Management of forest resources is provided for in the Mark Twain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), approved in 1986. Specific management objectives and practices are defined for each Management Prescription in Chapter IV of the Forest Plan. This project proposal is located within Management Prescriptions 3.2, 4.1, 6.1 and 6.2.

Areas of decline and mortality of scarlet and black oak have been occurring on the Mark Twain National Forest for several years. Scarlet and black oaks are relatively short-lived species, particularly on upper slopes and broad ridge tops, due in part to the drought susceptibility of the soils. Precipitation deficit exceeded 12 inches in each of the past two years, consequently, decline and mortality has accelerated in many areas. This stress, coupled with aging stands, renders scarlet and black oaks susceptible to insects and diseases.

More than 16,000 acres of mortality were mapped on the Salem and Potosi Districts by aerial survey in September of 2000. Subsequent ground verification showed red oak borer was associated with the damage, along with secondary agents, including Armillari root disease, Hypoxylon canker, and two-lined chestnut borer.

Increasing numbers of dead and dying trees invigorates populations of Armillari root rot, placing residual trees at increased risk of attack. Trees attacked by red oak borer serve as broad trees, increasing their numbers, and putting even more pressure on the remaining susceptible host trees.

Mark Twain National Forest, Forest Health Protection (USDA FS, State and Private Forestry), North Central Forest Experiment Station, Missouri Department of Conservation, Ozark National Forest, and Arkansas Forestry Commission have been collecting information about the decline in forest health in the Ozark Highlands. These agencies are interested in quantifying the severity of the decline and mortality in affected stands, monitoring the progression of the red oak borer and implementing long-term strategies to limit the impacts of these insects and disease.

Four environmental analyses are currently underway within the analysis area for this proposal. They are Johnson Mountain, Buick, Fletcher Salvage and 4.1-3 Management Area. The Forest has decided to incorporate these four analyses into this proposal due to the declining forest health in these ares.

Several preliminary issues have been identified. They include: (1) Commercial harvests and the role of public forests in supplying goods and services; (2) the application of even-aged and uneven-aged timber harvest; (3) improving forest health; (4) economic effects of the widespread oak decline and mortality in the oak ecosystems found across Missouri and Arkansas; (5) effects of alternatives considered in the ongoing analysis of the Area of Influence for the Indiana Bat; (6) visual impacts of proposed management activities; (7) fuel build-up and greater risks for catastrophic wildland fire; and (8) the environmental effects of management activities and decline to threatened and endangered species.

A range of alternatives that address the decline in forest health will be considered. A No Action alternative will be analyzed. Other alternatives will be developed that may consider the use of various commercial vegetation management activities, non-commercial activities to achieve management objectives, or different combinations of activities. Issues generated through this public involvement process will be considered in the development of the alternatives.

The decision to be made will be what combination of management activities, if any, should be selected to improve the health of the forest, reduce the adverse ecological, social, and economic impacts of the insect infestation, while providing for public health and safety.

The Draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and be available for public review by October 1, 2001. At that time, the EPA will publish a notice of availability of the DEIS in the Federal Register . The comment period on the draft will be 45 days from the date the EPA notice appears in the Federal Register .

It is very important that those interested in the management of the Mark Twain National Forest participate during the DEIS comment period. To be useful, comments on the DEIS should be as specific as possible, and address the adequacy of the statement or the merits of the alternatives discussed (see the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (CEQ) for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA at 40 CFR 1503.0).

The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers notice at this early stage of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposals so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions.

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Cor. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 533 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft EIS stage may be waived if not raised until after completion of the final EIS, City of Arnoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1988), and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objectives are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final EIS.

Comments on the draft EIS should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft EIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement (Reviewers may wish to refer to CEQ Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points). After the comment period ends on the draft environmental impact statement, the comments received will be analyzed and considered by the Forest Service in preparing the final EIS.

The final EIS is scheduled for completion in January of 2002. In the final EIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to the comments received (40 CFR 1503.4). The responsible official will consider the comments, responses, environmental consequences discussed in the EIS, and applicable laws, regulations and policies in making a decision regarding this proposal. The responsible official will document the decision and reasons for the decision in a Record of Decision.

The decision will be subject to appeal under 36 CFR part 215.

Responsible Official: The responsible official is Randy Moore, Forest Supervisor, Mark Twain National Forest, 401 Fairgrounds Road, Rolla, MO 65401.

Public participation will be an integral component of the study process and will be especially important at several points during the analysis. The first is during the scoping process. The Forest Service will be seeking information, comments, and assistance from Federal, State, local and tribal agencies, individuals and organizations that may be interested in, or affected by, the proposed activities. The scoping process includes: (1) Identification of potential issues; (2) identification of issues to be analyzed in depth; (3) elimination of insignificant issues or those which have been covered by a previous environmental review, and (4) suggestions for possible alternatives.

Opportunities to provide both written and verbal comment and to provide feedback on the process will be made available. A public meeting will be scheduled after the Draft EIS is published. This active scoping will begin with the publication of this Notice of Intent (NOI) and continue through preparation of the Draft EIS.

Based on results of scoping and the resource capabilities within the project area, alternatives including a “no action” alternative will be developed for the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS is projected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in early December 2001. Subsistence hearings, as provided for in Title VIII, Section 810 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), if needed, will be held during the comment period on the Draft EIS. The Final EIS is anticipated by March 2002.

The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be a minimum of 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. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553, (1978). Environmental objections that could have been raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2nd 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns of the proposed action, comments during scoping and 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. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposed action and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR Parts 215 or 217. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. Requesters should be aware that, under FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding the request for confidentiality, and where the request is denied, the agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address within 7 days.

Permits: Permits required for implementation may include the following:

Responsible Official: Thomas Puchlerz, Forest Supervisor, Tongas National Forest, Federal Building, Ketchikan, Alaska 99901, is the responsible official. The responsible official will consider the comments, response, disclosure of environmental consequences, and applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making the decision and stating the rationale in the Record of Decision.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program number assigned to this program is 10.857.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) (the “Act”), OMB must approve all “collections of information” by RUS. The Act defines “collection of information” as a requirement for “answer to * * * identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or more persons * * *.” (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A).) RUS has concluded that the reporting requirements contained in this NOFA will involve less than 10 persons and do not require approval under the provisions of the Act.

For FY 2001, RUS will make available up to $5,000,000 under a new grant program authorized by section 19 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq. ). Section 19(a)(3) authorizes the Secretary, acting through RUS, to make grants to State entities that were in existence as of November 30, 2000, the date of the enactment of section 19, “to establish and support a revolving fund to provide a more cost-effective means of purchasing fuel where the fuel cannot be shipped by means of surface transportation.” Fuel purchases typically would include, but are not limited to purchases of fuel oil, diesel, gasoline, and other petroleum products, coal, or other energy fuels. Section 19(b)(2) provides that not more than 4 percent of the amounts made available under these grants may be used for planning and administrative expenses.

RUS is interested in gaining experience in the use of State revolving loan funds designed to help persons, particularly those in the more isolated rural areas, to manage their energy needs. RUS believes that such partnerships with State entities may serve to create new approaches to meeting the energy needs of rural residents. In considering applications for financial assistance under this grant program, RUS has determined to give particular consideration to projects that meet the needs of the persons in the most isolated rural areas.

As used in this NOFA:

“Eligible area” means any area where fuel cannot be shipped routinely by means of surface transportation and must be delivered by water or air for a significant part of the year. Eligible areas include areas where fuel delivery by means of surface transportation is not practical or is prohibitively expensive and the area is primarily dependent on delivery of fuel by water or air.

“Fuel” means coal, oil, gasoline, and other petroleum products, and any other material that can be burned to make energy.

“State entity” means an agency, department, or instrumentality, or political subdivision of any of the several States of the United States or the District of Columbia, exclusive of local governments.

“Surface transportation” means transportation by road, rail, or pipeline.

Grantees must use grant funds to establish and support a revolving loan fund. The grantee must demonstrate that projects and activities that receive loans or other assistance under this grant will improve the cost-effectiveness of fuel purchases for persons in eligible areas. No more than 4 percent of grant funds may be used for planning and administrative expenses of the revolving fund.

The amount of funds available for grants in FY 2001 is $5,000,000. The number of grant awards depends on the amount, quality, and competitiveness of applications submitted. RUS reserves the right to make one award in the full amount of $5,000,000. If, as a result of the evaluation of applications as provided in this NOFA, one or more applications are scored within 10 points of the application with the highest rank order, the RUS Administrator shall limit individual grant awards to $3,000,000 and fund such grant applications in rank order, except that the Administrator may exceed the $3,000,000 individual grant limit to ensure that grants are made in the aggregate amount of $5,000,000. RUS will advise applicants if it can not fully fund a grant request.

Section 19 of the RE Act restricts eligible applicants to State entities, as defined above, in existence as of November 9, 2000. State grant recipients may partner with other entities, including other government agencies in carrying out the programs funded under these grants.

Grant applications should be prepared in conformance with the provisions of this NOFA and applicable USDA regulations including 7 CFR parts 3015 and 3016. Applicants must submit a completed Standard Form (SF) 424, “Application for Federal Assistance,” a narrative grant proposal that establishes eligibility and addresses the selection criteria, and all required supporting information and documents. The applicant should submit an original and two copies of the proposal, with all required forms and documentation in one package as provided in the Addresses section of this NOFA.

Copies of required forms are available by request from the Agency contact or online through the RUS website at http://www.usda.gov/rus/electric/index.htm. Because of the short time period allowed for preparation and submittal of applications in this new grant program, RUS encourages applicants to consult with the agency contact person to resolve any questions or uncertainties about what is required to prepare and submit a grant application.

Applicants should follow the guidelines of this notice in preparing their applications. The completed application should be assembled in the order specified with all pages numbered sequentially. The applicant must submit the following information for the application to be complete and considered for funding:

A completed SF 424 must be signed by an official authorized to submit the proposal on behalf of the State entity.

The grant proposal is a narrative description prepared by the applicant that establishes the applicant's eligibility and includes an assessment of the need for grant funds, a description of plans for use of grant funds, the potential benefits to be derived, and a proposed budget. Summary descriptions are adequate. Lengthy submissions are discouraged. The proposal should contain the following sections in the order indicated.

1. Executive Summary. The Executive Summary is a one page narrative summary that: (a) Identifies the State entity applying for the grant and the key agency contact with telephone and fax numbers, mailing address and email address; (b) states the amount of grant funds requested; and (c) provides a brief description of the proposed program including the estimated number of potential beneficiaries, i.e., persons or communities in eligible areas, their estimated fuel needs, the projects and activities to be financed through the revolving fund, and how financed projects and activities will improve the cost effectiveness of fuel procurement. The Executive Summary should also indicate whether the applicant is claiming additional scoring credits.

2. Applicant Eligibility. A brief narrative statement and supporting evidence establishing that the applicant is a State entity as defined in this notice, was in existence as of November 9, 2000, and has the legal authority to enter into a financial assistance relationship with the federal government. Examples of supporting evidence of eligibility include a reference to or copy of the relevant state statute, regulation, executive order, or legal opinion.

3. Assessment of Needs and Estimates of Potential Beneficiaries. In concise narrative form, estimates of the number, location, and population of potentially eligible areas in the State, and their estimated fuel needs and costs. The applicant should describe the criteria it uses to identify eligible areas, including the characteristics that make fuel deliveries by surface transport impossible or impractical and contribute to high energy costs. The population estimates should be based on U.S. Bureau of Census publications, where available. The applicant may support its assessment with exhibits such as maps, summary tables, and references to statistical information from the Bureau of the Census, the Energy Information Administration, state agencies, or private sources. Inclusion of information identifying the population in eligible areas may qualify the applicant for additional scoring credits based on the rurality of the area to be served.

The applicant should provide any appropriate information on the economic challenges facing potential beneficiaries including whether the eligible areas include a Federally-identified Empowerment Zone or Enterprise Community (EC/EZ) or a USDA designated Champion Community. The list of currently approved EC/EZ may be found at the EZ/EC website at: http://www.ezec.gov or may be requested from the agency contact. The list of currently designated Champion Communities may be found on the EZ/EC website at http://www.ezec.gov/Communit/champions.html or requested from the agency contact.

4. Program Overview. The applicant should describe the applicant's existing or proposed State revolving loan fund program, its proposed criteria for establishing eligibility of projects and activities to be financed through the program, how the program will improve the cost-effectiveness of fuel supply acquisition for eligible areas, and its proposed methods for evaluating program performance. The description should address the following:

a. Revolving fund program structure and management including its organizational structure, method of funding, legal authority, loan management experience, staff resources, the goals and objectives of the program, and any related services provided to program participants. If the revolving fund program is not yet operational, a proposed implementation schedule and milestones should be included. The applicant may, but is not required to, supplement its brief description with attachments to its application, such as, for example, annual reports, brochures, and loan agreements.

b. Beneficiary eligibility and selection. A brief description of any requirements to qualify for funding and the criteria to be used in establishing eligibility of projects and activities to be financed through the program. The applicant should describe how the potential beneficiaries will be informed of the revolving fund availability.

c. Cost effectiveness of funded projects and activities. The applicant should explain how the proposed revolving loan fund program will help provide cost-effective means of meeting fuel supply needs in eligible areas. The applicant should identify aspects of its program that encourage adoption of financially sustainable energy practices, adequate planning and investment in bulk fuel facility operations and maintenance, and cost-effective investments in energy efficiency taking into account resources available and characteristics of energy use within the eligible areas. For example, the revolving fund could support loans to upgrade fuel handling and storage capability, to fund the advance purchase, delivery and storage of fuel, and to secure volume and other purchase discounts. Where possible, the applicant should estimate the amount of cost savings to be realized and provide some documentation or references to support its statements on savings and improved services. The applicant should also describe how it plans to evaluate program success in conformance with its goals and objectives.

5. Proposed budget for use of grant funds. A proposed budget should be submitted on SF 424A, “Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs.” The budget identifies how the grant funds will be used. No more than 4 percent of the grant funds can be used for planning and administrative expenses of the revolving loan fund. The applicant should also identify the source and amount of any other funds that will be used to support and sustain the revolving fund activities. There is no requirement for supplemental or matching funds under this grant program; however, RUS will award additional selection points to applicants based on the ability to support and sustain the revolving fund, including through access to additional funding.

6. Any additional information that addresses the selection criteria or that the applicant believes relevant.

The Applicant shall execute and submit with the initial application the following forms and certifications establishing compliance with other federal requirements:

These forms may be obtained from the Agency contact listed above or through the RUS website at http://www.usda.gov/rus/electric/index.htm .

