to the general public, States may issue a no consumption advisory for the general population. When contaminant levels pose a health risk to sensitive subpopulations, States may issue a no consumption advisory for the sensitive subpopulation. In waterbodies where chemical contamination is less severe, States may issue an advisory recommending that either the general population or a sensitive subpopulation restrict their consumption of the specific species for which the advisory is issued. A commercial fishing ban can be issued, that prohibits the commercial harvest and sale of fish, shellfish, and/or wildlife species from a designated waterbody and, by inference, the consumption of all species identified in the fishing ban from that waterbody.

EPA has published guidance for States and Tribes to use in deriving their recommended fish consumption limits. See Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories, Volume 2 (USEPA, 2000e). That guidance addresses chemical contaminants with carcinogenic and/or noncarcinogenic effects, calculating consumption limits for a single contaminant in a multiple species diet or for multiple contaminants causing the same chronic health effects endpoints. The guidance recommends expressing species-specific consumption limits as fish meals per month, calculated at various fish tissue concentrations for both noncancer and cancer endpoints. Developing fish consumption limits requires making assumptions about the edible portions of fish because most chemical contaminants are not evenly distributed throughout the fish. The fish advisory guidance also recommends that human exposure via sources of contaminants other than consumption of recreationally or subsistence caught fish should be quantified.

As discussed above, once EPA publishes new or revised section 304(a) water quality criteria guidance that reflects the 2000 Human Health Methodology, EPA expects States and authorized Tribes to reassess their water quality standards and, where necessary, establish new or revised water quality criteria consistent with one of the four approaches described above.

EPA has published numerous recommended water quality criteria for mercury throughout the years, reflecting changes in the best available scientific information. Consistent with CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B), States and authorized Tribes have adopted a numeric criterion, or an appropriate narrative translator, for mercury. Some States have adopted a previously recommended AWQC for aquatic life of 0.12 ng/L total mercury (USEPA, 1984). This value is based on a tissue residue value and bioconcentration factor and was derived using an aquatic life criteria methodology that was superceded by the 1985 aquatic life guidelines (Stephen et al., 1985). EPA's promulgation of the National Toxics Rule in 1992 (see 40 CFR 131.36) included this value with an additional footnote directing States to measure methylmercury in the edible portion of aquatic species of concern, and initiate a revision of its criterion in water quality standards to protect designated uses, if the ambient water concentration exceeds 12 ng/L more than once in a three year period.

More recently, many States have adopted EPA's 1997 criteria recommendations of 50 ng/L total mercury for human health protection from the consumption water and organisms and 51 ng/L total mercury for human health protection from the consumption of organisms only. See 62 FR 42160. These value was derived using toxicological and exposure input values current at the time of its publication, including a bioconcentration factor. The criterion published today reflects EPA's 2000 Human Health Methodology, reflects the best available science, and supercedes all previous section 304(a) human health mercury criteria recommendations published by EPA, except for the waters of the Great Lakes System as discussed below. EPA encourages States and authorized Tribes to adopt the methylmercury criterion published today in their water quality standards to protect human health. States and authorized Tribes may alternatively develop data which indicates a site-specific water quality criteria for a particular pollutant is appropriate and take action to adopt such a criteria into their water quality standards. Site-specific criteria are allowed by regulation and are subject to EPA review and approval.

In 1995, EPA promulgated the Final Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System . See 60 FR 15366, 40 CFR 132). This rule established a numeric criterion, based in part on bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) and a factor to account for other exposure sources, of 3.1 ng/L for total mercury in ambient waters of the Great Lakes System for human health protection. EPA continues to view this criterion as appropriately protective for these waters. Great Lakes States and authorized Tribes are also encouraged to adopt today's criterion for methylmercury in fish tissue in addition to the ambient water criterion for mercury contained in 40 CFR 132.

As discussed above, water quality standards consist of designated uses, water quality criteria to protect designated uses, an antidegradation policy, and general policies for application and implementation. States and authorized Tribes have considerable discretion in designating uses, and may find that changes in use designations are warranted. EPA reviews any new or revised use designation, including refinement of a designated use, adopted by States and authorized Tribes to determine if the standards meet the requirements of the CWA and implementing regulations. Under 40 CFR 131.10(j), a use attainability analysis (UAA) must be conducted whenever a State or authorized Tribe designates or has designated uses that do not include the uses specified in Section 101(a)(2) of the CWA ( i.e., suitable for fishing and swimming), or when the State wishes to remove a designated use that is specified in section 101(a)(2) of the Act, or adopt subcategories of uses that require less stringent criteria. Uses are considered by EPA to be attainable, at a minimum, if the uses can be achieved (1) when effluent limitations under Section 301(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Section 306 are imposed on point source dischargers, and (2) when cost effective and reasonable best management practices are imposed on nonpoint source dischargers. 40 CFR 131.10 lists grounds upon which to base a finding that attaining the designated use is not feasible, as long as the designated use is not an existing use.

States and authorized Tribes may also adopt water quality standards variances. EPA believes variances are particularly suitable when the cause of nonattainment is discharger-specific and/or it appears that the designated use in question will eventually be attainable. EPA has approved the granting of water quality standards variances by States in circumstances which would otherwise justify changing a use designation on grounds of nonattainability ( i.e., the six circumstances contained in 40 CFR 131.10(g)). In contrast to a change in standards which removes a use designation for a water body, a water quality standards variance can apply only to the discharger to whom it is granted and only to the pollutant parameter(s) upon which the finding of nonattainability was based; the underlying standard remains in effect for all other purposes.

The essential elements of a variance are: a variance should be granted only where there is a demonstration that one of the use removal factors (see 40 CFR 131.10(g)) has been satisfied; a variance is granted to an individual discharger for a specific pollutant(s) and does not otherwise modify the standards; a variance identifies and justifies the numerical criteria that will apply during the existence of the variance; a variance is established as close to the underlying numerical criteria as is possible; a variance is reviewed every three years, at a minimum, and extended only where the conditions for granting the variance still apply; upon expiration of the variance, the underlying numerical criteria have full regulatory effect; a variance does not exempt the discharger from compliance with applicable technology or other water quality-based limits; and, a variance does not affect effluent limitations for other dischargers.

In l995, EPA and the Great Lakes states agreed to a comprehensive plan to restore the health of the Great Lakes. Using the Final Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System (see 40 CFR 132), Great Lakes States and authorized Tribes established water quality criteria, methodologies, policies and procedures to establish consistent, enforceable, long term protection for fish and shellfish in the Great Lakes and their tributaries, as well as the people and wildlife who consume them. Under 40 CFR 132, the State of Ohio adopted, and EPA approved, a statewide variance specifically for mercury.

The basis for this mercury variance was the adverse social and economic impacts of end of pipe treatment to attain effluent limits for mercury of less than 12 ng/L total mercury. Ohio determined a cost of $10 million per pound for mercury removal from NPDES permitted discharges. Ohio also specified implementation procedures whereby the discharger requests coverage under the mercury variance; describes the mercury control measures taken to date; provides a plan of study intended to identify and control sources of mercury (including documenting current influent and effluent concentrations, identifying known sources, describing how known sources will be reduced or eliminated, identifying other potential sources, and providing a schedule for evaluating sources and control methods); and, provides an explanation of the permittee's basis for concluding that there are no readily available means of complying without resorting to end of pipe treatment. Where the discharger demonstration is inadequate (including an inadequate demonstration that end of pipe treatment is the only readily available option for complying), Ohio denies the applicability of the mercury variance to the individual discharge. In this case, each variance is also submitted to EPA for review and action.

It is important to note that Ohio's mercury variance relieves individual dischargers of the responsibility to demonstrate social and economic impacts of complying with the mercury criteria. Individual dischargers must still demonstrate that end of pipe treatment is the only viable compliance option. In addition, in this case EPA retains review and approval authority over individual variance decisions, but EPA's review is limited to the technical merits of the alternatives analysis ( e.g., are there options other than end of pipe treatment).

Section 303(d) of the CWA requires States and authorized Tribes to identify and establish a priority ranking for waters for which existing pollution controls are not stringent enough to attain and maintain applicable water quality standards; to establish total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for those waters; and to submit from time to time the list of waters and TMDLs to EPA. Section 303(d) of the CWA requires EPA to review and approve or disapprove lists and TMDLs within 30 days of the date they are submitted. If EPA disapproves a State's or Tribe's identification of waters or a TMDL, EPA must establish the list or a TMDL for the State or authorized Tribe.

TMDLs specify the amount of a particular pollutant that may be present in the water and still allow the waterbody to meet applicable water quality standards, including a margin of safety and after considering seasonal variability. TMDLs allocate the allowable pollutant loads among point and nonpoint sources of pollution. TMDLs also provide the basis for attaining or maintaining applicable water quality standards through implementation of pollutant reductions in the NPDES permit program and in nonpoint source controls programs.

On the 1998 lists of impaired waterbodies, 33 States reported at least one waterbody as being impaired due to mercury contamination. Over 1,000 individual waterbody segments were identified by the States as specifically having mercury contamination. In addition, over 3,900 waterbody segments were identified as impaired due to contamination by metals, which may include mercury.

In many cases, as described earlier in this document, atmospheric deposition can be a significant source of mercury to waterbodies. On the 1998 lists of impaired waters, atmospheric deposition of mercury was identified as a source of impairment in over 600 waterbody segments. As States are not required to identify atmospheric deposition as a source of impairment, this is likely to be an underestimate.

EPA is currently conducting pilot studies to assist States in developing TMDLs for waterbodies impaired by mercury from atmospheric deposition. One goal of the pilot studies is to evaluate modeling approaches, such as techniques for identifying the relative contribution of various types of mercury sources to a waterbody. Another goal of the studies is to examine how TMDLs can incorporate ongoing efforts to address sources of mercury, pollution including programs under the Clean Air Act and water-related pollution prevention activities.

The CWA prohibits the discharge of any pollutant (other than dredged of fill material) from a point source into waters of the United States except in compliance with an NPDES permit. See section 301(a) and section 402 of the CWA. NPDES permits are issued by EPA or by States and Tribes that are authorized to administer the NPDES program. These permits commonly contain numerical limits on the amounts of specified pollutants that may be discharged. In place of or in addition to numerical limits, permits may contain best management practices (BMPs) ( e.g., practices or procedures that a facility installs or follows that result in a reduction of pollutants to waters of the United States). These “effluent limitations” implement both technology-based and water quality-based requirements of the Act. Technology-based effluent limitations represent the degree of control that can be achieved by point sources using various levels of pollution control technology. See sections 301, 304, and 306 of the CWA For a publicly owned treatment works (POTW), section 301(b)(1)(B) of the CWA specifies the applicable technology-based control standard as “secondary treatment.” See CWA sections 301(b)(1)(B).

As discussed above, the CWA directs the States to establish water quality standards. See CWA section 303(c). If necessary to achieve applicable water quality standards, NPDES permits must contain water quality-based limitations (WQBELs) more stringent than the applicable technology-based requirements. See CWA section 301(b)(1)(C). The need for a WQBEL is based on a determination that pollutants in a discharger's effluent will cause, have the reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to a violation of the applicable water quality standards. See 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1).

Many point source dischargers of mercury have either technology-based limits or water quality-based limits for mercury in their NPDES permits. Many point source dischargers install treatment technologies that will treat their effluent, resulting in lower quantities of mercury in their discharged effluent. In addition, point sources that discharge mercury to the Great Lakes System are required to develop a pollutant minimization program (PMP) for mercury whenever their WQBELs for mercury are calculated to be less than the quantification level of the applicable analytical method. See 40 CFR 132, Appendix F, Procedure 8.D. Implementation of PMPs should be viewed as an iterative process as new and improved methods to reduce or eliminate mercury become available, including a control strategy which identifies control measures to be implemented that become enforceable requirements in their NPDES permit. These PMPs are subject to revision as the implementation of PMPs is viewed as an iterative process recognizing that there will be new and improved methods to reduce or eliminate mercury that are not currently available.

Some pollution prevention strategies focus on changing existing processes or replacing uses of mercury in production activities with alternative substances as a way of achieving water quality-based effluent limitations. Also, some facilities with mercury do not discharge mercury to waters of the United States, but rather transport the waste to hazardous waste disposal facilities or incinerate it. EPA expects mercury dischargers to use one or a combination of these approaches to reduce or eliminate discharges of mercury to the environment. Pollution prevention, however, is the preferred approach because it reduces mercury releases to the environment in general.

Most of the mercury currently entering the United States environment is the result of air emissions of mercury that are deposited on land or water. In addition to publishing mercury water quality criteria guidance under the Clean Water Act, under the Clean Air Act EPA has issued a number of regulations to reduce mercury pollution through air emissions. The following summarize the key regulations pertaining to air sources of mercury.

—Municipal waste combustors emitted about 20 percent of total national mercury emissions into the air in 1990. EPA issued final regulations for municipal waste combustors in 1995. These regulations are predicted to reduce mercury emissions from these facilities by about 90 percent from 1990 emission levels.

—Medical waste incinerators emitted about 24 percent of total national mercury emissions into the air in 1990. EPA issued emission standards for medical waste incinerators in 1997. When fully implemented, the final rule is expected to reduce mercury emissions from medical waste incinerators by about 94 percent from 1990 emission levels.

—Hazardous waste combustors emitted about 2.5 percent of total national mercury emissions in 1990. In February 1999, EPA issued emission standards for these facilities, which include incinerators, cement kilns, and light weight aggregate kilns that burn hazardous waste. When fully implemented, these standards are predicted to reduce mercury emissions from hazardous waste combustors by more than 50 percent from 1990 emission levels.

In addition to the above regulations, EPA is developing a regulation that will limit mercury emissions from chlorine production plants. Proposed and final rules are scheduled for late 2000 and 2001, respectively. Under the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy, which was published in 1999, EPA is developing emissions standards for categories of smaller sources of air toxics, including mercury, that pose the greatest risk to human health in urban areas. These standards are expected to be issued by 2004.

Also, on December 14, 2000 EPA announced that it intends to develop a regulation to limit mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. A proposal is expected in late 2003 and a final regulation at the end of 2004. These plants are the largest source of mercury emissions in the United States of mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants will be a significant next step in this ongoing effort to address mercury emissions.