All applications for grants must be delivered to RUS at the address listed above or postmarked no later than August 6, 2001 to be eligible for FY 2001 grant funding. RUS will review each application for conformance with the provisions of this NOFA. RUS may contact the applicant for additional information or clarification. Incomplete applications will not be considered. Applications conforming with this NOFA will then be evaluated competitively by a panel of RUS employees selected by the Administrator and points awarded as described in the Evaluation Criteria and Weights Section below. After assigning points based on those criteria, the applications will be listed in rank order to the Administrator of RUS who will award the grants. The Administrator reserves the right to add 10 points to any proposal to ensure geographic distribution. Applications will then be funded in rank order until all available funds have been expended. If one or more applications are scored within 10 points of the application with the highest rank order, the RUS Administrator shall limit individual grant awards to $3,000,000 and fund such grant applications in rank order, except that the Administrator may exceed the $3,000,000 individual grant limit to ensure that grants are made in the aggregate amount of $5,000,000. RUS will advise applicants if it can not fully fund a grant request.

RUS will evaluate each application according to the selection criteria described in this NOFA and award points up to the maximum number indicated under each criteria.

Reviewers will consider the approach and viability of the applicant's program design, including the goals and objectives of the program, the proposed criteria for establishing eligibility of projects and activities for loans and financial assistance, and how the program will improve the cost-effectiveness of bulk fuel purchases. Reviewers will also consider the extent to which the proposal will promote the adoption of financially sustainable energy practices, adequate planning and investment in bulk fuel facility operations and maintenance, and cost-effective investments in energy efficiency taking into account the resources available and the characteristics of energy use within eligible areas. The reviewers will consider the applicant's proposed budget, the adequacy of resources, and the evidence of sound loan and financial management practices.

Reviewers will consider the applicant's identification of potential beneficiaries, i.e. persons in eligible areas, the applicant's assessment of bulk fuel needs, the costs, including delivery costs of fuel for the beneficiaries, and the challenges to be addressed by the program. Information on the severity of physical and economic challenges affecting eligible areas will be considered.

Reviewers will consider the applicant's proposed measures to evaluate and report on the success and cost-effectiveness of projects and activities financed by the revolving loan fund and whether the results obtained will contribute to program improvements for the applicant or for other States seeking to implement similar programs.

Reviewers will consider the past accomplishments and experience of the applicant, including whether the applicant has demonstrated experience in administering a revolving fund providing financing for bulk fuel purchases or facilities.

Reviewers will consider the rurality of the eligible areas proposed to be served with grant funds to assure that the needs of less densely populated rural areas are considered. For purposes of determining the rurality of the eligible area, applicants shall use the latest publications of the Bureau of the Census. If the majority of persons in eligible areas live outside of communities of 2,500 persons or more, the applicant will receive 15 points. If the majority of persons in eligible areas live outside of communities of 5,000 persons or more, the applicant will receive 10 points. If the majority of persons in eligible areas live outside of communities of 20,000 persons or more, the applicant will receive 5 points. If the majority of persons in eligible areas live in communities of more than 20,000 persons, the applicant will receive no points. Any proposal, however, that gives priority in assistance to projects that benefit persons living outside of communities of 2,500 or more will receive 5 additional points.

The following examples, each of which assumes a total population of 12,000 within eligible areas, illustrate how points will be awarded for comparative rurality under this criterion:

Case 1: There is one community of 4,000 within the eligible areas. The majority of persons (i.e. 8,000 of 12,000) live outside of communities of 2,500 or more. Award: 15 points.

Case 2: There are two communities. One has a population of 2,600; the other has 5,100. The majority of persons (i.e. 12,000−5,100=6,900) live outside of communities of 5,000 or more, but not outside of communities of 2,500 or more. Award: 10 points.

Case 3: There are two communities. One has a population of 2,000; the other has 7,000. The majority of persons (i.e. 7,000) live outside of communities of 20,000, but not outside of communities of 5,000. Award: 5 points.

Reviewers will consider the ability of the applicant to support and sustain the revolving fund, including access to additional funding sources. If the proposal includes additional funding from state or other sources to support the revolving fund, the maximum 5 points will be awarded.

Reviewers will consider whether the eligible areas include a Federally-identified Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Community (EC/EZ ). If the eligible area includes at least one EC/EZ area, 10 points will be awarded. The list of currently approved EC/EZ areas may be found at the EZ/EC website at: http://www.ezec.gov or may be requested from the agency contact.

Reviewers will consider whether the eligible areas include at least one community that is a USDA identified “Champion Community.” If a Champion Community is included in the eligible areas, 8 points will be awarded. The list of currently approved USDA champion communities may be found at the EZ/EC website at http://www.ezec.gov/Communit/champions.html or may be requested from the agency contact.

RUS will notify successful grantees of the awards. Successful applicants will be required to execute a grant agreement satisfactory to RUS, complete additional forms, and otherwise comply with applicable federal statutes and regulations required by USDA. Among other matters, the grantee may be asked to provide information, documents, and agreements necessary to comply with applicable environmental regulations and will be required to provide periodic financial and performance reports and submit a final project performance report.

Several other federal statutes and regulations apply to proposals considered for review and to the grant awarded. These include, but are not limited to:

The Census Bureau implemented the Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) program for Census 2000. Participating state, local, and tribal governments were given the opportunity to review and update the Census Bureau's address list in mail response areas before it was used for the actual census enumeration. In cases where the state, local, or tribal government and the Census Bureau could not agree on the housing unit address list, the governmental unit could use an appeal process administered by the Census Address List Appeals Office. The Census Bureau also used the LUCA Special Places program to involve state, local, and tribal governments in helping to identify special places, such as college dormitories, nursing homes, and other types of group living arrangements.

Governmental units in areas where the Census Bureau used city-style addresses to mail census questionnaires, in addition to the LUCA, had another opportunity to update their Census 2000 address lists via the New Construction Program. We also conducted the Boundary Validation Program in which we provided state, local, or tribal officials with maps that showed the January 1, 2000, boundaries of their jurisdiction and asked them to make corrections, if necessary.

The Census Bureau had a number of extensive operations that afforded opportunities for additions, corrections, and deletions of census addresses and corrections of population counts. Between May and August 2000, the Coverage Edit Follow-Up Operation resolved population count discrepancies and obtained additional information on households with more than six persons. The Coverage Improvement Follow-Up (CIFU) Operation (June-August 2000) was designed to improve coverage of housing units that may have been inaccurately classified as vacant or nonexistent in an earlier census operation. Additionally, housing unit additions discovered during the Update/Leave and Urban Update/Leave questionnaire delivery operations, during periodic Delivery Sequence File updates from the United States Postal Service, and through the LUCA appeals process are enumerated in CIFU. Addresses submitted via the New Construction Program by local and tribal governments were visited by enumerators for the first time during CIFU.

During July and August 2000, the Residual Nonresponse Follow-Up Operation completed questionnaires for housing units where identification numbers existed for forms that were checked out of the Local Census Office, were not included in the CIFU, and did not have census data captured. The Field Verification Operation (July-August 2000) verified specific addresses that did not match the Decennial Master Address File. Another operation was conducted from July through August 2000, to determine the number of people in housing units that the Nonresponse Follow-Up Operation (April-June 2000) had identified as occupied, but the number of occupants were unknown.

Data collection for Census 2000 ended in the Local Census Offices on or before August 30, 2000. This schedule allowed the Census Bureau time to produce the state level apportionment counts by December 31, 2000, as required by law.

Independent of Census 2000, the Census Bureau conducted the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (A.C.E.) operation that included a coverage measurement survey that was expected to determine and correct for the number of people and housing units missed or erroneously included in Census 2000. This was a nationwide sample survey of about 314,000 housing units. All enumeration activities, as well as personal interview follow-ups, were completed by late November 2000.

Although many state, local, and tribal governments participated in the LUCA and New Construction programs and the Census Bureau conducted an extensive quality improvement program, the Census Bureau still expects to receive challenges after it releases the official Census 2000 housing unit and group quarters population counts contained in the Demographic Profiles, which are scheduled for release between May and July 2001. The CQR start date of June 30, 2001, also is coordinated with the release of the Summary File 1 (SF1) on a state-by-state basis between June and September 2001. The SF1 will provide block-level data containing the number of housing units. It also will show group quarters population counts by block.

State, local, and tribal government officials must contact the Census Bureau directly to initiate the challenge process. (The specific mailing address is provided in the section entitled “Exhibit—Additional Information” at the end of this notice.) The Census Bureau will accept challenges from various officials including county clerks, city planners, local planning board representatives, tribal councils, and state legislative representatives with redistricting functions within each state and state equivalents who are acting on the behalf of a state, local, or tribal entity.

This rule of agency procedure is not subject to the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment (see 5 U.S.C. 553 (b)(A)). Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required by Title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.) 553 or any other law, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required and has not been prepared (5 U.S.C. 603 (a)).

This notice has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. This program does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a federalism assessment under E.O. 13132.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C., chapter 35, unless that collection of information displays a current valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. In accordance with the PRA, OMB approved the survey under control number 0607-0879. The estimated burden hours are 15,600.

Corrections for three types of challenges will be considered as a result of the Census 2000 CQR program. (For acceptable documentation to initiate such challenges, refer to the section “Criteria for Acceptable Documentation Necessary to Initiate the Census 2000 CQR Process.”)

(1) Boundary corrections —Census 2000 respects the proper alignment of the boundaries of actively functioning governmental units and legal administrative areas within governments as legally in effect on January 1, 2000. Census 2000 also uses the boundaries of statistical entities that serve as the surrogates for a legal entity for selected entities as submitted and verified in statistical areas programs. The Census Bureau needs to ensure that the geographic assignment information provided does not, in fact, reflect legal boundary changes made after January 1, 2000 or statistical boundary changes after verification. Problems, such as the inaccurate reporting of legal or statistical area boundaries and the inaccurate recording of such boundaries by the Census Bureau, will be addressed by the CQR program. The boundaries of other geographic areas, such as most census designated places, census tracts, voting districts, school districts, and similar areas are not in the scope of the Census 2000 CQR program. See question “3” in the section entitled “Exhibit—Additional Information” for specific information concerning the geographic entities for which challenges will be processed.

(2) Geocoding corrections —These corrections affect the placement of living quarters and associated population within the correct boundaries or census block. Even if the CQR process does not result in a change to the total count for a state, local, or tribal jurisdiction, we will send a letter to the state, local, or tribal government official with a CQR submission when the Census Bureau moves group quarters or housing units to different blocks within the jurisdiction.

(3) Data Processing corrections —This category includes data on specific living quarters and persons residing therein that were identified and collected during the Census 2000 process but erroneously included or excluded due to processing errors.

Corrected CQR counts issued will be based on the housing unit and population counts as of April 1, 2000, and may be used by governmental entities for all programs requiring official Census 2000 data. The CQR program is not a mechanism or process to challenge the March 6, 2001, decision of the Secretary of Commerce to release unadjusted numbers from Census 2000 for redistricting purposes; nor is it a mechanism or process to challenge or revise the numbers sent to the President on December 28, 2000, to be used to apportion the U.S. House of Representatives. The Census Bureau will not make corrections to the data concerning the characteristics of the population and housing inventory. The corrected counts will be reflected in the Census Bureau's decennial file modified for use in making postcensal estimates that will be released on a flow basis beginning in December 2002. An inventory of corrections also will be available on the American FactFinder Internet Data Access System (errata) and updated periodically. Base files for the Census 2000 will remain unrevised so that none of the standard Census 2000 data products will reflect the corrections.

When a state, local, or tribal government provides evidence that the Census Bureau missed housing units or group quarters that existed on April 1, 2000, but the CQR research and Census 2000 records show that all of the Census Bureau's boundary information, geocoding, and processing were correctly implemented, the Census Bureau will respond by sending a letter to the official or his/her representative stating that the Census Bureau will maintain the documentation for consideration in the context of address list updating activities over the decade.

Changes to the boundaries or counts for a legal entity or statistical equivalent also may result from Census Bureau initiated research and review of census files. The Census Bureau reviews Census 2000 data by checking for data reasonableness, internal and intra-product consistency, and consistency with historical and external data sources. This review process begins with an analysis by Census Bureau staff, the federal-State Cooperative Program for Population Estimates, and others. Reviewers identify, address, and/or explain issues or problems related to coverage, content, processing, and geocoding. Unresolved potential problems will be forwarded to the CQR staff for additional analysis. Changes made as result of this internal review and/or research will be incorporated into the CQR process and documented the same as changes based on jurisdictional CQR challenges. For those cases where changes to the housing unit and/or population counts are made, new official counts will be issued to the affected jurisdictions.

The Census Bureau will require documentation before committing resources to investigate concerns raised by state, local, and tribal officials or their representatives about boundary and geographic assignment errors or the accuracy of the census housing unit or group quarters population counts. In general, when submitting a challenge, governmental entities must:

• Specify whether the challenge disputes the location of a boundary or the number of housing units and/or group quarters population counts in one or more tabulation blocks or both the boundaries and housing/unit group quarters population counts.

• For boundary disputes, indicate on a map the location of the boundary in dispute; that is, it must be shown where the Census Bureau incorrectly depicts the boundary and show the correct boundary legally in effect as of January 1, 2000, or delineated for a statistical entity for Census 2000. For those boundary disputes that also will affect housing units or group quarters population counts, the governmental unit also needs to follow the rules for those types of challenges where the new boundary splits a Census 2000 tabulation block. (For types of maps that can be used, refer to the section “Types of Acceptable Paper Maps.”)

• For housing unit challenges, identify the specific county, census tract, and Census 2000 tabulation block(s) that is being contested and provide a list of addresses of all housing units in that block on April 1, 2000. (See the section “Challenge Criteria: Housing Unit Count.”)

• For group quarters (see Census Bureau group quarters definition listed under “Definition of Key Terms”) challenges, provide the name of the group quarters and evidence, e.g., a listing of patients residing in the XYZ Nursing Home as of April 1, 2000, that supports the number of persons residing there on April 1, 2000.

Show the specific county, census tract, and Census 2000 tabulation block in which the group quarters population is being contested.

• Provide electronic or paper versions of documentation to support the challenge.

All boundary challenges must be based on boundaries that were legally in effect on January 1, 2000, or submitted and verified as the correct boundaries of statistical areas for use in Census 2000. The Census Bureau will compare the maps and appropriate supporting documentation submitted by the challenging entity with information used by the Census Bureau to depict the boundaries for Census 2000.

Maps submitted by state, local, and tribal governments must show the correct location of the boundary and the portion of the boundary that the Census Bureau depicted incorrectly, including the county, census tract number, and Census 2000 tabulation block numbers associated with the boundary correction area. The state, local, or tribal government also should provide the Census Bureau with a list of addresses in affected tabulation blocks, indicating their location in relationship to the boundary requiring correction.