Methylmercury is highly toxic to mammalian species and causes a number of adverse effects. There are no data to indicate that it is carcinogenic in humans, and it induces tumors in animals only at highly toxic doses. The quantitative health risk assessment for a non-carcinogen is a reference dose (RfD). This is an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious health effects during a lifetime. EPA has revised the current RfD for methylmercury. The value of the RfD has not changed from 0.1 μg/kg/day, but the basis for the RfD has been updated using the most current data and analyses. This RfD is protective of all populations in the United States, including sensitive subpopulations. It is applied to lifetime daily exposure as are other RfDs. The basis for the RfD update is discussed below.

EPA previously published two RfDs for methylmercury representing the Agency's views at the time. An RfD of 0.3 μg/kg/day was established in 1985 and published on EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) in 1986. The critical effects were multiple central nervous system (CNS) effects, including ataxia (problems with muscle co-ordination) and paresthesia (changes in the sense of touch) in Iraqi adults who had eaten methylmercury-contaminated grain (summarized by Clarkson et al., 1976; Nordberg and Strangert, 1976; and WHO, 1976).

An RfD of 0.1 μg/kg/day was established as the Agency consensus estimate in 1995. It was published in IRIS in 1996 and in extended form in 1997 in the Mercury Study (which included a state-of-the-science evaluation of the health effects of methylmercury). Prior to the 1997 Mercury Study, many scientists and other concerned parties had questioned whether the 1985 RfD based on effects in exposed adults was protective against developmental effects. The 1995 RfD was thus set on clinical neurological signs and symptoms in 81 Iraqi children who had been exposed when their mothers ate methylmercury-contaminated grain while pregnant. Maternal hair mercury was the indication of exposure. EPA used a mathematical procedure, calculation of a benchmark dose (BMD), to estimate the functional equivalent of a no adverse effect level from the data. A one compartment pharmacokinetic model was used to determine an amount of daily methylmercury ingestion which would result in the BMD. An uncertainty factor of 10 was applied to deal with the following areas of uncertainty and variability: Wide variation in half-life of methylmercury in the body and the variation that occurs in the hair-to-blood ratio for mercury; lack of a two-generation reproductive study; and lack of data on possible chronic manifestations of the adult effects.

Since 1997 there has been continuing discussion in the scientific community as to regarding the level of human exposure to methylmercury that is likely to present no appreciable risk of adverse health effects. Congress directed EPA through the House Appropriations Report for FY99 to contract with the National Research Council (NRC) to evaluate the data on the health effects of methylmercury, with emphasis on data available after the 1997 Mercury Study. NRC was to provide recommendations on issues relevant to the derivation of an appropriate RfD for methylmercury. EPA received the NRC report Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury in July, 2000 (NRC, 2000). EPA has thoroughly reviewed this document and generally concurs with the NRC findings and recommendations. Based on the NRC report, EPA has revised the RfD for methylmercury. A draft EPA RfD document was submitted for external scientific review in late October 2000; at the same time it was circulated for comment to other Federal Agencies through the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR) and Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). See the ADDRESSES section of this Notice to obtain a copy of the RfD peer review report from the Water Docket. A public scientific review meeting was held November 15, 2000; the final peer review report was delivered to EPA on December 7, 2000. See the ADDRESSES section of today's Notice to inspect the peer review report in the Water Docket. The draft RfD document was revised to reflect the scientific critique received from the peer review, and it is now available as the risk assessment chapter in the water quality criterion document for methylmercury.

The revised RfD was derived to be protective of the population (including sensitive subgroups) against the many adverse health effects associated with methylmercury exposure. Most data are on neurotoxicity, particularly in developing organisms; there is a substantial amount of data on effects of methylmercury on human development. The brain is considered to be the most sensitive target organ for which there are data suitable for derivation of an RfD.

The NRC report and EPA's review considered human epidemiological, longitudinal developmental studies from the Seychelles Islands, the Faroe Islands, and New Zealand in assessing the quantitative risk from mercury exposure. These are all studies wherein effects were measured in children of mothers exposed to methylmercury through consumption of fish and seafood. The Seychelles study showed no evidence of impairment related to methylmercury exposure, while both the Faroe Islands and New Zealand studies found dose-related adverse effects on a number of neuropsychological endpoints. The Faroe Islands study is the larger of the latter two studies and has been extensively peer reviewed. EPA has used the Faroe Islands study for derivation of the RfD. A BMD was chosen as the most appropriate method of quantifying the dose-effect relationship. The BMD EPA used is the lower limit (BMDL) on a 5% effect level obtained by applying a K power model (K ≥ 1) to dose-response data based on mercury measured in cord blood.

There are several endpoints which are sensitive measures of methylmercury effects in the Faroese children. EPA considered the recommendations of the NRC and our external peer review panel in coming to a decision as to the appropriate endpoint. The NRC recommended the use of a BMDL of 58 ppb mercury in cord blood from the Boston Naming Test (BNT). This is a test in which the subject is shown drawings and is asked to name what they depict. The BNT score is related to language ability, assessing word formulation and word retrieval. NRC considered the score from the whole cohort to be the most sensitive, reliable endpoint. The NRC noted that the scores for the Continuous Performance Test (CPT) gave a lower BMDL, 46 ppb mercury in cord blood, but that these results were from a smaller number of children (there had been test administration problems in one year of the study).

The external peer panel disagreed with the NRC choice. They felt that the BNT scores showed an effect of concomitant PCB exposure in some analyses. They preferred a PCB-adjusted BMDL of 71 ppb mercury in cord blood for the BNT. A difficulty with this choice is that this BMDL is based on scores from only about one-half of the total cohort.

EPA prepared a comparison of the NRC and peer reviewer recommended approaches; this analysis also includes BMDLs from mercury-associated Faroese endpoint, results of the NRC integrated analysis and geometric means of four scores from the Faroes. The table of comparisons can be found in the methylmercury water quality criterion document. When one completes the dose conversion and applies an uncertainty factor (see paragraphs below), the calculated RfD values converge at the same point: 0.1 μg/kg/day. Rather than choosing a single measure for the RfD critical endpoint, EPA considers that this RfD is based on several scores. These test scores are all indications of neuropsychological processes which are involved with the ability of a child to learn and process information. In the Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury , EPA uses the NRC recommended BMDL of 58 ppb mercury in cord blood as an example in the dose conversion and RfD calculation.

The BMDL of 58 ppb mercury in cord blood was converted to an ingested daily dose using a one-compartment pharmacokinetic model similar to that used in the Mercury Study. The ingested daily dose at the benchmark dose is 1 μg/kg per day.

In the water quality criterion guidance for methylmercury, EPA discusses several sources of variability and uncertainty in its estimate and chose an uncertainty factor of 10. This was based on a factor of 3 for pharmacokinetic inter-individual variability (particularly methylmercury half-life and uncertainty concerning the relationship between cord and maternal blood mercury concentrations). An additional factor of 3 was applied for pharmacodynamic variability and uncertainty. EPA also describes additional areas of concern including inability to quantify long-term sequelae; concern for effects that may be observed at exposures below the BMDL; and lack of a two-generation reproductive effects assay. Given the over all robustness of the data base for methylmercury, EPA considered that a composite uncertainty factor of 10 was sufficient; this conclusion was affirmed by the external peer review panel.

The resulting RfD for methylmercury is, thus, 0.1 μg/kg per day. This RfD is applied to lifetime daily exposure for all populations in the United States, including sensitive subpopulations.

The exposure assessment and estimate of the relative source contribution (RSC) for methylmercury follows the recently published 2000 Human Health Methodology. When an AWQC is based on noncarcinogenic effects, anticipated exposures from sources other than drinking water and freshwater/estuarine fish and shellfish ingestion are taken into account so that the entire RfD is not apportioned to drinking water and freshwater/estuarine fish and shellfish consumption alone. The amount of exposure attributed to each source compared to total exposure is referred to as the RSC. The RSC is used to adjust the RfD to ensure that the water quality criterion is protective enough, given the other anticipated sources of exposure. Detailed discussion of the RSC method is described in the 2000 Human Health Methodology.

The method of determining the RSC differs depending on several factors: (1) The magnitude of total exposure compared with the RfD; (2) the adequacy of data available; (3) whether more than one criterion is to be set for methylmercury; and (4) whether there is more than one significant exposure source for the chemical and population of concern. The population of concern, sources of methylmercury exposure, and estimates of exposure and the RSC for the identified population are discussed in detail in the 2001 methylmercury water quality criterion document.

The population basis for the exposure estimate are adults in the general population. The health risk measure, the RfD, is intended to be protective of the whole population, including sensitive subpopulations. This is not a developmental RfD per se ; even though the critical endpoint was neurotoxic effects observed in children, application of the RfD is not restricted to pregnancy only, or to developmental periods only.

The exposure assessment section of the 2001 methylmercury water quality criterion document characterizes the sources of methylmercury exposure in environmental media, provides available information on levels of occurrence, and provides estimates of intake from the relevant sources. Specifically, the evaluation includes estimates of methylmercury in ambient surface water, drinking water, fish, non-fish foods, air, soil and sediment.

As discussed in the 2000 Human Health Methodology, the Agency's RSC policy approach allows for use of a subtraction method to account for other exposures when one health-based water quality criterion is relevant for the chemical in question. In this circumstance, other sources of exposure can be considered “background” and can be subtracted from the RfD. Such is the case with methylmercury; that is, there are no health-based criteria, pesticide tolerances, or other regulatory activities to apportion with the alternate percentage approach (see discussion in the 2000 Human Health Methodology).

The assessment of human exposure in the methylmercury water quality criterion document includes estimates from multiple media sources. Based on available data, human exposures to methylmercury from all media sources except freshwater/estuarine and marine fish are negligible, both in comparison to exposures from fish and compared to the RfD. Estimated exposure from ambient water, drinking water, non-fish dietary foods, air, and soil are all, on average, at least several orders of magnitude less than those from freshwater/estuarine fish and shellfish intakes. In units of μg/kg-day, non-fish sources of intake are in the range of 10 −5 to 10 −9 μg/kg-day for adults in the general population (USEPA, 2001). The combined methylmercury exposure intakes from water ingestion, non-fish diet, air, and soil represent approximately 0.07 percent of total estimated exposure to methylmercury (less than 1/100 of one percent of the RfD). Therefore, these exposures were not factored into the RSC.

Ingestion of marine fish is a significant contributor to total methylmercury exposure. This intake has been accounted for in the derivation of the fish tissue water quality criterion value. The estimate of marine fish methylmercury exposure is based on data available primarily from the National Marine Fisheries Survey. See the exposure section of the 2001 methylmercury water quality criterion document. Species-specific mean concentrations of methylmercury in marine fish and shellfish were used to estimate daily exposure from methylmercury. A consumption-weighted mean concentration of methylmercury for all marine fish and shellfish was then calculated by EPA (USEPA 2001) based on the mean consumption rates from the United States Department of Agriculture's Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII) 1994-1996 (USDA 1998). The CSFII 1994-1996 consumption rates are also the source of EPA's recommended intake rates for freshwater/estuarine fish. Detailed discussion of this procedure is included in the methylmercury water quality criterion document (USEPA, 2001). Following the Mercury Study (USEPA, 1997a), 100 percent of the mercury in marine fish was assumed to be present as methylmercury. The estimated weighted-average methylmercury concentrations in marine fish is 0.157 mg methylmercury/kg fish tissue, and the estimated average exposure to methylmercury from marine fish is 2.7 × 10 −5 mg methylmercury/kg fish tissue-day. This exposure represents almost 30 percent of the RfD.

As indicated above, the RSC from marine fish has been calculated with an assumed average intake of 12.46 gm/day of marine fish based on the CSFII, for all respondents aged 18 and over. The Mercury Study (USEPA, 1997a) indicates that in the general population of fish consumers, those that consume freshwater/estuarine species of fish are also consumers of marine species of fish and shellfish. EPA has, therefore, made the same assumption in the derivation of the methylmercury fish tissue residue water quality criterion. EPA's recommended default fish intake rate to protect the general population of consumers of freshwater/estuarine fish is 17.5 grams/day. This value is the 90th percentile from the CSFII 94-96 survey (USEPA, 2000f). As described in the 2000 Human Health Methodology, the Agency selected this default intake rate as protective of a majority of the population. The recommended body weight for the general adult population used in this estimate is 70 kg (USEPA, 2000a). While EPA acknowledges that consumers of freshwater/estuarine fish are also typically consumers of marine fish, EPA does not believe that the high-end consumer of freshwater/estuarine fish is also a high-end consumer of marine fish. EPA believes that it is more appropriate, and a reasonably conservative assumption, to use a central tendency intake rate (approximately 12.5 grams/day) for the marine fish component of the RSC estimate.

For deriving the fish tissue water quality criterion for methylmercury, the mean daily exposure estimate from ingestion of marine fish for adult consumers in the general population (which is also protective of the developmental endpoint), 2.7 × 10 −5 mg/kg-day, is used for the RSC in the subtraction approach to calculate the methylmercury fish tissue water quality criterion.

The derivation of a methylmercury water quality criterion requires a human health risk assessment ( e.g., an RfD), exposure data ( e.g., the amount of pollutant ingested or inhaled per day), and data about the target population to be protected. The equation for calculating the methylmercury fish tissue residue water quality criterion for the protection of human health is:

EPA recognizes that a State's water quality criterion in the form of a fish tissue residue value may pose implementation challenges under traditional water quality based control programs. Under a water quality-based approach to controlling pollutants, NPDES permit compliance with water quality standards is usually determined by comparing the allowable concentration of a pollutant in the water column to the actual pollutant concentration measured in the water column over some specific period of time. Mechanisms to control pollutants in waterbodies usually involve determining the allowable discharge load to a waterbody by conducting TMDL and waste load allocation (WLA) calculations. The traditional approach for monitoring, measuring compliance, and ultimately controlling the discharge of a pollutant is based on the concentration of the pollutant in water; thus, a mechanism is needed to relate concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue to concentrations in water. EPA has provided three recommended approaches in order to relate the methylmercury fish tissue water quality criterion to concentrations of mercury in water. Each approach has its own advantages, limitations, and uncertainties as discussed below.