For boundary changes effected by legal actions not recorded by the Census Bureau, state and local governments must submit the effective date and ordinance number or law that resulted in the boundary change, provide evidence that the state certifying official has approved the boundary change (if a municipal boundary), and provide a statement that the boundary is not under litigation. The change also must be certified in writing, on each map, by an official of the state, local, or tribal government. Tribal governments must submit documentation of the federal law, executive order, deed of trust, or other type of legal action that effected a legal change in reservation or off-reservation trust land boundaries, and a statement that the boundary is not under litigation. Regardless of whether the Census Bureau changes boundaries or does not change boundaries as a result of the CQR evidence and the Census Bureau's research, the Census Bureau will notify the complainant and any affected adjacent governmental entity(es) of the results.

• Paper Census 2000 Public Law 94-171 County Block Maps—These maps are based on a county or statistically equivalent entity and accompany the Redistricting Data Summary Files.

• Paper Census 2000 Redistricting Municipio Block Maps for Puerto Rico—These maps are municipio-based and accompany the Puerto Rico Redistricting Data File.

• Paper Census 2000 Block Maps—These are entity based maps provided to state, local, and tribal jurisdictions and show tabulation block numbers. They are a companion map for the Demographic Profiles that will contain information on population totals, including group quarters and selected population and housing characteristics.

• Paper Maps based on the 2000 TIGER/Line® File—These user-defined maps are generated by state, local, or tribal governments based on information from the Census Bureau's 2000 TIGER/Line® files using commercial geographic information systems. These maps must identify the state, county and/or statistical equivalent, census tract, tabulation block, and any other legal or statistical entity boundary or code involved in a challenge. If a challenge involves an American Indian reservation or off-reservation trust lands, the maps must identify the American Indian area, census tract, and tabulation block boundary.

• Other Paper Maps Showing Census Bureau 2000 Tabulation Block Numbers and Boundaries—These maps must identify the state, county and/or statistical equivalent, census tract, tabulation block, and any other legal or statistical entity boundary or code involved in a challenge. If a challenge involves an American Indian reservation or off-reservation trust lands, the maps must identify the American Indian area, census tract, and tabulation block boundary. In general, local-or-tribal-created paper maps should be comparable to Census 2000 maps.

Supporting evidence that specifically reflects the validity of any address list source must reflect residential addresses that existed as viable living quarters on April 1, 2000. Challenges to housing unit counts must specify the county or statistically equivalent entity, census tract(s), and tabulation block(s) for which the counts are being challenged.

SF1 can be used to obtain tabulation block housing unit counts. Complainants must provide a complete address list for all units that should be included in each contested block. (Refer to the section “Types of Address Lists.”)

State, local, or tribal officials must certify that the addresses on their lists existed and could be lived in on April 1, 2000. See the Census Bureau's “housing unit” definition listed under the section, “Definitions of Key Terms.”

Supporting evidence should reflect the validity of any address list source dated no later than April 1, 2000. Challenges to group quarters population counts must identify the county or statistically equivalent entity, the census tract, and the tabulation block(s) for which the counts are being challenged. A group quarters is defined as a place where people live or stay other than the usual house, apartment, or mobile home. Two general types of group quarters are recognized: institutional (for example, nursing homes, mental hospitals/wards, hospital/wards for chronically ill patients, hospices, and State prisons) and noninstitutional (for example, college or university dormitories, military quarters, military barracks, group homes, and halfway houses). Special places and group quarters may have housing units on the premises for staff and/or guests.

SF1 can be used to obtain tabulation block group quarters population counts. Jurisdictions must provide a complete address list (refer to the section “Types of Address Lists”) for all group quarters units that should be included in each contested block. (For the definition of group quarters, see the section “Definitions of Key Terms.”)

The state, local, or tribal official should certify that the addresses for group quarters on their lists were viable living quarters on April 1, 2000.

• City-Style Address Lists—These lists must contain city-style addresses (house number, street name, Post Office name, state, and ZIP Code) identifying the county or statistically equivalent entity and organized by Census 2000 tabulation block within census tract. Housing unit identifiers in multiunit buildings (such as apartment numbers) must be included, if applicable.

• Non-City-Style Address Lists—Non-city-style addresses must be keyed to the state, local, or tribal government's map-spotted maps, that is, maps that show the exact location of the housing unit. The list should be focused on the specific area and/or addresses where the problem exists. All housing units in the disputed block must be map spotted, that is, the location of each housing unit must be marked on a map with a dot and given a corresponding number for identification purposes and a description of the housing unit and location must be supplied. The following is an example of a map-spotted address and housing unit description: Map Spot 4567-01, Derby Road, 2-story house on left with red brick chimney, 1/2 mile from the intersection of Highways 12 and 19, Anytown, Georgia 10020.

Provide the name, address, and telephone number for the administrative office of the facility (special place and group quarters) as of April 1, 2000. In addition, provide the county or statistically equivalent entity, census tract, and tabulation block number for the location of the group quarters.

The Census Bureau will investigate challenges to determine whether information about the existence of a housing unit or occupied group quarters on April 1, 2000, was identified but does not appear in the final census files due to an error in processing the information. The Census Bureau will not collect new information.

American FactFinder —The generalized electronic system for access and dissemination for much of the Census Bureau's data. The system is available through the Internet and offers prepackaged data products and the ability to build custom products. The system serves as the vehicle for accessing and disseminating data from Census 2000 (as well as the 1997 Economic Censuses and the American Community Survey).

Block (census block) —A geographic area bounded on all sides by visible features such as streets, roads, streams, and railroad tracks, and occasionally by non-visible boundaries such as city, town, or county limits. Blocks do not cross census tract or block numbering area boundaries. A block is the smallest geographic entity for which the Census Bureau tabulates decennial census information.

Census Tract —A small, relatively permanent statistical subdivision of a county in a metropolitan area or a selected non-metropolitan county, delineated by a local committee of census data users for the purpose of tabulating and presenting decennial census data. Census tract boundaries normally follow visible features, but may follow governmental unit boundaries and other non-visible features. Census tracts generally contain between 1,000 and 8,000 people, and average about 1,700 housing units and 4,000 people.

Census Designated Place —A geographically defined statistical entity delineated for each decennial census according to Census Bureau guidelines comprising a densely settled concentration of population that is not incorporated or established by law but is locally recognized and identified by a name.

County —A type of governmental unit that is the primary legal subdivision of every state except Alaska and Louisiana. Alaska has boroughs, census areas, city and boroughs, and municipalities. Louisiana has parishes.

Demographic Profile —A one-page table containing data for a geographic entity that provides information on total population, sex, age, race, Hispanic or Latino origin, household relationship, group quarters population, household type, housing occupancy, and housing tenure.

Group quarters —A place where people live or stay other than the usual house, apartment, or mobile home. The Census Bureau recognizes two general types of group quarters are recognized: institutional (for example, nursing homes, mental hospitals/wards, hospital/wards for chronically ill patients, hospices, and State prisons) and noninstitutional (for example, college or university dormitories, military quarters, military barracks, group homes, and halfway houses). Special places and group quarters may have housing units on the premises for staff and/or guests.

Housing unit —A house, an apartment, a mobile home or trailer, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied as a separate living quarters, or, if vacant, is intended for occupancy as a separate living quarters. A housing unit is defined as a living quarters that is closed to the elements and has all exterior windows and doors installed and final usable floors in place. For vacant units, the criteria of separateness and direct access are applied to the intended occupants, whenever possible. If that information cannot be obtained, the criteria are applied to the previous occupants.

Local Census Office —A temporary Census Bureau office established for Census 2000 data collection purposes. These offices managed address listing field work, conducted local recruiting, administered census taking, and created a local presence. They were called “district office” in previous censuses.

Municipio —A primary legal subdivision of Puerto Rico (synonymous to a county).

Overseas counts —Counts of military and federal civilian personnel stationed overseas and their dependents living with them.

Postcensal Estimates —Population estimates for the years following the last published decennial census. Existing data series, such as births, deaths, federal tax returns, medicare enrollment, and immigration and housing unit information are used to update the decennial census counts during the estimating process. These estimates are used in federal funding allocations, monitoring recent demographic trends, and benchmarking many federally funded survey totals.

Public Law 94-171 —The federal law amending Section 141 of Title 13 directing the Secretary of Commerce (who delegates that responsibility to the Director of the Census Bureau) to provide selected decennial census data tabulations to the states by April 1 of the year following the census. These tabulations are used by the states to redefine the areas included in each congressional district and the areas used for state and local elections, a process called redistricting.

Special Place —A place containing one or more group quarters, including hotels and campgrounds. A special place also may include housing units occupied by staff or guests.

Summary File 1 —A data file that presents counts and basic cross-tabulations of information collected from all people and housing units. This information includes age, sex, race, Hispanic or Latino origin, household relationship, and whether the residence is owned or rented. Data will be available down to the block level for many tabulations, but limited to the census tract level in cases where there are concerns with disclosure. Summaries also will be included for most other geographic areas, such as places, county subdivisions, ZIP Code tabulation areas and 106th congressional districts.

This section provides additional information on how the Census 2000 CQR program will operate.

1. Where should a governmental unit submit a challenge for the Census 2000 CQR program?

Governmental units challenging the completeness or accuracy of the Census 2000 counts should submit their challenge in writing to: U.S. Census Bureau, Room 2002/2, Decennial Management Division, Count Question Resolution 4700 Silver Hill Road, Stop 7100, Washington, DC 20233-7100.

2. Will the Census Bureau make corrections to the census counts based on information submitted by governmental units?

The Census Bureau will make corrections if research indicates they are warranted. Our experience has shown that many of the questions received from the state, local, or tribal officials do not reflect errors in census counts. Questions may result from an incorrect or incomplete understanding of the procedures used to take the census. In other instances, questions about census counts reflect a state, local, or tribal official's reliance on different enumeration concepts, definitions, geographic assignments, and/or the currency of the information in comparison to the census. The Census Bureau's determination of whether a correction is necessary will be based on the quality and completeness of the information provided by state, local, and tribal governmental unit representatives and the results of the Census Bureau's review of the census records.

3. For what types of geographic entities can CQR challenge be submitted and which entities are eligible to submit a CQR challenge?

An executive official or other official acting on the behalf of a local or tribal government must submit the CQR challenge to the Census Bureau.

The Census Bureau will research and, if necessary, correct the counts for:

• Counties and statistically equivalent entities.

• Minor civil divisions.

• Incorporated places, including consolidated cities.

• Census designated places in Hawaii and Puerto Rico only.

• Federally recognized American Indian reservations and off-reservation trust lands.

• American Indian tribal subdivisions.

• State recognized American Indian reservations (submitted by a state official).

• Alaska Native Regional Corporations.

• Statistical areas defined for American Indian tribes:

• Tribal designated statistical areas;

• Alaska Native village statistical areas;

• Oklahoma tribal statistical areas;

• State designated American Indian statistical areas (submitted by a state official); and

• Hawaiian home lands (submitted by a state official).

The Census Bureau will not process challenges for any other types of statistical or legally defined areas.

4. Will the Census Bureau incorporate corrections from the CQR process into the apportionment or redistricting data or subsequent data products?

The Census Bureau will not change the apportionment or redistricting counts to reflect corrections resulting from the CQR process. In accordance with the law, apportionment counts were delivered to the President on December 28, 2000, and the counts required for redistricting were delivered to the states by April 1, 2001.

CQR corrections also will not be incorporated in subsequent data products for Census 2000. This will allow the Census Bureau to maintain consistency between data products while maintaining the schedule for timely release of the data. However, the Census Bureau will issue a revised official Census 2000 population and housing unit counts for the affected governmental entity(es), maintain a list of CQR corrected areas on the American Factfinder , and will incorporate any corrections into its Postcensal Estimates program beginning in December 2002.

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

On March 8, 2001, the Department published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on aramid fiber formed of poly para-phenylene terephthalamide (PPD-T aramid) from the Netherlands. See Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Aramid Fiber Formed of Poly Para-Phenylene Terephthalamide from the Netherlands, 66 FR 13879 (March 8, 2001) ( Preliminary Results ). The review covers one manufacturer/exporter, Teijin Twaron BV (formerly Twaron Products V.o.F.), and its U.S. affiliate, Teijin Twaron USA, Inc. (formerly Twaron Products, Inc.) (collectively Twaron).

On February 8, 2001, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) determined in the five-year (sunset) review that revoking the existing antidumping order on imports of PPD-T aramid from the Netherlands would not likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. As a result of the ITC's negative determination, the existing antidumping duty order on imports of this product was revoked retroactive to January 1, 2000. See Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order on Aramid Fiber Formed of Poly Para-Phenylene Terepthalamide from the Netherlands, 66 FR 14540 (March 13, 2001) ( Revocation Notice ). Therefore, our review covers sales of this merchandise to the United States during the period June 1, 1999, through December 31, 1999.

Interested parties did not submit case briefs nor did they request a hearing. There have been no changes since the Preliminary Results .

The products covered by this review are all forms of PPD-T aramid from the Netherlands. These consist of PPD-T aramid in the form of filament yarn (including single and corded), staple fiber, pulp (wet or dry), spun-laced and spun-bonded nonwovens, chopped fiber, and floc. Tire cord is excluded from the class or kind of merchandise subject to this order. This merchandise is currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States ( HTSUS ) item numbers 5402.10.3020, 5402.10.3040, 5402.10.6000, 5503.10.1000, 5503.10.9000, 5601.30.0000, and 5603.00.9000. The HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. Our written description of the scope remains dispositive.

We received no comments from interested parties on our preliminary results. In addition, we have determined that no changes to our analysis are warranted for purposes of these final results. The final weighted-average percentage margin for Twaron for the period June 1, 1999, through December 31, 1999 is as follows:

The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b), we have calculated an importer-specific assessment rate by dividing the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the importer-specific sales by the total entered value of those same sales. Where the importer-specific assessment rate is above de minimis, we will instruct Customs to assess antidumping duties on that importer's entries of subject merchandise.

Furthermore, as a result of the ITC's negative sunset review determination with regard to PPD-T aramid from the Netherlands, the Department has revoked the antidumping duty order for this case, effective January 1, 2000, and we instructed the Customs Service to terminate suspension of liquidation for all entries of subject merchandise made on or after January 1, 2000. See Revocation Notice, 64 FR 14540. Therefore, we will not issue cash deposit instructions to Customs based on the results of this review.

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

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

We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

The information collection is for program evaluation of the Advanced Technology Program (ATP). Encouraging R&D collaboration to address technology challenges that have far-reaching industry-wide benefits is a key mission of the ATP. In ATP Joint Ventures, large companies, small companies, universities, and other organizations join together to carry out R&D projects that require the complementary expertise and capabilities of a wide range of firms and organizations. This information collection from ATP Joint Venture participants will address important issues relating to the characteristics and success of ATP Joint Ventures.

Telephone interviews.

OMB Number: None.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Businesses, non-profit organizations, and educational institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 400.

Estimated Time Per Response: 30 minutes per response.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 200.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: 0.

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

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

The purpose of the Technology Opportunities Program (TOP), formerly the Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance Program (TIIAP), is to promote the widespread and efficient use of advanced telecommunications services in the public and non-profit sectors to serve America's communities.

The program has the following objectives:

• To promote the widespread availability and use of digital network technologies;

• To increase the awareness in public and non-profit sectors of digital networking technologies and their benefits;

• To stimulate public and non-profit sector organizations to examine potential benefits of, and plan for, investments in digital network technologies;

• To provide a wide variety of model digital network technology projects for public and non-profit sector organizations to follow;

• To educate the public and non-profit sectors about best practices in implementing a wide variety of digital network projects; and,

• To help reduce disparities in access to, and use of, digital network technologies.

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), in administering TOP, has awarded 456 grants, in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In order to ensure that grant recipients are effectively promoting the efficient and widespread use of advanced telecommunications services to serve American communities and to comply with the Government Performance and Results Act, NTIA will collect and analyze quantitative and qualitative data relating to start-up documentation, quarterly and annual progress reports, and close-out documentation on TOP-funded projects.

NTIA seeks a mechanism whereby it can evaluate the impacts of its projects on an ongoing basis, monitor grants more efficiently and effectively, and provide timely technical assistance to grant recipients. To enable the Program to monitor and to analyze the impacts of the funded projects, TOP seeks to incorporate standardized quantitative and qualitative data elements into an online structured reporting system. The reporting system will include a set of core data elements that apply to all projects.

Data will be collected through the use of automated collection techniques. The information collection instrument to be used for this study will include a web-based structured reporting system for both quantitative and qualitative project information.

OMB Number: 0660-0015.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Regular Submission.

Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Government and Non-Profit Institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 50.

Estimated Time Per Response: Start-Up Documentation, 20 hours; Progress Reports, 4 hours; Annual Report, 0.5 hours; Final Closeout Report, 20 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,807.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Public: 0.

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

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

The current limits for Categories 341 and 363 are being increased for the recrediting of unused carryforward.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 65 FR 82328, published on December 28, 2000). Also see 65 FR 69910, published on November 21, 2000.

The current limit for Category 338/339 and the sublimit for Categories 338-S/339-S are being increased for carryforward.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 65 FR 82328, published on December 28, 2000). Also see 65 FR 66974, published on November 8, 2000.

The Record of Decision (ROD) in its entirety is provided as follows:

Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c), and the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality that implement NEPA procedures, 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, the Department of the Navy (DON) announces its decision to replace a physically deteriorating effluent outfall that discharges wastewater into the entrance channel of the Pearl Harbor Estuary with a deep ocean outfall into the open coastal waters of Mamala Bay where the effluent loading is less likely to adversely impact the environment.

The existing outfall has been operating under an administrative extension to a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) monitoring permit that expired on February 28, 1993. The Navy was advised by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9 on January 24, 1997, that a new NPDES permit will limit the discharge of nutrients and metals to levels below those presently permitted. Replacement of the existing outfall will reduce pollutant loadings and water quality deterioration in the Pearl Harbor Estuary, and enable DON to be in compliance. As described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), the DON will construct and operate a new deep ocean outfall. The new outfall will provide an effluent disposal system that meets environmental and other regulatory constraints. All practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected have been adopted.

On September 11, 1996, the DON published in the Federal Register (61 FR 47898) a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). On September 23, 1996, an EIS Preparation Notice was published in The Environmental Notice, a semi-monthly bulletin of the Hawaii State Department of Health (DOH). DON held two public scoping meetings on October 1 and October 2, 1996, in Honolulu, HI at Washington Intermediate School and Makalapa Elementary School, respectively. The EPA published a Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIS (DEIS) in the Federal Register on November 21, 1997 (62 FR 62303). An announcement was also placed in the December 8, 1997, issue of The Environmental Notice. DON held a public hearing to receive comments on the DEIS at Radford High School, Honolulu, HI, on December 17, 1997. In addition, DON distributed the DEIS to 124 government agencies, groups, and individuals. DON considered all oral and written comments in preparation of the FEIS. The EPA published a NOA for the FEIS in the Federal Register on May 4, 2001 (66 FR 22551). A NOA was also published in two local newspapers on May 4, May 5, and May 6, 2001. An announcement was also placed in the May 8, 2001, issue of The Environmental Notice.

DON initially considered six alternative methods for reducing the discharge of pollutant loadings from the effluent discharge into the Pearl Harbor Estuary. DON developed conceptual designs for the six alternative methods and conducted a preliminary analysis based on the following: (1) Purpose and need of the project; (2) 30-year life-cycle costs; and (3) feasibility of implementation including construction, operation, and maintenance. DON determined that of the six alternative methods, only the deep ocean outfall and the underground injection alternatives were reasonable. These two alternatives and the “no action” alternative were carried forward for further analysis, with the deep ocean outfall alternative being identified as the preferred alternative. The analysis of the deep ocean outfall alternative included an evaluation of the environmental impacts of various alignments and construction methods that included trenching, microtunneling, and pile-supported pipe above the ocean floor.

Based upon this analysis, DON has chosen to construct a deep ocean outfall that will discharge the wastewater into the open coastal waters of Mamala Bay. The “no action” alternative was rejected as it would not enable the Navy to satisfy reasonably foreseeable regulatory requirements. The underground injection alternative was ultimately rejected in favor of the deep ocean outfall alternative because of its higher 30-year life cycle cost, the fair to poor reliability of the technology involved, and uncertain impacts on adjacent water bodies. The deep ocean outfall alternative is the environmentally preferred alternative.

DON analyzed the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of each alternative on environmental resources involving land use and airspace; visual resources; socioeconomics; cultural resources; traffic and circulation; air quality; noise; biological resources; hydrological resources; utilities and services; public health and safety; and hazardous materials and waste. The only significant impacts that could result from the construction of the new WWTP outfall are discussed below.

There is potential for significant impacts on the aquatic environment from normal construction activities. DON and its contractor(s) will employ standard Best Management Practices for construction in coastal waters, such as daily inspection of equipment for conditions that could cause spills or leaks; cleaning of equipment prior to deployment in the water; proper location of storage, refueling, and servicing sites; and implementation of adequate spill response, storm weather preparation plans, and the use of silt curtains to minimize the potential impact.

There is potential for impacts on the marine environment from the expected increase in turbidity and suspended solids in the water during the construction phase. Turbidity from construction in shallow waters, which tend to be relatively calm, will be contained by the use of silt curtains. Strong wave and current actions in the deep water portions of the project area will act to minimize increased turbidity in those areas. Water quality monitoring will be conducted during the construction period to ensure that water quality standards are not exceeded. Pursuant to section 401 of the Clean Water Act, DON will obtain and comply with the conditions of a Water Quality Certification from the DOH. The proposed action is expected to meet the conditions of the NPDES permit required by the Hawaii DOH.

There is potential for minor impacts on corals from construction activities associated with the replacement outfall. Construction impacts to areas supporting coral growth have been minimized by careful selection of the preferred outfall alignment and construction methodologies. The aggregate coral coverage impacted by the replacement outfall along its entire length is expected to be less than one-fifth of one percent (i.e., <0.2 percent) of the total coral on the reef flat within the construction area. The corals that would be affected are not unique and are readily found off the southern shore of Oahu at similar depths.

There is potential danger from construction activities to marine species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Construction activities will cease if listed marine species are observed entering the active project construction site, and work will be allowed to resume only after the listed species departs the construction site on its own volition. The Pacific Islands Area Office of National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) will be notified of each such occurrence. Both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NMFS have concurred that neither listed species nor their habitat would be adversely impacted by normal construction activities associated with the deep ocean outfall. In the unlikely event that ordnance material is encountered that DON cannot safely remove or avoid, DON will, as appropriate, confer with NMFS before proceeding with construction in the area of the discovered ordnance material.

There is potential for impacts on public health and safety from encountering ordnance items in the construction corridor. Approximately two hundred dives were performed between November 1999 and December 2000 along the proposed construction corridor and along the Pearl Harbor Entrance Channel (PHEC). These dives identified six projectiles within the proposed construction corridor. These six projectiles were subsequently removed safely without in-water detonation. Based on information collected from these dives, it is likely that ordnance can be safely removed or avoided if it is encountered. The construction contractor will perform an independent survey for ordnance items by visual and/or remote metallic detection methods prior to construction. All workers will be informed of the ordnance hazards before construction activities begin. Public access to construction areas will be restricted. If an ordnance item is encountered during construction, work will stop in the affected area pending DON clearance.

EPA and a commercial entity provided comment letters. EPA's comments focused on construction related impacts to living coral and suitability of dredged material for ocean disposal.

EPA requested that DON include the following mitigation: take “appropriate and practicable steps” to minimize adverse impacts to corals; transplant living corals away from project area; and remove marine debris from the vicinity of the PHEC to generally enhance marine habitat. No exceptional, unusual, or large coral colonies are within the project area and, as discussed in the FEIS, potential impacts to the coral that is present have been minimized by careful selection of the outfall alignment and construction methodology (e.g., microtunneling and the use of silt curtains). Transplanting the small number of corals in the construction corridor that cannot be avoided is considered impracticable. The removal of marine debris from the vicinity of the PHEC would eliminate and degrade fish and threatened green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) habitat because it is heavily utilized by these species.

EPA also requested additional discussions on the suitability of the dredged material for ocean disposal. Pursuant to Section 103 of the Marine Protection Research Sanctuaries Act, DON has provided this information as part of the permitting process regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the EPA. The COE permit application included data indicating that the material proposed for disposal will be substantially the same as the existing substrate at the EPA designated South Oahu Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site and that the proposed dredged material site is located far from known pollution sources, therefore providing reasonable assurance that the material has not been contaminated. The COE permit will address concernns regarding ocean disposal.

The F.O.G. Corporation recommended use of its liquid bio-polymer to meet EPA discharge requirements and avoid construction of the outfall. The recommended bio-polymer product does not include removal of dissolved nutrients and therefore is not a viable alternative to the proposed action.

In determining how to dispose of wastewater effluent from the WWTP at Fort Kamehameha, I considered the following: present ability of the WWTP to comply with more stringent anticipated discharge wastewater effluent limits; technical feasibility; operational reliability; environmental impacts; costs associated with construction, operation, and maintenance of facilities; and comments received during the DEIS and FEIS public involvement periods.

After carefully weighing all of these factors and analyzing the data presented in the FEIS, I have determined that the preferred alternative, constructing a deep ocean outfall to replace the existing outfall, best meets the requirements for the disposal of wastewater effluent from the WWTP at Fort Kamehameha. Therefore, on behalf of the DON, I have decided to implement the proposed action by constructing a deep ocean replacement outfall and to retain the existing outfall for emergency bypass purposes. In addition to the specific mitigation measures identified in this ROD, the DON will continue to review its operational procedures and coordinate with other federal, state, and local entities as necessary to determine if any additional mitigation measure are feasible and practicable.

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

Type of Review: New Collection.

Title: Evaluation of Title I Accountability Systems and School Improvement Efforts (TASSIE)—Data Collection Instrument (JM).

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs (primary), Federal Government.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 10300.

 Burden Hours: 6990.

Abstract: The purpose of the Evaluation of Title I Accountability Systems and School Improvement Efforts is to examine and evaluate Title I accountability systems and school improvement efforts in a nationally representative sample of districts and schools. This project addresses both the implementation and effectiveness of accountability practices in 2,200 districts and 740 schools. The TASSIE will provide data on the extent of alignment between Title I accountability systems and states' and districts' own accountability systems, the assistance and incentives provided to schools identified as in need of improvement, and will assess the impact of these policies and practices on schools, teachers, and students.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov/owa-cgi/owa/browsecoll?psn=01750, or should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, D.C. 20202-4651. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

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

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

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

Type of Review: New Collection.

Title: The Leveraging Educational Assistance Program (LEAP) and Special Leveraging Educational Assistance Program (SLEAP) Programs.

Abstract: The LEAP and SLEAP programs use matching Federal and State Funds to provide a nationwide system of grants to assist postsecondary educational students with substantial financial need. On this performance report the states provide information the Department requires about the state's use of program funds in order to demonstrate compliance with the program's statutory and regulatory requirements. Federal program officials use the performance report data for monitoring program funds distribution. With the clearance of this collection, the Department is seeking to automate the performance reporting process for both the LEAP Program and the subprogram, SLEAP. There are no significant changes to the current LEAP form data elements, there are however, additional items pertaining to the SLEAP program.

Additional Information: Because of the changes to the law and new program requirements, the short time schedule for development of forms, and obtaining state involvement in the process, we are requesting emergency approval of this new performance report form by July 10, 2001. This would allow for the needed time by states to plan and begin reporting under the programs as soon as possible.

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs (primary).

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651, or should be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov, or should be faxed to 202-708-9346.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements, contact Joe Schubart at 202-708-9266. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Title: Recordkeeping Requirements for Producers of Pesticides under section 8 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act as amended (FIFRA); (OMB Control No. 2070-0028; EPA ICR No. 0143.07). This is a request for an extension of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: Producers of pesticides must maintain certain records with respect to their operations and make such records available for inspection and copying as specified in section 8 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and in regulations at 40 CFR part 169. This information collection is mandatory under FIFRA section 8. It is used by the Agency to determine compliance with the Act. The information is used by EPA Regional pesticide enforcement and compliance staffs, OECA, and the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) within the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS), as well as the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), other Federal agencies, States under Cooperative Enforcement Agreements, and the public. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. The Federal Register document required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on February 13, 2001 (66 FR 10019), and no comments were received.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to be an average of 120 minutes. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Pesticide Producers.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 12,336.

Frequency of Response: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 24,672 hours.

Estimated Total Annualized Non-Labor Cost Burden: $0.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the following addresses. Please refer to EPA ICR No. 0143.07 and OMB Control No. 2070-0028 in any correspondence.

Title: Standards of Performance for Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After May 18, 1978 and Prior to July 23, 1984, EPA ICR Number 1050.07 and OMB Control Number 2060-0121 expiring on June 30, 2001. This is a request for extension of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) from storage vessels cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health. VOC emissions are the result of evaporation of volatile organic liquids contained in the storage vessels. The control of VOCs requires not only the installation of properly designed equipment, but also the maintenance and operation of that equipment. Information generated by the recordkeeping and reporting requirements is used by the Agency to ensure that facilities affected by this New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) continue to operate the control equipment properly, thereby minimizing VOCs emissions into the atmosphere. Responses to the collection of information are required to assure the control equipment is operated and maintained properly. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. The Federal Register document required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on December 22, 2000, 65 FR 80854; no comments were received.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and record keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 75 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Predominately Petroleum Synthetic Organic Manufacturing.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 157.

Frequency of Response: Annually and varies.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 39,139.