EPA's preferred approach for relating a concentration of methylmercury in fish tissue to a concentration of mercury in ambient water is to derive site-specific BAFs based on water and fish collected in the waterbody of concern. This recommendation is consistent with EPA's bioaccumulation guidance contained in the 2000 Human Health Methodology. Furthermore, this recommendation is consistent with the views expressed by the methylmercury BAF peer reviewers. See the Addresses section of today's Notice to obtain peer review responses from the Water Docket. EPA prefers the use of site-specific BAFs because they inherently incorporate the net effects of the biotic and abiotic factors at a particular location that can affect bioaccumulation in the aquatic food chain, and thus provide an accurate accounting of the uptake of methylmercury. When sampling fish and water to derive a site-specific BAF, one needs to consider how best to sample so that issues such as seasonal variability in fish exposure to methylmercury, spacial variability, and fish size are taken into account. These issues and others should also be assessed in relation to the fish consumption patterns of the exposed human population. EPA expects to publish specific guidance for deriving field-measured site-specific BAFs in late 2001. However, until then the recently published procedures in the 2000 Human Health Methodology for deriving BAFs can be used as a general guide. In addition, the Bioaccumulation Technical Support Document (TSD) for the 2000 Human Health Methodology (expected to be published in late 2001) will provide additional information and guidance on deriving site-specific BAFs.

Another approach for deriving methylmercury BAFs is to use a bioaccumulation model. Most bioaccumulation models are generally process-based or mechanistic type mathematical models that are meant to represent what occurs in nature. At this time, the general science of bioaccumulation modeling, especially for mercury, is not advanced to the stage where models are readily available and applicable to all types of pollutants and aquatic systems. Three examples of mechanistic-type bioaccumulation models are: the Mercury Cycling Model (Tetra Tech, 1999); EPA's aquatic food chain model AQUATOX (USEPA, 2000g); and the Quantitative Environmental Analysis food chain model QEAFDCHN (QEA, 2000). There are only a few models that might be used to predict methylmercury bioaccumulation. Such models generally have not been widely used and have only been applied to mercury in a few aquatic ecosystems under specific environmental conditions. Of the examples listed above, only the Mercury Cycling Model was developed solely for mercury. The others have been generally developed for nonionic organic chemicals that bioaccumulate. They might be applied to mercury with substantial modifications. Most bioaccumulation models are based upon a chemical mass balance approach for fish or other aquatic organisms, which requires considerable understanding of mercury loadings to the environment and how mercury moves through the environment. Each model results in a BAF with some level of uncertainty. None of the example models can predict bioaccumulation without considerable site-specific information and at least some degree of calibration to the waterbody of interest, and in some cases considerable modification of the model. The amount and quality of data required for proper model application may equal or exceed that necessary to develop a site-specific methylmercury BAF. Other types of models could also be used if they are scientifically defensible. Regardless of the type of model, if a model is chosen, the issues discussed in the bioaccumulation guidance contained in the 2000 Human Health Methodology should be carefully considered. The derivation of site-specific parameters used in the model should also be documented, and some indication given of the uncertainty surrounding the BAFs predicted by the model.

EPA acknowledges that derivation of site-specific field-measured BAFs may not be feasible in all situations. Therefore, in the absence of site-specific methylmercury bioaccumulation data, a possible third approach is to use EPA's empirically derived draft methylmercury BAFs. As previously discussed, as part of initial efforts to derive a water column-based section 304(a) water quality criterion, EPA used the Agency's BAF guidance in the 2000 Human Health Methodology and BAF methods in Volume III, Appendix D of the Mercury Study to develop draft empirically derived BAFs from field data collected across the United States and reported in the open literature. The empirically derived BAFs are listed by trophic level in Table 1.

The BAF peer reviewers expressed concerns about the predictive capability of these draft BAFs and about using them to derive a section 304(a) water quality criterion for methylmercury that would be accurately protective for waterbodies across the nation. However, EPA believes that the methylmercury BAFs in Table 1 are sufficiently predictive of bioaccumulation to be used in implementing a fish tissue based methylmercury water quality criterion in a State's or authorized Tribe's water quality standards in the absence of any other site-specific bioaccumulation data. Thus, EPA will consider water quality standards implementation approaches that use these empirically derived BAFs. EPA recognizes that these methylmercury BAF values are not entirely representative of the methylmercury bioaccumulation potential in all waterbodies across the United States, and they may over- or underestimate site-specific bioaccumulation potential. There is uncertainty in using these BAFs as they collapse a very complex nonlinear process into a simplistic and linear approach to predicting bioaccumulation and assume that the biotic and abiotic process affecting mercury fate and bioaccumulation are similar across different waterbodies. The decision to publish these empirically derived BAFs is an Agency risk management decision made based on the need for a mechanism to relate a fish tissue concentration of methylmercury to a water column concentration. EPA has selected the geometric mean of the field-measured BAFs obtained from the open literature as the empirically derived BAFs for each trophic level. EPA believes the geometric mean is the central tendency value that best represents the wide range of environmental and biological conditions present in the waters of the United States. Choosing a value near the extremes of the distribution ( e.g. , 10th or 90th percentile) may introduce an unacceptable level of uncertainty into the CWA goal of protecting public health. Furthermore, EPA believes a geometric mean is most appropriate because the underlying processes of methylmercury bioaccumulation are more likely multiplicative than additive.

Other empirical, modeling, or newly developed bioaccumulation prediction approaches may be used to relate concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue to concentrations of methylmercury in water, provided the approach is scientifically defensible and adequately documented.

In addition to using BAFs to relate concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue to methylmercury concentrations in water, a factor is needed to translate methylmercury in water to its total mercury equivalent. NPDES permits and other water quality-based pollution control activities are traditionally based on the total concentration of the inorganic metal form, not the dissolved organic form. Many of the issues surrounding the uncertainty in predictability and transferability of methylmercury BAFs across different waterbodies also pertain to relating methylmercury in water to a given total mercury concentration. As with BAFs, EPA's preferred approach for translating between total and methylmercury is for States and authorized Tribes to measure total mercury and methylmercury and in the waterbody of interest. However, EPA will consider standards implemented with empirically derived translators. As part of exercise to develop draft methylmercury BAFs, EPA derived methylmercury-to-total mercury translator factors for rivers/streams and lakes. Like the BAFs, the methylmercury-to-total mercury translators were empirically derived based on water data collected in the field from a variety of locations across the United States. Depending on the available mercury water data, more than one translation may be necessary to translate to the total concentration of mercury in ambient waters. Table 2 lists the translator factors that could be used to translate between methylmercury and mercury in ambient surface waters in the absence of any site-specific data.

A majority of States and authorized Tribes with fish advisory programs have adopted a risk-based approach to developing fish advisories that is similar to the approach recommended in EPA's Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories (EPA 2000 e, h). However, due to variations in State and Tribal fish advisory programs, some States and Tribes may not be adequately warning the public of health risks. A small number of States continue to use fish consumption advisory approaches that are considered by EPA to be inadequate for protecting public health. The use of these approaches may lead to significant increased health risks for people consuming fish harvested from contaminated local waters. Such approaches include the inappropriate use of Action Levels and Tolerances developed by EPA and the Food and Drug Administration. These are appropriate for use in the commercial market place, but are considered to be inappropriate for establishing local advisory needs and should not be used for that purpose.