Estimated Total Annualized Capital, O&M Cost Burden: 0.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the addresses listed above. Please refer to EPA ICR Number 1050.07 and OMB Control Number 2060-0121 in any correspondence.

Title: State Small Business Stationary Source Technical and Environmental Compliance Assistance Program Annual Reporting Form, OMB Control Number 2060-0337, EPA ICR Number 1748.03, expiration date September 30, 2001. This is an extension of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: As part of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the U.S. Congress included, as part of Section 507, the requirement that each state establish a Small Business Stationary Source Technical and Environmental Compliance Assistance Program (SBTCAP) to assist small businesses in complying with the Act. EPA must provide the Congress with periodic reports from the EPA Small Business Ombudsman (SBO) on these programs, including their effectiveness, difficulties encountered, and other relevant information. Each state assistance program will submit requested information to EPA for compilation and summarization.

This collection of information is mandatory under Section 507(a), (d), and (e) of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990, Public Law 101-549, November 15, 1990. This Act directs EPA to monitor the SBTCPs and to provide a report to Congress. This responsibility has been delegated to the EPA SBO. Response to the collection is not required to obtain or retain a benefit. Information in the annual Report to Congress is aggregated and is not of a confidential nature. None of the information collected by this action results in or requests sensitive information of any nature from the states.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. The Federal Register document required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on March 27, 2001, (66 FR16671); no comments were received.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and record keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 80 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: state, local, or tribal government.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 53.

Frequency of Response: Annual.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 2120 hours.

Estimated Total Annualized Capital, O&M Cost Burden: 0

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the following addresses. Please refer to EPA ICR No 1748.03 and OMB Control No. 2060-0337 in any correspondence.

Title: New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Sewage Treatment Plants, Subpart O (OMB Control No. 2060-0035; EPA ICR No. 1063.08) expiring June 30, 2001. This is a request for extension of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: This ICR contains recordkeeping and reporting requirements that are mandatory for compliance with 40 CFR part 60.150, et. seq., Subpart O, New Source Performance Standards for sewage sludge treatment plant incinerators.

The control of emissions of particulate matter from sewage treatment plant incinerators requires not only the installation of properly designed equipment, but also the operation and maintenance of that equipment. Particulate matter emissions from sewage treatment plant incinerators are the result of the physical and chemical characteristics of the sludge feed and fuel use, the excess air rate, the temperature profile within the incinerator, the pressure drop across the control device, and operating procedures. These standards rely on the reduction of particulate matter emissions by wet scrubbers.

In order to ensure compliance with these standards, adequate recordkeeping is necessary. In the absence of such information, enforcement personnel would be unable to determine whether the standards, that are protective of public health, are being met on a continuous basis, as required by the Clean Air Act.

These standards require initial notification reports with respect to construction, modification, reconstruction, startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. The standards also require reports on initial performance tests and semiannual reports of noncompliance.

Under the standard, the data collected by the affected industry is retained at the facility for a minimum of two (2) years and made available for inspection by the Administrator.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. The Federal Register document required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on September 15, 2000 (65 FR 55955); no comments were received.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 31 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Owners/Operators Sewage Sludge Treatment Plants.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 154.

Frequency of Response: semi-annually.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 9,089.

Estimated Total Annualized Capital, O &M Cost Burden: $5,845,000.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the following addresses. Please refer to EPA ICR No. 1063.08 and OMB Control No. 2060-0035 in any correspondence.

Title: Application for Reimbursement to Local Governments for Emergency Response to Hazardous Substance Releases Under CERCLA Section 123, OMB Control #2050-0077, EPA ICR #1425.05, expiring June 30, 2001. This is a request for extension of a currently approved ICR.

Abstract: The Agency requires applicants for reimbursement under this program authorized under Section 123 of CERCLA to submit an application that demonstrates consistency with program eligibility requirements. This is necessary to ensure proper use of the Superfund. EPA reviews the information to ensure compliance with all statutory and program requirements. The applicants are local governments who have incurred expenses, above and beyond their budgets, for hazardous substance response. Submission of this information is voluntary and to the applicant's benefit.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. The Federal Register Notice required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on November 11, 2000, (65 FR 69510) and the comment period was extended on March 19, 2001, (66 FR 15427). No comments were received.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 9 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: State, Local, or Tribal Government.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 200.

Frequency of Response: When costs are incurred.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 1800 hours.

Estimated Total Annualized Capital, Operating/Maintenance Cost Burden: $0.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the following addresses. Please refer to EPA ICR No. 1425.05 and OMB Control No. #2050-0077 in any correspondence.

This action is directed to the public in general and to persons interested in the availability of public information regarding inert or “other” ingredients in pesticide products regulated under FIFRA.

The Inert Disclosure Stakeholder Workgroup was established to advise the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, through the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC), on potential measures to increase the availability to the public of information about inert ingredients (also called “other ingredients”) under FIFRA. Among the factors the workgroup has been asked to consider in preparing its recommendations are: Existing law regarding inert ingredients and Confidential Business Information (CBI); current Agency processes and policies for disseminating inert ingredient information to the public, including procedures for the protection of CBI; informational needs for a variety of stakeholders; and business reasons for limiting the disclosure of inert ingredient information.

The Inert Disclosure Stakeholder Workgroup is composed of participants from the following sectors: environmental/public interest and consumer groups; industry and pesticide users; Federal, State and local governments; the general public; academia and public health organizations.

The Inert Disclosure Stakeholder Workgroup meeting is open to the public. Written public statements are also welcome and should be submitted to the Office of Pesticide Programs' administrative docket OPP-00727. Any person who wishes to file a written statement can do so before or after the conference call. These statements will become part of the permanent file and will be provided to the workgroup members for their information. If you have any questions about the workgroup, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

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

For general background information about the Inert Disclosure Stakeholder Workgroup, its mission and a list of its members, go to http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/inert/.

2. In person . The Agency has established an administrative record for this workgroup under docket control number OPP-00727. The administrative record consists of the workgroup documents including discussion papers, meeting agenda, as well as comments submitted to the workgroup by members of the public. This administrative record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents.

The public version of the administrative record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments that may be submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number OPP-00727 in the subject line on the first page of your correspondence.

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

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

3. Electronically . You may submit your comments and/or data electronically by e-mail to: “opp-docket@epa.gov,” or you can submit a computer disk as described in Units III. 1. and 2. Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format. All comments in electronic form must be identified by docket control number OPP-00727. Electronic comments may also be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

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

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

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

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number PF-1027. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as confidential business information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number PF-1027 in the subject line on the first page of your response.

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

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

3. Electronically . You may submit your comments electronically by e-mail to: opp-docket@epa.gov, or you can submit a computer disk as described above. Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Electronic submissions will be accepted in Wordperfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format. All comments in electronic form must be identified by docket control number PF-1027. Electronic comments may also be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

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

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

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

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

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

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

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

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

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

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

EPA has received pesticide petitions 1E6224 from the Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 681 US Highway #1 South, North Brunswick, NJ 08902-3390 and 1E6233 from the Taipai Economic and Cultural Representative Office, 4301 Connecticut Ave., NW., Suite 420, Washington, DC 20008 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.503 by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide, cymoxanil, 2-cyano-N-(ethylamino)carbonyl-2-(methoxyimino)acetamide in or on the following raw agricultural commodities (RACs): PP 1E6224 proposes to establish a tolerance on hops at 1.0 part per million (ppm). PP 1E6233 proposes to establish a tolerance on imported lychee at 1.0 ppm. This notice includes a summary of the petitions prepared by DuPont Agricultural Products, PO Box 80038, Wilmington, DE 19880-003. EPA has determined that the petitions contain data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petitions. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petitions.

1. Plant metabolism . The plant metabolism of cymoxanil is adequately understood in the crops of potatoes, tomatoes, and lettuce.

2. Analytical method . An analytical enforcement method is available for determining cymoxanil in plant residues using HPLC with UV detection.

3. Magnitude of residues . The magnitude of residues are adequately understood for lychee and hops.

1. Acute toxicity . A battery of acute toxicity tests on technical cymoxanil and its Toxicity Categories are as follows:

An acute neurotoxicity study was not required with cymoxanil; no short term or subchronic studies have been observed.

2. Genotoxicity . Cymoxanil was tested in a battery of assays to evaluate genotoxicity and chromosome aberrations; the results are as follows:

Based on the weight-of-evidence, cymoxanil is not considered to be genotoxic or clastogenic.

3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity . The results of a series of studies showed no indication of reproductive or developmental hazards associated with cymoxanil.

In a 2-generation cymoxanil rat reproduction study, the NOAEL for both parents and offspring was approximately 7 milligrams/kilogram/day, based on decreased body weight, weight gain and food consumption in adults and decreased pup weight in offspring at 32 mg/kg/day. There were no reproductive or fertility effects. Since offspring effects occurred only in the presence of maternal toxicity, it is considered a secondary effect to the health effects on the dam.

The developmental studies conducted in rats demonstrated a NOAEL of 10 mg/kg/day, and a LOAEL of 25 mg/kg/day for both adult and developmental effects. Maternal effects in rats included decreased weight, weight gain, and food consumption. Developmental effects were increases in fetal variations, which were the result of generalized delays in ossification, and overall malformations, although malformations detected were not dose related.

In rabbits, several developmental toxicity studies were conducted. Based on the weight-of-evidence of all three studies, there was no unique sensitivity of perinatal animals to the effects of cymoxanil, nor any anomalies of the fetal nervous system at maternally toxic doses up to and including 32 mg/kg/day.

4. Subchronic toxicity . Subchronic (90-day) feeding studies were conducted with rats, mice, and dogs. In addition, the following subchronic feeding studies were conducted: a 90-day in rats to evaluate neurotoxicity and 28-day rats and mice to evaluate immunotoxicity. A 28-day dermal study was also conducted in rats.

In a subchronic toxicity/neurotoxicity study in rats with cymoxanil, the NOAEL of 47.6 mg/kg/day in males was based on decreased body weights, and minimal to mild testicular and epididymal effects at higher concentrations. In females, the NOAEL of 59.9 mg/kg/day was based on effects on body weight, weight gain, and food efficiency at higher levels.

The subchronic NOAEL for male mice administered cymoxanil was 8.25 mg/kg/day based on body weight and weight gain effects at 82.4 mg/kg/day and above. The NOAEL for females was 121 mg/kg/day based on increases in spleen and liver weights at 433 mg/kg/day and above.

For cymoxanil, dogs were the most sensitive species in subchronic studies. Reduced body weight gain and/or food consumption was observed at 3 mg/kg/day or greater in females and 5 mg/kg/day and above in males. Both sexes had RBC changes (decreased RBC counts, Hb, and/or Hct), increased incidence of ketonuria at the intermediate and high concentration, and changes in serum chemistry (decreases in various electrolytes and proteins) at the high dose. Males had testicular and epididymal effects at the highest concentration, 11 mg/kg/day (raised from 5 mg/kg/day at week 3); this was considered to be retardation of development due to markedly reduced body weight in this group. The NOAEL for males was 3 mg/kg/day. There was no NOAEL in female dogs in the 90-day study. Although a NOAEL was not established in the dog subchronic study, 3 mg/kg/day was found to be a NOAEL in a subsequent chronic study in dogs.

Subchronic (28-day) studies were conducted in rats and mice to evaluate the immunotoxicity potential of cymoxanil. Cymoxanil was not immunotoxic up to and including the highest dose tested (HDT) which was 1,600 ppm in rats (108 and 117 mg/kg/day in males and females, respectively), 1,200 ppm (218 mg/kg/day) in male mice, and 2,400 ppm (552 mg/kg/day) in female mice.

Cymoxanil was applied to the skin of rats 6-hours/day for 28 days at doses of 0, 50, 500, and 1,000 mg/kg/day. There were no effects at any dose tested. The 28-day dermal NOAEL was 1,000 mg/kg/day, the HDT.

5. Chronic toxicity . Chronic studies with cymoxanil were conducted on rats, mice, and dogs to determine carcinogenic potential and/or chronic toxicity of the compound. Effects generally similar to those observed in the 90-day studies were seen in the chronic studies; cymoxanil was not found to be carcinogenic.

The chronic NOAEL for cymoxanil in male rats was 4.08 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight, weight gain, food efficiency, and non-neoplastic lesions in several organs including lung inflammation, spermatid degeneration, and retinal atrophy at 30.3 mg/kg/day or higher. In addition, male rats in the two highest groups displayed increased aggressiveness and hyperreactivity consistent with the compromised general health status (i.e. systemic toxicity) of those groups. In females, the NOAEL of 5.36 mg/kg/day was based on decreased body weight, weight gain, food efficiency, and non-neoplastic lesions in several organs including lungs, liver, intestines, mesenteric lymph nodes, sciatic nerve, and retina at 38.4 mg/kg/day or higher. Retinal atrophy and sciatic lesions are common spontaneous lesions associated with aging. These effects observed in cymoxanil test animals were considered aging-related effects. Spermatid degeneration occurs spontaneously in rats. While the incidence was increased in cymoxanil-treated rats, most were mild or minimal, and none were more than moderate. Thus, the effects are considered a mild exacerbation of a spontaneously occurring lesion.

In mice, the chronic NOAELs for cymoxanil were 4.19 and 5.83 mg/kg/day for males and females, respectively, based on changes in organ weights, gastrointestinal effects in females, and liver, testes and epididymal effects in males at the LOAEL. Similar to the rat, the testicular effects were considered an exacerbation of a spontaneous lesion that occurred in one-quarter of the control mice. The LOAELs were 42.0 and 58.1 mg/kg/day for males and females, respectively.

The chronic cymoxanil NOAEL for male dogs was 3.0 mg/kg/day based on a temporary decrease in body weight and food consumption, and lower RBC count, hemoglobin, and hematocrit at 5.7 mg/kg/day. In female dogs the only finding was a transient effect on body weight, food consumption, and food efficiency at the HDT, 3.1 mg/kg/day, only during the first week of the study.

6. Animal metabolism . When administered by gavage to rats, cymoxanil was readily absorbed and eliminated. Absorption reached maximum concentrations in whole blood within 4 hours post-dosing. A rapid and almost complete elimination was observed in the urine and feces. The majority of radioactivity was recovered within 96 hours, mainly in urine but also in feces. Radioactivity in the tissues and carcass was less than 1%. In the urine and feces, the majority of the radioactivity was free and/or conjugated glycine. 2-Cyano-2-methoxyimino-acetic acid was also found in low levels in the urine and trace levels in the feces. Intact cymoxanil was less than 1% in feces and not detected urine. The metabolite profile in urine and feces was similar between sexes, among dose groups, and between dosing regimens.