Both today's section 304(a) human health water quality criterion guidance for methylmercury and EPA's recommended fish consumption limit for mercury (which EPA encourages States and authorized Tribes to use as guidance in setting fish advisories) are meant to protect humans from consumption of mercury-contaminated fish. The procedures for deriving these two values are consistent with each other, but in deriving the section 304(a) methylmercury water quality criterion, EPA used an RSC of 2.7 10 −5 mg/kg-day to account for exposure from non-freshwater and non-estuarine fish. See section IV.B of today's Notice. The guidance for setting fish consumption limits (USEPA, 2000e) also discusses using an RSC to account for exposures other than noncommercially caught fish, but does not specifically require this to be done. The RSC guidance in the 2000 Human Health Methodology provides more detail and specific quantitative procedures to account for other exposure pathways. EPA recommends that States and authorized Tribes consider using an RSC to account other sources of mercury exposure when deriving a fish consumption limit and setting a fish advisory for mercury.

EPA encourages States and authorized Tribes to adopt the fish tissue residue water quality criterion for methylmercury outlined in this notice into their water quality standards to protect CWA section 101(a) designated uses related to human consumption of fish. This recommended water quality criterion reflects the most current and best science. EPA recognizes and emphasizes that States and authorized Tribes will need additional, specific procedures and water quality program guidance in order to implement water quality criteria they adopt based on this guidance. These procedures include, but are not necessarily limited to: (1) An analytical method for detecting and measuring concentrations in fish and water; (2) a field sampling plan for collecting fish and protocols for laboratory analysis and data interpretation; (3) a procedure for translating methylmercury concentrations in fish to total mercury concentrations in ambient surface water or effluent; (4) data quality objectives and associated procedures for determining attainment of the water quality criterion and status of designated use impairment based on fish residue data; (5) harmonization with fish consumption advisory programs, (6) procedures for determining the need for a water quality-based effluent limit (WQBEL) in NPDES permits for point source discharges of mercury; (7) procedures for developing and implementing WQBELs for NPDES permits; and, (8) procedures for developing targets for TMDL load and waste load allocations.

To help States and authorized Tribes adopt the recommended section 304(a) water quality criterion for methylmercury as part of their standards, and to implement those standards, EPA plans to begin development implementation procedures and guidance documents by the end of 2001. These will be part of a broad national implementation policy for this water quality criterion. The implementation policy will be developed with consideration of the draft Mercury Action Plan submitted for public comment in 1998 and expected to be revised soon. EPA expects States and authorized Tribes to adopt new or revised human health mercury water quality criteria and to use the procedures and guidance contained in the forthcoming implementation policy to adopt their water quality criteria within five years from today's publication. EPA generally believes that five years from the date of EPA's publication of new or revised section 304(a) water quality criteria guidance is a reasonable time by which States and Tribes should take action to adopt new or revised water quality criteria necessary to protect the designated uses of their waters. See 63 FR 68353.

EPA recently published a new analytical method (method 1631) for detecting and measuring total and dissolved mercury in water and fish samples (USEPA, 1999b). This method is approximately 400 times more sensitive than EPA's previously recommended analytical method and is capable of measuring mercury concentrations well into the ranges identified in this notice for fish concentrations as well as those anticipated for associated water concentrations (detection limit of 0.2 ng/L in water). This method determines the amount of total mercury, not methylmercury, in water and fish. This will likely result in a substantial increase in the number of point source discharges of mercury needing WQBELs in their NPDES permits.

Among the many issues associated with implementation, State and Tribal water quality managers will need to identify which species to target for sampling, determine sample compositing procedures and frequency of sampling, and relate sampling and analysis procedures to the consumption patterns intended for protection by the water quality criterion. The Agency has published guidance on field sampling and analysis as part of the package of guidance to States and Tribes for issuing fish consumption advisories. EPA anticipates that this guidance will also be useful for implementing State or Tribal water quality criterion for methylmercury based on today's criterion guidance.

Three translations are necessary to relate the methylmercury water quality criterion for fish tissue expressed in this notice to a total mercury concentration in ambient water or effluent, for NPDES or TMDL purposes. The first translation is to determine the fraction of measured mercury in fish that is methylmercury. Although this can vary in practice, the methylmercury fraction is typically very high in freshwater and estuarine fish, and approaches 100 percent for higher trophic level organisms. The second translation is from methylmercury in fish to methylmercury in water. As discussed in detail above, the best means of determining this relationship is through site-specific analysis of bioaccumulation patterns. The third translation is from methylmercury in water to total mercury in water. As with the BAFs, the preferred method to do this translation is to measure the concentrations of methylmercury and total mercury in ambient water.

As mentioned, EPA believes an implementation policy is necessary that addresses recommendations for establishing sampling protocols and determining attainment of State or Tribal methylmercury water quality criterion, NPDES permitting and TMDL development, and source management and control strategies. For example, the water quality standards portion of this policy would address issues such as how the water quality standards variance and use attainability analysis processes could be used to address legacy contaminants. Also, EPA expects that, as a result of this revised methylmercury water quality criterion, together with the more sensitive method for detecting mercury, there will be an increase in the number of waterbodies reported on State 303(d) lists as impaired due to mercury contamination. Thus, the policy would also discuss approaches for managing the development of TMDLs for waterbodies impaired by mercury. This would include approaches for addressing waterbodies where much of the mercury is from atmospheric sources, and how TMDLs can take into account ongoing efforts to address sources of mercury, such as programs under the Clean Air Act and pollution prevention activities.

The policy would also address numerous issues associated with point source discharges of mercury such as determining the need for a WQBEL in NPDES permits and, where needed, developing and implementing those limits. EPA intends to take the following factors or assumptions into account when it addresses these issues: the unique properties of mercury; EPA's expectation that there will likely be a substantial increase in the number of point source discharges needing WQBELs as a result of the new more sensitive method; and, in most cases, the relatively small contribution from point source discharges to the total loadings of mercury to a waterbody.

Given the ongoing atmospheric sources of mercury and the long-term cycling of mercury in the environment, the most effective means of protecting public health for the next few decades will continue to be the issuance of fish consumption advisories by State and Tribal authorities, to ensure the public knows what level of fish consumption from specific waters is safe. EPA also emphasizes that the science underlying today's recommended section 304(a) water quality criterion is sound and recommends that States and authorized Tribes consider using an appropriate RSC in establishing and issuing fish consumption advisories as described in the fish advisory guidance (USEPA, 2000e). However, effective source control and management programs need to be initiated and developed in the coming few years to begin the long-term process of recovery from the widespread mercury contamination evident in our aquatic environments, with the goal of reducing mercury contamination so that fish consumption advisories can be removed.