7. Metabolite toxicology . There are no metabolites of toxicological significance to mammals.

8. Endocrine disruption . The probability of an endocrine effect due to agricultural uses of cymoxanil is negligible.

1. Dietary exposure . Cymoxanil is a fungicide currently registered in the United States for use on potatoes. In addition, tolerances have been approved for cymoxanil on imported tomatoes and grapes.

i. Food . The acute and chronic analysis conservatively assumed that 30% of cucurbits, fruiting vegetables, head lettuce, potatoes and imported grapes would be treated with cymoxanil and field trial residue data was used. As reflected in the 1994-1996 USDA CSFII data, neither hops nor lychee are consumed as part of the diet. Therefore, any increased exposure from the use of cymoxanil on hops and lychee would be negligible and would not significantly alter the acute and chronic dietary risk estimates provided. The analysis' show that adequate margins of safety exist for all population subgroups, and no effects would result from dietary exposure to cymoxanil.

a. Acute dietary exposure assessment . The acute dietary exposure assessment was estimated using Tier 3. The results of the acute dietary exposure analysis for cymoxanil are given in table below. The percentages of the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) for cymoxanil were calculated based on an acute NOAEL of 4 mg/kg/day from the rabbit developmental study based on maternal clinical signs and weight effects at the higher levels and an uncertainty factor of 100. The results of the acute dietary exposure analysis are below the EPA's level of concern.

b. Chronic dietary exposure assessment . The chronic dietary exposure assessment was estimated using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM, Novigen Sciences, Inc., 1999 Version 6.74). The following table presents the results of an analysis for chronic exposure to cymoxanil in either TanosR 50DF or CurzateR 60DF. The chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD) of 0.041 mg/kg/day is based on a NOAEL of 4.08 mg/kg/day from the one-year rat feeding study and an uncertainty factor of 100. No sensitive subpopulations were identified. The results of the chronic dietary exposure analysis are below the EPA's level of concern.

ii. Drinking water . Surface water exposure was estimated using the Generic Expected Environmental Concentration (GENEEC) model. This screening level model is used for determining upper bound concentrations of pesticides in surface water.

The acute drinking water level of concern(s) (DWLOCs) are 1.3 ppm for the U.S. population, and 0.38 ppm for children (1-6 years old), the most exposed population subgroup. The estimated environmental concentration (EECs) of cymoxanil in surface water is 8.15 parts per billion (ppb) derived from GENEEC does not exceed the acute DWLOC.

The chronic DWLOCs are 1.4 ppm for the U.S. population and 0.4 ppm for children (1-6 years old), the most sensitive subgroup. The GENEEC 56-day EECs of 0.37 ppb does not exceed the chronic DWLOC for cymoxanil in surface water.

Therefore, based on the above findings, the registrants conclude with reasonable certainty that residues of cymoxanil in drinking water do not contribute significantly to the aggregate chronic human health risk.

2. Non-dietary exposure . Cymoxanil products are not labeled for residential non-food uses, thereby eliminating the potential for residential exposure.

EPA's consideration of a common mechanism of toxicity is not necessary at this time because there is no indication that toxic effects of cymoxanil should be cumulative with those of any other chemical compounds or with each other.

1. U.S. population . For acute dietary exposure of cymoxanil, the estimated exposure is 0.000475 and 0.001789 at the 99th and 99.9th percentiles, which will utilize 1.19 and 4.47%, respectively, of the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) for the overall U.S. population. The chronic dietary exposure for the overall U.S. population is estimated to be 0.000063 mg/kg/day, using 0.2% of the chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD). Based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data and the conservative exposure assessments, there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the aggregate exposure of residues of cymoxanil including all anticipated dietary exposure and all other non-occupational exposures.

2. Infants and children . For acute dietary exposure of cymoxanil, the aPAD for children 1-6 years old is 1.44 at the 99th percentile and 5.24 at the 99.9th percentile. For non-nursing infants (<1 yr.), the % aPAD is 0.46 at the 99th percentile and 1.50 at the 99.9th percentile. Chronic dietary exposure of cymoxanil for the most highly exposed children's subpopulations are: 0.000074 mg/kg/day for children 1-6 years old, and 0.000068 mg/kg/day for children 7-12 years old, representing 0.2% of the cPAD for each subpopulation. Exposure for all infant subpopulations was negligible.

In addition, there are no residential uses of cymoxanil; therefore, it is extremely unlikely that drinking water will be contaminated.

Based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity database, the lack of toxicological endpoints of special concern, the lack of any indication that children are more sensitive than adults to cymoxanil, and the conservative exposure assessment, the registrants believe there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from the aggregate exposure of residues of cymoxanil, including all anticipated dietary exposure and all other non-occupational exposures. Accordingly, there is no need to apply an additional safety factor for infants and children.

No international tolerances currently exist for cymoxanil.

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

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

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

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number PF-1031. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as confidential business information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number PF-1031 in the subject line on the first page of your response.

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

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

3. Electronically . You may submit your comments electronically by e-mail to: opp-docket@epa.gov, or you can submit a computer disk as described above. Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Electronic submissions will be accepted in Wordperfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format. All comments in electronic form must be identified by docket control number PF-1031. Electronic comments may also be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

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

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

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

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

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

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

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

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

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

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

EPA has received pesticide petitions (1F6297, 0F6077, and 8F4938) from Uniroyal Chemical Company, 74 Amity Rd., Bethany, CT 06525 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing tolerances for residues of [[1-1-((4-chloro-2-(trifluoromethyl) phenyl)imino)-2-propoxyethyl -1H-Imidazole]] in or on the raw agricultural commodities strawberries at 2.0 parts per million (ppm) [1F6297], the cucurbit crop group at 0.5 ppm [0F6077] and cherries at 2.0 ppm [8F4938]. EPA has determined that the petitions contain data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petitions. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petitions.

1. Plant metabolism . In crops, the metabolism of 14 C-Phenyl] triflumizole was investigated in cucumber, pears, grapes and apples. The major metabolites were: N-(4-chloro-2-trifluoromethylphenyl)-n-propoxyacetamidine (FM-6-1), N-(4-chloro-2-trifluoromethyphenyl)-n- propoxyacetanilide (FD-1-1) and the free or conjugated products of N-(4-chloro-2-trifluoromethylphenyl)-hydroxyacetamidine (the O-dealkylation product of FM-6-1), N-(4-chloro-2-trifluoromethylphenyl)-hydroxyacetanilide (FD-2-1) and the triflumizole aniline (FA-1-1).

2. Analytical method . The analytical method is suitable for analyzing crops for residues of triflumizole and its aniline containing metabolites at the proposed tolerance levels. The analytical method has been independently validated. Residue levels of triflumizole are converted to FA-1-1 by acidic and alkaline reflux, followed by distillation. Residues are then extracted and subjected to SPE purification. Detection and quantitation are conducted by a gas chromatography equipped with nitrogen phosphorus detector, electron capture detector or mass spectrometry detection. The limit of quantitation of the method has been determined at 0.05 parts per million (ppm) for cucurbits and cherries, and 0.02 ppm for strawberries. The enforcement methodology has been submitted to the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) for publication in the Pesticide Analytical Manual, Vol. II (PAM II).

3. Magnitude of residues . Eight field trials in strawberries were conducted in commercial growing areas of the United States. The analytical data show that the mean measured residue in/on strawberries was 0.859 ppm. The highest residue data was 2.0 ppm. Crop field trial residue data from 0 -day pre-harvest interval studies were conducted on cucumbers, muskmelon, and squash (cucurbits). In these trials, residues ranged from 0.06 to 0.39 ppm. Field trials were carried out on cherries in five states. In these trials the residues of triflumizole and it's aniline containing metabolites ranged from 0.4 to 1.5 ppm. These data support the proposed tolerances for triflumizole. There are no processed commodities or feed commodities associated with these crops.

1. Acute toxicity . The database includes the following studies: a rat acute oral study with a LD 50 of 1.42 g/kg; a rabbit acute dermal study with a LD 50 >5 g/kg; a rat acute inhalation study with a LC 50 >3.2 mg/l; a rabbit primary ocular irritation study which showed mild irritation; a rabbit primary dermal irritation study which showed no irritation; a guinea pig dermal sensitization study which showed slight dermal sensitization potential.

2. Genotoxicity . Triflumizole was negative in all genotoxicity assays including: Ames assay in S. typhimurium , gene conversion assay in yeast strain D4, REC assay in B. subtilis , unscheduled DNA synthesis (UDS) assay in cultured rat hepatocytes, chromosome aberration assay in cultured Chinese hampster ovary (CHO) cells and a mouse micronucleus assay.

3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity . In a developmental toxicity study, triflumizole was administered by oral gavage to pregnant female Sprague Dawley rats at dosage levels of 0, 10, 35 or 120 mg/kg/day. Maternal toxicity, as evidenced by a substantial reduction in body weight (bwt) gain, was seen at 35 and 120 mg/kg/day. At these dosage levels there was a decrease in fetal viability in the form of late resorptions. There were no teratogenic effects. The no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) for maternal and developmental toxicity was 10 mg/kg/day. Triflumizole was also administered by oral gavage to pregnant female New Zealand White rabbits at dosage levels of 0, 5, 25, or 50 mg/kg/day. At a dose level of 50 mg/kg/day there was a reduction in bwt gain in kits. There were no developmental or teratogenic effects. The NOAEL for maternal toxicity was 25 mg/kg/day and the NOAEL for developmental toxicity was greater than 50 mg/kg/day.

The reproduction toxicity of triflumizole was evaluated in a rat reproduction study, conducted on three generations, at dietary concentrations of 0, 30, 70 and 170 ppm. Fertility was not affected by treatment. There was an increase in placental weight in the F1b, F2b and F3b litters and a statistically significant increase in gestation length in the high dose group at the F1a and F3a mating intervals. The NOAEL for systemic parental toxicity was greater than 170 ppm and the NOAEL for developmental effects was 70 ppm based upon effects seen in litters of both studies at the high dose level, including increased incidences of hydroureter and space between the body wall and organs. The NOAEL for reproductive effects was 70 ppm (3.5 mg/kg/day) based on increased gestation length observed at the high dose level at 2 of 6 mating intervals.

4. Subchronic toxicity . To assess sub-acute dermal toxicity, triflumizole was applied to the backs of male and female Sprague Dawley rats for three weeks. High dose female rats exposed to 1,000 mg/kg/day exhibited mild fatty vacuolation in the liver, which was within the range of normal biological variation. Therefore, the NOAEL for sub-acute dermal toxicity in rats was greater than 1,000 mg/kg/day.

Triflumizole was fed to male and female Sprague Dawley rats for thirteen weeks at dietary concentrations of 0, 20, 200 and 2,000 ppm to assess sub-chronic toxicity. At a dosage level of 2,000 ppm there was a reduction in body weight gain, an increase in liver and kidney weights, lipid droplets in liver and a decrease in serum alkaline phosphatase in males and females. High dose females exhibited a reduction in red blood cell (RBC) and hemoglobin in blood. The NOAEL for sub-chronic toxicity in rats was 200 ppm (10 mg/kg/day).

5. Chronic toxicity . Triflumizole was fed to male and female Beagle dogs for one year at dietary concentrations of 0, 100, 300 and 1,000 ppm to assess chronic toxicity. At a dosage level of 1,000 ppm there was an increase in serum liver enzymes and a decrease in RBC concentration. The NOAEL for chronic toxicity in dogs was 300 ppm (7.5mg/kg/day).

Triflumizole was fed to male and female Sprague Dawley rats for two years at dietary concentrations of 0, 100, 400 and 1,600 ppm to assess chronic toxicity At the high dose level there was a substantial reduction in body weight gain in males and females. At the mid and high dose levels there was an increase in liver weight. Ovary weight was increased in high dose female rats, and kidney weights were elevated in high dose animals. Alanine amino-transferase and lactose dehydrogenase was elevated in high dose males and females, respectively. High dose females had an increased incidence of ovarian follicular cysts, while high dose males exhibited pancreatic acinar cell atrophy. Fatty vacuolization of the liver was seen at all dose levels and hepatocytic hypertrophy was seen in high and mid-dose males and females. Female rats given 400 or 1,600 ppm had an increased incidence of basophilic foci/areas of hepatocytic alteration. Effects at 100 ppm were confined to hepatocytic fatty vacuolation and hypertrophy in females. These changes were less severe than those seen in rats given 400 or 1,600 ppm and were considered by the laboratory to be indicative of adaptive metabolic change. The dietary level of 100 ppm (5 mg/kg/day) is considered to be a NOAEL.

6. Animal metabolism . Triflumizole, [14C-Phenyl] 1-(1-((4-chloro-2-trifluoromethylphenyl)imino)-2-propoxyethyl)-1H-imidazole, was found to be rapidly absorbed and excreted in rats. Two days after oral dosing, 78% was found to be excreted in the urine and 20% in the feces. No sex difference was noted. It appears that the loss of the imidazole ring was the basic step in the metabolic pathway of this fungicide in mammals. The elimination of the imidazole ring yielded initially N-(4-chloro-2-trifluoromethylphenyl)-n-propoxyacetamidine (FM-6-1 and N-(4-chloro-2-trifluoromethylphenyl)-n-propoxyacetanilide (FD-1-1). Other hydroxylated metabolites identified (free, or as sulfate/glucuronide conjugates) included, among others, N-(4-chloro-2-trifluoromethylphenyl)-hydroxyacetamidine (FM-8-1); 4-chloro-2-trifluoromethyl-hydroxyacetanilide (FD-2-1); and 4-chloro-2- trifluoromethyl-6-hydroxyaniline (FA-1-5).

7. Metabolite toxicology . Both plant and animals produce the same metabolites that were identified in the metabolism studies; therefore, the toxicity of the metabolites has essentially been evaluated in the rat toxicology studies.

8. Endocrine disruption . In the rat reproduction study there was an increase in placental weight in females at the high dose level of 170 ppm. There was also a biologically significant increase in gestation length in high dose F0 and F2 females (F1a and F3a intervals). The NOAEL for endocrine effects is 70 ppm (3.5 mg/kg/day).

1. Dietary exposure — i. Food . Tolerances have been established (40 CFR 180.476) for the combined residues of triflumizole, and its metabolites containing the 4-chloro-2-trifluoromethylaniline moiety, calculated as the parent compound, in or on apples, pears and grapes. Tolerances have also been established for the combined residues of triflumizole and the metabolite 4-chloro-2-hydroxy-6- trifluoromethylaniline sulfate and other metabolites containing the 4-chloro-2-trifluoromethylaniline moiety, calculated as the parent compound in or on eggs, milk, meat, fat, and meat by-products of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, poultry and sheep.