EPA believes that flexibility may be appropriate as water quality standards based on today's methylmercury water quality criterion are implemented. Today's notice serves as an initiation of dialogue with stakeholders on recommended approaches for using today's section 304(a) water quality criterion guidance and managing mercury contamination in the aquatic environment. EPA is interested in obtaining information, views, suggestions, and innovative approaches from the public. EPA is particularly interested in specific examples or model approaches for management of mercury contamination at the Federal, State, Tribal, and local level. EPA anticipates this dialogue will be facilitated by a variety of means, which may include public meetings, meetings with stakeholders, and written correspondence and responses.

Proposal to renew the following currently approved collection of information:

Title: Occasional Qualitative Surveys.

OMB Number: 3064-0127.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Affected Public: All financial institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 5,000.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 5,000 hours.

General Description of Collection: The collection involves the occasional use of qualitative surveys to gather anecdotal information about regulatory burden, problems or successes in the bank supervisory process (including both safety-and-soundness and consumer-related exams), and similar concerns.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the collection should be modified prior to submission to OMB for review and approval. Comments submitted in response to this notice also will be summarized or included in the FDIC's requests to OMB for renewal of this collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.

You may call 202-452-3206 for a recorded announcement of this meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement. (The Web site also includes procedural and other information about the open meeting.)

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

The MMS, in cooperation with the COE and EPA, prepared a draft EIS on BPXA Inc.’s proposed Liberty Development Project DPP. This EIS additionally serves as the environmental analysis for the BPXA's Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plan (ODPCP) and the construction and operation of a pipeline that would be associated with any Right-of-Way (ROW) for the OCS portion of the proposed Liberty pipeline. The public review for the DPP, ODPCP, and ROW will be announced separately by the MMS Alaska OCS Region.

This EIS is also intended to meet NEPA compliance and public notice requirements for EPA's issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. By this notice, the EPA is seeking public review and comment of the NPDES permit and explanatory fact sheet which are included as Appendix I in the draft EIS.

The Liberty prospect is located on the OCS in the Beaufort Sea northeast of the Prudhoe Bay oil field. The MMS is the lead agency which developed the EIS, in cooperation with the COE and the EPA, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq. ). In February 1998, BPXA submitted a DPP, subsequently revised in November 1998 (Revision 1) and July 2000 (Revision 2), describing how they proposed to produce, develop, and transport oil from the Liberty Prospect using a manmade gravel island constructed on the Federal OCS and located in 22 feet of water about 6.1 miles offshore in Foggy Island Bay and 1.5 miles west of the abandoned Tern Island. The Liberty Island facility would be a self-contained offshore drilling operation with processing facilities. Oil would be transported to shore in a common carrier pipeline which connects with the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. A new gravel mine site and offshore and onshore ice roads are part of the proposed project. The MMS based the EIS analyses on estimates of the kinds and amounts of activity onshore and offshore that could result from transporting personnel and equipment offshore, constructing the self-contained manmade gravel island and structures, installing structures and equipment on the island, drilling wells, and constructing a common carrier oil pipeline buried in an undersea trench to an onshore landfall and then elevated onshore by vertical support members to a tie-in with the existing onshore Badami oil pipeline, then to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System.

The EIS addresses a range of potentially applicable technologies and construction options. The EIS evaluates the BPXA Proposal, a No-Action alternative, and a variety of alternatives that were developed in light of the most significant issues raised from scoping. The alternatives examine three island locations and pipeline routes, four pipeline designs, two types of upper slope protection for the production island, two gravel mine sites, and two pipeline burial depths. The EIS also evaluates the effects of oil spill response activities described in the ODPCP.

EIS Availability: You may obtain single copies of the draft EIS, “OCS EIS, MMS 2001-001” (three volumes), from the MMS, Alaska OCS Region, Attention: Mr. Fred R. King, (MS 8303), 949 E. 36th Avenue, Room 308, Anchorage, Alaska 99508-4363, or by calling 1-800-764-2627. The Executive Summary of this draft EIS is also available as a separate document: Executive Summary, MMS 2001-002. In addition, the complete EIS is available on CD-ROM (MMS 2001-001 CD) and on the Internet at ( http://www.mms.gov/alaska/cproject/liberty ).

You may look at copies of the draft EIS in the following libraries and offices in Alaska:

Public Hearings: Five public hearings will be held to receive comments on the draft EIS. The hearings will provide us with additional information that will help in evaluating the potential effects of the proposed project. Hearings will be held in Anchorage, Barrow, Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, and Fairbanks on the following dates and times:

An Inupiat translator will be available at the public hearings held in Barrow, Kaktovik, and Nuiqsut. Oral and written comments on the draft EIS will be addressed in the final EIS.

If you wish to testify at a hearing, you may register prior to the hearing to schedule a preferred time by contacting the Alaska OCS Region at the above address or Mr. Fred King at (907) 271-6696 or toll free 1-800-764-2627 not later than 3 days prior to the hearing date. Every effort will be made to accommodate individuals who have not pre-registered to testify. Time limitations may make it necessary to limit the length of oral statements to 10 minutes. You may supplement an oral statement with a more complete written statement and submit it to a hearing official at the hearing or by mail until March 13, 2001. Written statements submitted at a hearing will be considered part of the hearing record. If you are unable to attend the hearing, you may submit written statements at the address below.

We will accept comments on the draft EIS until March 13, 2001. Address your comments to the Regional Director, Alaska OCS Region, Minerals Management Service, 949 East 36th Avenue, Room 308, Anchorage, Alaska 99508-4363.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. OSM has submitted a request to OMB to renew its approval of the collection of information found at 30 CFR 816, Permanent Program Performance Standards—Surface Mining Activities. OSM is requesting a 3-year term of approval for this information collection activity.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this collection of information is listed in 30 CFR 816, which is 1029-0047.

As required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), a Federal Register notice soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on October 17, 2000 (65 FR 61363). No comments were received. This notice provides the public with an additional 30 days in which to comment.

The following information is provided for the information collection: (1) Title of the information collection; (2) OMB control number; (3) summary of the information collection activity; and (4) frequency of collection, description of the respondents, estimated total annual responses, and the total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for the collection of information. Where appropriate, OSM has revised burden estimates to reflect current reporting levels and adjustments based on reestimates of the burden or number of respondents.

Title: Permanent Program Performance Standards—Surface Mining Activities, 30 CFR Part 816.

OMB Control Number: 1029-0047.

Summary: Section 525 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 provides that permittees conducting surface coal mining operations shall meet all applicable performance standards of the Act. The information collected is used by the regulatory authority in monitoring and inspecting surface coal mining activities to ensure that they are conducted in compliance with the requirements of the Act.

Bureau Form Number: None.

Frequency of Collection: Once, on occasion, quarterly and annually.

Description of Respondents: Surface coal mining operators.

Total Annual Responses: 731,787.

Total Annual Burden Hours: 355,405.

Send comments on the need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and ways to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, such as use of automated means of collection of the information, to the following address. Please refer to the appropriate OMB control number in all correspondence.

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

In addition, for those interested, there will be an Integrated Space Transportation Plan (ISTP) presentation from 9 a.m.-11 a.m., February 8, 2001. The presentation will provide updated program long-term goals and directions. It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.