Field trial residue values from the currently labeled raw agricultural commodities (apples, pears, grapes) and from the proposed cucurbit, cherry, filbert and strawberry uses were used to estimate dietary exposure (Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) TM , Novigen Sciences, Inc.). Tissue to feed ratios were used to calculate secondary residues for meat, milk, and egg products. Processing factors and percent of crop treated were also factored into the estimates.

ii. Drinking water . Exposure to triflumizole or its degradates in drinking water is not anticipated, and is unlikely to occur. Triflumizole is not expected to contaminate ground water. Laboratory and field data have demonstrated that it degrades rapidly and that triflumizole and its metabolites do not leach, even in sandy soil. A Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for triflumizole has not been established by EPA. Ornamental and proposed residential uses are not expected to result in drinking water concerns. Most commercial uses on outdoor-grown plants would typically be only a spot treatment or on very limited acreage. Containerized ornamentals would mimic greenhouse production, as these plants are generally elevated off the ground, with some type of ground covering underneath. For residential areas, triflumizole would be used only by commercial applicators, and only as a spot treatment.

Tier I screen models generic expected environmental concentration (GENEEC) (surface water) and screening concentration in ground water (SCI-GRO) (ground water) were used to predict the estimated environmental concentration (EEC) of triflumizole from current and proposed food uses. For surface water, the theoretical acute EEC was 18 parts per billion (ppb) (peak concentration) and the chronic EEC (divided by 3 to account for the large overestimates inherent in the model) was 3 ppb. Theoretical acute and chronic ground water concentrations from the SCI-GRO modeling were <0.1 ppb.

2. Non-dietary exposure . The only source of non-dietary exposure to triflumizole for consideration under FQPA is in the proposed use of Terraguard 50W on institutional, recreational, and homeowner landscapes and other outdoor ornamentals. This registration could result in intermittent, low-level residential post-application exposures. Terraguard 50W is not available for application by homeowners and is not registered for use on turf. Only professional handlers would apply Terraguard 50W to any existing or proposed use sites. Treatment would be made to individual plants or specific sub-sections within labeled use sites, and only as needed for disease. The above use sites amount to minimal acreage in comparison with turf and other sources of residential exposure, and activities therein are of low duration and intensity.

Dislodgeable foliar residues (DFRs) can be estimated from existing data. A recent study on Terraguard 50W DFRs on Spathiphyllum foliage showed significantly lower levels of triflumizole than would be predicted by current Agency SOP defaults, and an approximately complete dissipation within the minimum treatment interval of 30 days. From that study, potential residue levels were calculated based on the geometric means of regressed values that were adjusted to represent the maximum application rate of 1.0 lb ai/acre, and averaged over the duration of potential post-application exposure.

The DFR transfer coefficients, representing reentry into treated gardens, are EPA default assumptions (draft OPP/HED SOP for Residential Exposure Assessment). Such defaults are considered by EPA to be very conservative and are considered to be screening-level assumptions. In addition, work by the Agricultural Reentry Task Force and others has shown far lower transfer coefficients for many relatively high-exposure activities, such as pruning, that may occur on residential landscapes. Contact with residential landscape foliage is assumed to occur incidentally or for short durations since typical Terraguard applications will be spot-treatments within small areas.

The toxicological assumptions in this assessment are also conservative, including (a) a default value of 100% dermal absorption; (b) the acute endpoint of 3.5 mg/kg/day (see above) for short-term assessment; and (c) the sub-chronic endpoint of 3.5 mg/kg/day (see above) for intermediate-term assessment. Chronic assessment is not required since a yearly maximum of 3 applications, from which triflumizole is expected to dissipate within 30-days, should result in less than 90-days of potential exposure per year. The factors used in the assessment and resulting estimates of absorbed daily dose and margins of exposure (MOEs) are provided in the following table:

The above calculations are based on appropriate DFR data from an ornamental crop, a complete toxicological profile, transfer coefficients understood to be conservative, and a very conservative assumption of 100% dermal absorption. The resulting MOEs, which are still well over 100, therefore indicate clearly that residential exposure following Terraguard 50W use on institutional, recreational, and homeowner landscapes, and other outdoor ornamentals, would pose a low potential risk and a reasonable certainty of no harm.

The potential for cumulative effects of triflumizole, an imidazole, and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity was considered. The mammalian toxicity of triflumizole is well defined. No reliable information exists to indicate that toxic effects produced by triflumizole would be cumulative with those of any other chemical compounds. Therefore, consideration of a common mechanism of toxicity with other compounds is not appropriate. Thus, only the potential risks of triflumizole are considered in the aggregate exposure assessment.

1. U.S. population — i. Short-term risk. Based on the toxicology database, the NOAEL of 3.5 mg/kg/day from the reproduction toxicity study, and available information on anticipated residues and percent crop treated, the acute dietary exposure was determined to be within the acceptable MOE of 100. Exposure to potential triflumizole residues in drinking water is not expected to significantly contribute to the overall exposure of females 13-50 years old and infants and children, as DWLOC's are substantially higher than modeled EEC's. Residential post application exposure would occur within an acceptable margin of safety. Based on these assessments, Uniroyal concludes that there is reasonable certainty of no harm to females (13-50 years old), infants, and children from short-term aggregate exposure to triflumizole residues.

ii. Intermediate-term risk . Based on the toxicology database, the RfD of 0.035 mg/kg/day from the reproduction study, and available information on anticipated residues and percent crop treated, the chronic dietary exposure was determined as 0.1% of the RfD for females (13-50 years old), and 0.4% for infants and children. These exposures do not exceed EPA's level of concern of >100% of the RfD. Exposure to potential triflumizole residues in drinking water is not expected to significantly contribute to the overall exposure of females 13-50 years old and infants and children, as DWLOC's are substantially higher than modeled EEC's. Residential post application exposure would occur within an acceptable margin of safety. Based on these assessments, Uniroyal concludes that there is reasonable certainty of no harm to females (13-50 years old), infants, and children from intermediate-term aggregate exposure to triflumizole residues.

iii. Chronic risk. Based on the toxicology database, the reference dose (RfD) of 0.035 mg/kg/day from the reproduction study, and available information on anticipated residues and percent crop treated, the chronic dietary exposure was determined as 0.1% of the RfD for the U.S. population, and 0.4% for infants and children. These exposures do not exceed EPA's level of concern of >100% of the RfD. Exposure to potential triflumizole residues in drinking water is not expected to significantly contribute to the overall exposure of the U.S. population, infants, and children, as DWLOC's are substantially higher than modeled EEC's. Based on these assessments, Uniroyal concludes that there is reasonable certainty of no harm to the U.S. population, infants, and children from chronic aggregate exposure to triflumizole residues.

2. Infants and children . Triflumizole was evaluated in rat and rabbit developmental toxicity studies and a three generation rat reproduction study to assess the potential for additional sensitivity to infants and children. No developmental toxicity was seen in the rabbit teratology study at doses up to 50 mg/kg/day. Maternal toxicity was seen at this dosage level. In the rat teratology study, there was an increase in late resorptions at doses of 35 and 120 mg/kg/day which was accompanied by maternal toxicity in the form of a substantial reduction in bwt. The NOAEL for maternal and developmental toxicity was 10 mg/kg/day. In the rat reproduction study, there was an increase in gestation length and an increased incidence of hydroureter and space between the body wall and organs at the high dose level of 170 ppm. The NOAEL for reproductive and developmental effects was 3.5 mg/kg/day. No additional safety factor is necessary as the data package is complete and the sensitivity to infants and children is adequately characterized.

There are no Codex, Canadian or Mexican maximum residue limits established for triflumizole on strawberries, cucurbits or cherries.

On March 10, 1999, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve Board, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (together, the Agencies) issued a joint letter to financial institutions on the allowance for loan and lease losses (the Joint Letter). In the Joint Letter, the Agencies agreed to establish a Joint Working Group to study ALLL issues and to assist financial institutions by providing them with improved guidance on this topic. The Agencies agreed that the Joint Working Group would develop and issue parallel guidance for two key areas regarding the ALLL:

• Appropriate methodologies and supporting documentation, and

• Enhanced disclosures.

This Policy Statement represents the banking agencies' guidance to banks and savings institutions relating to methodologies and supporting documentation for the ALLL. The Securities and Exchange Commission staff has issued parallel guidance on this topic for public companies in Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 102. 1

This Policy Statement clarifies the banking agencies' expectations regarding methodologies and documentation support for the ALLL. For financial reporting purposes, including regulatory reporting, the provision for loan and lease losses and the ALLL must be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). GAAP requires that an institution maintain written documentation to support the amounts of the ALLL and the provision for loan and lease losses reported in the financial statements.

The Policy Statement does not change existing accounting guidance in, or modify the documentation requirements of, GAAP or guidance provided in the relevant joint interagency statements issued by the Agencies. It is intended to supplement, not replace, the guidance the banking agencies provided in their Interagency Policy Statement on the Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses, which was issued in December 1993. It is also intended to supplement guidance the banking agencies provided in their interagency guidelines establishing standards for safety and soundness that were issued in 1995 and 1996 pursuant to section 39 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act). 2 Under the guidelines for asset quality, each institution should estimate and establish a sufficient ALLL supported by adequate documentation. This Policy Statement does not address or change current guidance regarding loan charge-offs; therefore, institutions should continue to follow existing regulatory guidance that addresses the timing of charge-offs.

The guidance in this Policy Statement recognizes that institutions should adopt methodologies and documentation practices that are appropriate for their size and complexity. For institutions with fewer and less complex loan products, the amount of supporting documentation for the ALLL may be less exhaustive than for institutions with more complex loan products or portfolios.

Recognizing that a primary mission of the banking agencies is to support a safe and sound banking system, examiners will continue to evaluate the overall adequacy of the ALLL, including the adequacy of supporting documentation, to ensure that it is appropriate. While the Policy Statement generally does not provide guidance to examiners in conducting safety and soundness examinations, examiners may criticize institutions that fail to document and maintain an adequate ALLL in accordance with this Policy Statement and other banking agency guidance. In such cases, institution management may be cited for engaging in unsafe and unsound banking practices and may be subject to further supervisory action.

The FFIEC sought public comment on a proposed policy statement on ALLL methodologies and documentation practices for banks and savings institutions on September 7, 2000 (65 FR 54268). The proposal indicated that the purpose of the policy statement was to provide financial institutions with enhanced guidance on appropriate ALLL methodologies and documentation practices.

The proposed Policy Statement explained that the board of directors of each institution is responsible for ensuring that controls are in place to determine the appropriate level of the ALLL. It also emphasized the banking agencies' long-standing position that institutions should maintain and support the ALLL with documentation that is consistent with their stated policies and procedures, GAAP, and applicable supervisory guidance.

The proposal described significant aspects of ALLL methodologies and documentation practices. Specifically, the proposal provided guidance on maintaining and documenting policies and procedures that are appropriately tailored to the size and complexity of the institution and its loan portfolio. The proposal stated that an institution's ALLL methodology must be a thorough, disciplined, and consistently applied process that incorporates management's current judgments about the credit quality of the loan portfolio.

The proposal also discussed the methodology and documentation needed to support ALLL estimates prepared in accordance with GAAP, which requires loss estimates based upon reviews of individual loans and groups of loans. The proposal stated that after determining the allowance on individually reviewed loans and groups of loans, management should consolidate those loss estimates and summarize the amount to be reported in the financial statements for the ALLL. To verify that the ALLL methodology is appropriate and conforms to GAAP and supervisory guidance, a party who is independent from the ALLL estimation process should review the methodology and its application in a manner appropriate to the size and complexity of the institution.

The proposal included illustrations of implementation practices that institutions may find useful for enhancing their own ALLL practices; an appendix that provided examples of certain key aspects of ALLL guidance; a summary of applicable GAAP guidance; and a bibliographical list of relevant GAAP guidance, joint interagency statements, and other literature on ALLL issues.

The FFIEC received 31 letters commenting on the proposed policy statement. Twenty financial organizations submitted comments, whose size (based upon total assets) ranged from $18 million to $450 billion. The other letters were primarily submitted by industry trade groups and the accounting profession.

Two of the commenters fully supported the guidance in the proposed policy statement. Thirteen commenters opposed issuance of the policy statement. The commenters who oppose the guidance expressed two primary concerns. First, they believe institutions, particularly smaller institutions, will need to unnecessarily increase resources dedicated to ensure compliance with the guidance. Second, they thought that issuance of the policy statement may be premature given the ALLL guidance expected to be developed by the AICPA. The other commenters generally supported the guidance with certain modifications.

The two commenters who supported the proposed policy statement in the form it was issued believe that they are already in compliance with the proposal's requirements. They understood that the guidance did not attempt to expand current GAAP requirements and allowed institutions to continue to use judgment in implementing loan loss estimation methodologies that are appropriate to individual institutions.

The banking agencies believe that institutions currently complying with GAAP should not need to dedicate additional resources to create or support the ALLL included in their regulatory reports. The banking agencies have expected institutions to follow GAAP, as it applies to the ALLL, for regulatory reporting purposes for a number of years. The proposal is consistent with existing GAAP, which requires that allowances be well documented, with clear explanations of the supporting analysis and rationale. The banking agencies encourage institutions to carefully evaluate their current ALLL methodologies and supporting documentation practices as well as other credit risk management practices and reports before making significant changes to their current practices or creating new processes, reports, or other supporting documents in order to follow this guidance.

Some commenters suggested the Policy Statement should include the banking agencies' views on the ALLL guidance being developed by the AICPA. While the attached Policy Statement mentions that the AICPA is developing guidance on the ALLL, a description of that project's scope or a summary of its anticipated guidance is outside the scope of this Policy Statement. Furthermore, the AICPA continues to develop its guidance, and the Agencies are closely monitoring and actively contributing to that process.

Several commenting financial institutions indicated that following the guidance may prompt a reduction in the ALLL level at their institutions. However, as noted above, institutions are already required to follow GAAP when determining the ALLL and the guidance does not change existing GAAP; therefore, following this Policy Statement should not result in adjustments to the ALLL by institutions following GAAP.

Several commenters suggested that documentation requirements for small or noncomplex institutions should be substantially different than the guidance for larger or more complex institutions. The guidance in the policy statement includes a broad description of the steps taken during the ALLL estimation process that must be documented. The types of documentation described in the examples illustrate that management has considerable flexibility in determining the appropriate level and type of supporting documentation given the type of loans and associated credit risks being evaluated. Additionally, the guidance specifically states that institutions with less complex products or portfolios may consider combining some of the procedures outlined in the proposed guidance. Furthermore, when appropriate, these institutions may utilize documentation that is already being generated for other purposes to support their ALLLs. The banking agencies believe these suggestions will assist these institutions in supporting their ALLLs without any unnecessary burden.

A number of the commenters suggested that the guidance in the policy statement should clarify the banking agencies' position on the term “unallocated” ALLLs. The guidance recognizes that, regardless of the terminology that an institution uses to label portions of its ALLL, the entire ALLL should be determined in accordance with GAAP and supported with adequate documentation.