Pursuant to Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 771, Environmental Impact and Related Procedures, the FHWA, in cooperation with the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT), will prepare an environmental impact statement in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), on alternatives for modifications to Route 1 and intersecting roadways in the Penn's Neck Area, to improve transportation service. Generally, the section of Route 1 under evaluation extends from Alexander Road Interchange in West Windsor Township in Mercer County to Scudders Mill Road Interchange in Middlesex County. The EIS will evaluate the No-Action and Build Alternatives to determine potential impacts and costs associated with each.

An Environmental Assessment (EA)/Section 4(F) Evaluation of some alternative solutions for mobility and congestion problems in the Penn's Neck area of Route 1 was developed by FHWA and NJDOT and made available to the public and review agencies during October 2000. Subsequently, a decision was made by Governor Christine Todd Whitman to prepare an EIS to allow broader public participation in the process and a fuller evaluation of alternatives and impacts. After publication of this Notice, the FHWA in cooperation with NJDOT will continue the scoping process begun during the preparation of the EA to evaluate alternatives already under review and to identify additional possible alternatives. This process will also identify significant issues to be addressed in the EIS.

To ensure that issues involving this proposed action are addressed fully and significant concerns are identified, written comments, suggestions or questions should be directed to the FHWA at the address provided above or directed to: Mr. Andras Fekete, Manager, Bureau of Environmental Services, New Jersey Department of Transportation, 1035 Parkway Avenue, Trenton, NJ 08625-0600, Telephone: 609-530-2824.

The public will receive notices on location and time of future opportunities for participation at meetings and public hearings through newspaper advertisements and other means. If you wish to be placed on the mailing list to receive further information as the project develops, contact Mr. Andras Fekete at the address above.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must publish a document in the Federal Register providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information. OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR 1320.8 (d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:

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

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

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

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

In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public comment on the following current collections of information for which the agency is seeking extension of their approval from OMB:

Title: 49 CFR 537—Automotive Fuel Economy Reports.

OMB Control No.: 2127-0019.

Form Number: This collection of information uses no standard form.

Abstract: Part 537 requires automobile manufacturers to submit semi-annual reports to NHTSA regarding their efforts to improve fuel economy.

Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affect Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

Requested Expiration Date: Three years from approval date.

Summary of the Collection of Information: NHTSA ensures that automobile manufacturers comply with 49 CFR part 537—Automotive Fuel Economy Reports. Part 537 requires that automobile manufacturers submit reports to NHTSA regarding their efforts to improve automotive fuel economy.

Section 32907 of Chapter 329 of title 49 of the United States Code requires each automobile manufacturer (other than those low volume manufacturers which were granted an alternative fuel economy standard under section 32902 (d)) to submit semi-annual reports to the agency relating to that manufacturers' efforts to comply with average fuel economy standards. One report is due during the 30-day period preceding the beginning of each model year (the “pre-model year report”) and the other is due during the 30-day period beginning on the 180th day of the model year (the “mid-model year report”).

Section 32907 (a)(1) of Chapter 329 provides that each report must contain a statement as to whether the manufacturer will comply with average fuel economy standards for that year, a plan describing the steps the manufacturer took or will take to comply with the standards, and any other information the agency may require. Whenever a manufacturer determines that a plan it has submitted in one of its reports is no longer adequate to assure compliance, it must submit a revised plan.

Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the Information: This information assists NHTSA in evaluating automobile manufacturers' plans for complying with average fuel economy standards and in preparing an annual review of the average fuel economy standards. The information is collected by NHTSA by having the automobile manufacturers mail their semi-annual automotive fuel economy reports and/or submit a copy on computer diskette to the agency. The required information is used for four basic purposes. These purposes are: (a) To give NHTSA advance indication if any manufacturer will fail to comply with the applicable average fuel economy standards; (b) to give NHTSA necessary information to prepare fuel economy reports; (c) to assist NHTSA in responding to general information requests concerning automotive fuel economy, which are routinely received from Congress, other parts of the Executive branch, and the public; and (d) to provide NHTSA with detailed and accurate technical and economic information used to evaluate possible future average fuel economy standards which may be established by NHTSA.

Description of the Likely Respondents (Including Estimated Number, and Proposed Frequency of Response to the Collection of Information): NHTSA anticipates that no more than 17 vehicle manufacturers will be affected by the reporting requirements. NHTSA does not believe any of these 17 manufacturers are a small business ( i.e., one that employs less than 500 persons). NHTSA anticipates a total of about 40 responses may be filed by these 17 manufacturers. Most manufacturers will respond semiannually; however, a few manufacturers may respond more frequently.

Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden Resulting from the Collection of Information: NHTSA estimates that the vehicle manufacturers will incur a total annual reporting and cost burden of 3,300 hours and $645,000.

Title: 49 CFR 583—Automobile Parts Content Labeling.

Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

OMB Control Number: 2127-0573.

Form Number: This collection of information uses no standard form.

Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from approval date.

Summary of the Collection of Information: NHTSA ensures that automobile manufacturers comply with 49 CFR Part 583—Automobile Parts Content Labeling. Part 583 establishes requirements for the disclosure of information relating to the countries of origin of the equipment of new passenger motor vehicles.

Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the Information: This information will be used by NHTSA to determine whether manufacturers are complying with the American Automobile Labeling Act (49 United States Code 32304). The American Automobile Labeling Act requires all new passenger motor vehicles (including passenger cars, certain small buses, all light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 8,500 pounds or less), to bear labels providing information about domestic and foreign content of their equipment. With the affixed label on the new passenger motor vehicle, it serves as an aid to potential purchasers in the selection of new passenger motor vehicles by providing them with information about the value of the U.S./Canadian and foreign parts of each vehicle, the countries of origin of the engine and transmission, and the site of the vehicle's final assembly.

Description of the Likely Respondents (Including Estimated Number, and Proposed Frequency of Response to the Collection of Information): NHTSA anticipates that no more than 17 vehicle manufacturers will be affected by these reporting requirements. NHTSA does not believe any of these 17 manufacturers are a small business ( i.e., one that employs less than 500 persons). Manufacturers of new passenger motor vehicles, including passenger cars, certain small buses, and light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 8,500 pounds or less, must file a report annually.

Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden Resulting from the Collection of Information: NHTSA estimates that the vehicle manufacturers will incur a total annual reporting and cost burden of 6,066 hours and $4,700,000. The amount includes annual burden hours incurred by multi-stage manufacturers and motor vehicle equipment suppliers.

Title: Lending and Investment.

OMB Number: 1550-0078.

Form Number: Not applicable.

Abstract: OTS amended 12 CFR 560.210 to conform to parallel provisions of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System's Regulation Z, Truth-in-Lending. Savings associations are permitted to provide either a statement that periodic rates may substantially increase or decrease (together with the maximum interest rate and payment amount based on a $10,000 loan amount) or a fifteen-year historical example of interest rates and payments based on a $10,000 loan amount.

Current Actions: OTS proposes to renew this information collection without revision.

Type of Review: Renewal.

Affected Public: Business or For Profit.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1082.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 0.11 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 436,428 hours.

Request for Comments: The OTS will summarize comments submitted in response to this notice or will include these comments in its request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. The OTS invites comment on: (a) Whether the 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 of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or starting costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.