One issue that was raised by some commenters was concern that the Policy Statement would confuse the distinction between current GAAP requirements and what would be considered best practices in corporate governance. They believe that some of the documentation requirements contained in the proposed policy statement are not requirements of GAAP. In response to these comments, a footnote was added to the Policy Statement to clarify how the Policy Statement describes, but does not increase, the documentation requirements already existing within GAAP. The footnote states that the documentation guidance in the Policy Statement is predominantly based upon certain specifically identified pronouncements that have been issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board, the Emerging Issues Task Force, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, and the SEC. Such pronouncements represent established accounting principles or are widely recognized as being generally accepted.

A few commenters were concerned that the discussion in the proposed policy statement regarding the estimation of loan losses for groups of loans based upon historical loss data meant that institutions were prohibited from using loss estimation methods other than those based upon historical loss data. The application of historical loss rates to segmented portions of the loan portfolio, adjusted for environmental factors, is one way to estimate ALLLs for pools of loans. However, other methods are acceptable if they estimate losses in accordance with GAAP. The Policy Statement has been revised to refer to other types of loss estimation techniques.

A few commenters questioned the banking agencies' intent in including examples of documentation in the Q&A portion of the proposed policy statement. They interpreted the examples to be a list of requirements or a “safe harbor” of supporting documentation. The banking agencies included these examples to assist institutions in generating ideas on how to implement the guidance and did not intend to create a list of required documents. So that the purpose of the examples is better understood, the banking agencies have clarified the language in the examples and have added an introductory paragraph to the Q&A section in Appendix A.

Lastly, some commenters suggested the guidance in the proposed policy statement placed undue burden upon financial institutions' boards of directors. The banking agencies did not intend to expand directors' responsibilities beyond those that currently exist. At present, directors are responsible for approving ALLL policies and attesting to the validity of the regulatory reports, which includes the ALLL. While the board of directors has ultimate responsibility for these functions, daily administration of policies and recordkeeping may be delegated to operating management. The banking agencies have clarified the guidance to state that the scope of board of directors' responsibilities is not changed or expanded with the issuance of this Policy Statement.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the banking agencies have reviewed the Policy Statement and determined that it does not add any collections of information pursuant to the Act.

The text of the Policy Statement follows:

Boards of directors of banks and savings institutions are responsible for ensuring that their institutions have controls in place to consistently determine the allowance for loan and lease losses (ALLL) in accordance with the institutions' stated policies and procedures, generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), and ALLL supervisory guidance. 1 To fulfill this responsibility, boards of directors instruct management to develop and maintain an appropriate, systematic, and consistently applied process to determine the amounts of the ALLL and provisions for loan losses. Management should create and implement suitable policies and procedures to communicate the ALLL process internally to all applicable personnel. Regardless of who develops and implements these policies, procedures, and underlying controls, the board of directors should assure themselves that the policies specifically address the institution's unique goals, systems, risk profile, personnel, and other resources before approving them. Additionally, by creating an environment that encourages personnel to follow these policies and procedures, management improves procedural discipline and compliance.

The determination of the amounts of the ALLL and provisions for loan and lease losses should be based on management's current judgments about the credit quality of the loan portfolio, and should consider all known relevant internal and external factors that affect loan collectibility as of the reporting date. The amounts reported each period for the provision for loan and lease losses and the ALLL should be reviewed and approved by the board of directors. To ensure the methodology remains appropriate for the institution, the board of directors should have the methodology periodically validated and, if appropriate, revised. Further, the audit committee 2 should oversee and monitor the internal controls over the ALLL determination process. 3

The banking agencies' 4 have long-standing examination policies that call for examiners to review an institution's lending and loan review functions and recommend improvements, if needed. Additionally, in 1995 and 1996, the banking agencies adopted interagency guidelines establishing standards for safety and soundness, pursuant to Section 39 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act). 5 The interagency asset quality guidelines and the guidance in this paper assist an institution in estimating and establishing a sufficient ALLL supported by adequate documentation, as required under the FDI Act. Additionally, the guidelines require operational and managerial standards that are appropriate for an institution's size and the nature and scope of its activities.

For financial reporting purposes, including regulatory reporting, the provision for loan and lease losses and the ALLL must be determined in accordance with GAAP. GAAP requires that allowances be well documented, with clear explanations of the supporting analyses and rationale. 6 This Policy Statement describes but does not increase the documentation requirements already existing within GAAP. Failure to maintain, analyze, or support an adequate ALLL in accordance with GAAP and supervisory guidance is generally an unsafe and unsound banking practice. 7

This guidance applies equally to all institutions, regardless of the size. However, institutions with less complex lending activities and products may find it more efficient to combine a number of procedures ( e.g., information gathering, documentation, and internal approval processes) while continuing to ensure the institution has a consistent and appropriate methodology. Thus, much of the supporting documentation required for an institution with more complex products or portfolios may be combined into fewer supporting documents in an institution with less complex products or portfolios. For example, simplified documentation can include spreadsheets, check lists, and other summary documents that many institutions currently use. Illustrations A and C provide specific examples of how less complex institutions may determine and document portions of their loan loss allowance.

Appropriate written supporting documentation for the loan loss provision and allowance facilitates review of the ALLL process and reported amounts, builds discipline and consistency into the ALLL determination process, and improves the process for estimating loan and lease losses by helping to ensure that all relevant factors are appropriately considered in the ALLL analysis. An institution should document the relationship between the findings of its detailed review of the loan portfolio and the amount of the ALLL and the provision for loan and lease losses reported in each period. 8

At a minimum, institutions should maintain written supporting documentation for the following decisions, strategies, and processes:

(1) Policies and procedures:

(a) Over the systems and controls that maintain an appropriate ALLL and

(b) Over the ALLL methodology,

(2) Loan grading system or process,

(3) Summary or consolidation of the ALLL balance,

(4) Validation of the ALLL methodology, and

(5) Periodic adjustments to the ALLL process.

The following sections of this Policy Statement provide guidance on significant aspects of ALLL methodologies and documentation practices. Specifically, the paper provides documentation guidance on:

(1) Policies and Procedures,

(2) Methodology,

(3) ALLL Under FASB Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 114, Accounting by Creditors for Impairment of a Loan (FAS 114),

(4) ALLL Under FASB Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 5, Accounting for Contingencies (FAS 5),

(5) Consolidating the Loss Estimates, and

(6) Validating the ALLL Methodology.

Financial institutions utilize a wide range of policies, procedures, and control systems in their ALLL process. Sound policies should be appropriately tailored to the size and complexity of the institution and its loan portfolio.

In order for an institution's ALLL methodology to be effective, the institution's written policies and procedures for the systems and controls that maintain an appropriate ALLL should address but not be limited to:

(1) The roles and responsibilities of the institution's departments and personnel (including the lending function, credit review, financial reporting, internal audit, senior management, audit committee, board of directors, and others, as applicable) who determine, or review, as applicable, the ALLL to be reported in the financial statements;

(2) The institution's accounting policies for loans and loan losses, including the policies for charge-offs and recoveries and for estimating the fair value of collateral, where applicable;

(3) The description of the institution's systematic methodology, which should be consistent with the institution's accounting policies for determining its ALLL; 9 and

(4) The system of internal controls used to ensure that the ALLL process is maintained in accordance with GAAP and supervisory guidance.

An internal control system for the ALLL estimation process should:

(1) Include measures to provide assurance regarding the reliability and integrity of information and compliance with laws, regulations, and internal policies and procedures;

(2) Reasonably assure that the institution's financial statements (including regulatory reports) are prepared in accordance with GAAP and ALLL supervisory guidance; 10 and

(3) Include a well-defined loan review process containing:

(a) An effective loan grading system that is consistently applied, identifies differing risk characteristics and loan quality problems accurately and in a timely manner, and prompts appropriate administrative actions;

(b) Sufficient internal controls to ensure that all relevant loan review information is appropriately considered in estimating losses. This includes maintaining appropriate reports, details of reviews performed, and identification of personnel involved; and

(c) Clear formal communication and coordination between an institution's credit administration function, financial reporting group, management, board of directors, and others who are involved in the ALLL determination or review process, as applicable (e.g., written policies and procedures, management reports, audit programs, and committee minutes).

An ALLL methodology is a system that an institution designs and implements to reasonably estimate loan and lease losses as of the financial statement date. It is critical that ALLL methodologies incorporate management's current judgments about the credit quality of the loan portfolio through a disciplined and consistently applied process.

An institution's ALLL methodology is influenced by institution-specific factors, such as an institution's size, organizational structure, business environment and strategy, management style, loan portfolio characteristics, loan administration procedures, and management information systems. However, there are certain common elements an institution should incorporate in its ALLL methodology. A summary of common elements is provided in Appendix B. 11

An institution's written policies and procedures should describe the primary elements of the institution's ALLL methodology, including portfolio segmentation and impairment measurement. In order for an institution's ALLL methodology to be effective, the institution's written policies and procedures should describe the methodology:

(1) For segmenting the portfolio:

(a) How the segmentation process is performed (i.e., by loan type, industry, risk rates, etc.),

(b) When a loan grading system is used to segment the portfolio:

(i) The definitions of each loan grade,

(ii) A reconciliation of the internal loan grades to supervisory loan grades, and

(iii) The delineation of responsibilities for the loan grading system.

(2) For determining and measuring impairment under FAS 114:

(a) The methods used to identify loans to be analyzed individually;

(b) For individually reviewed loans that are impaired, how the amount of any impairment is determined and measured, including:

(i) Procedures describing the impairment measurement techniques available and

(ii) Steps performed to determine which technique is most appropriate in a given situation.

(c) The methods used to determine whether and how loans individually evaluated under FAS 114, but not considered to be individually impaired, should be grouped with other loans that share common characteristics for impairment evaluation under FAS 5.

(3) For determining and measuring impairment under FAS 5:

(a) How loans with similar characteristics are grouped to be evaluated for loan collectibility (such as loan type, past-due status, and risk);

(b) How loss rates are determined (e.g., historical loss rates adjusted for environmental factors or migration analysis) and what factors are considered when establishing appropriate time frames over which to evaluate loss experience; and

(c) Descriptions of qualitative factors (e.g., industry, geographical, economic, and political factors) that may affect loss rates or other loss measurements.

The supporting documents for the ALLL may be integrated in an institution's credit files, loan review reports or worksheets, board of directors' and committee meeting minutes, computer reports, or other appropriate documents and files.

An institution's ALLL methodology related to FAS 114 loans begins with the use of its normal loan review procedures to identify whether a loan is impaired as defined by the accounting standard. Institutions should document:

(1) The method and process for identifying loans to be evaluated under FAS 114 and

(2) The analysis that resulted in an impairment decision for each loan and the determination of the impairment measurement method to be used (i.e., present value of expected future cash flows, fair value of collateral less costs to sell, or the loan's observable market price).

Once an institution has determined which of the three available measurement methods to use for an impaired loan under FAS 114, it should maintain supporting documentation as follows:

(1) When using the present value of expected future cash flows method:

(a) The amount and timing of cash flows,

(b) The effective interest rate used to discount the cash flows, and

(c) The basis for the determination of cash flows, including consideration of current environmental factors and other information reflecting past events and current conditions.

(2) When using the fair value of collateral method:

(a) How fair value was determined, including the use of appraisals, valuation assumptions, and calculations,

(b) The supporting rationale for adjustments to appraised values, if any,

(c) The determination of costs to sell, if applicable, and

(d) Appraisal quality, and the expertise and independence of the appraiser.

(3) When using the observable market price of a loan method:

(a) The amount, source, and date of the observable market price.

Illustration A describes a practice used by a small financial institution to document its FAS 114 measurement of impairment using a comprehensive worksheet. 12 Q&A #1 and #2 in Appendix A provide examples of applying and documenting impairment measurement methods under FAS 114.

Some loans that are evaluated individually for impairment under FAS 114 may be fully collateralized and therefore require no ALLL. Q&A #3 in Appendix A presents an example of an institution whose loan portfolio includes fully collateralized loans and describes the documentation maintained by that institution to support its conclusion that no ALLL was needed for those loans.

For loans evaluated on a group basis under FAS 5, management should segment the loan portfolio by identifying risk characteristics that are common to groups of loans. Institutions typically decide how to segment their loan portfolios based on many factors, which vary with their business strategies as well as their information system capabilities. Smaller institutions that are involved in less complex activities often segment the portfolio into broad loan categories. This method of segmenting the portfolio is likely to be appropriate in only small institutions offering a narrow range of loan products. Larger institutions typically offer a more diverse and complex mix of loan products. Such institutions may start by segmenting the portfolio into major loan types but typically have more detailed information available that allows them to further segregate the portfolio into product line segments based on the risk characteristics of each portfolio segment. Regardless of the segmentation method used, an institution should maintain documentation to support its conclusion that the loans in each segment have similar attributes or characteristics.

As economic and other business conditions change, institutions often modify their business strategies, which may result in adjustments to the way in which they segment their loan portfolio for purposes of estimating loan losses. Illustration B presents an example in which an institution refined its segmentation method to more effectively consider risk factors and maintains documentation to support this change.

Institutions use a variety of documents to support the segmentation of their portfolios. Some of these documents include:

(1) Loan trial balances by categories and types of loans,

(2) Management reports about the mix of loans in the portfolio,

(3) Delinquency and nonaccrual reports, and

(4) A summary presentation of the results of an internal or external loan grading review.

Reports generated to assess the profitability of a loan product line may be useful in identifying areas in which to further segment the portfolio.

Based on the segmentation of the loan portfolio, an institution should estimate the FAS 5 portion of its ALLL. For those segments that require an ALLL, 13 the institution should estimate the loan and lease losses, on at least a quarterly basis, based upon its ongoing loan review process and analysis of loan performance. The institution should follow a systematic and consistently applied approach to select the most appropriate loss measurement methods and support its conclusions and rationale with written documentation. Regardless of the methods used to measure losses, an institution should demonstrate and document that the loss measurement methods used to estimate the ALLL for each segment are determined in accordance with GAAP as of the financial statement date. 14

One method of estimating loan losses for groups of loans is through the application of loss rates to the groups' aggregate loan balances. Such loss rates typically reflect the institution's historical loan loss experience for each group of loans, adjusted for relevant environmental factors (e.g., industry, geographical, economic, and political factors) over a defined period of time. If an institution does not have loss experience of its own, it may be appropriate to reference the loss experience of other institutions, provided that the institution demonstrates that the attributes of the loans in its portfolio segment are similar to those of the loans included in the portfolio of the institution providing the loss experience. 15 Institutions should maintain supporting documentation for the technique used to develop their loss rates, including the period of time over which the losses were incurred. If a range of loss is determined, institutions should maintain documentation to support the identified range and the rationale used for determining which estimate is the best estimate within the range of loan losses. An example of how a small institution performs a comprehensive historical loss analysis is provided as the first item in Illustration C.

Before employing a loss estimation model, an institution should evaluate and modify, as needed, the model's assumptions to ensure that the resulting loss estimate is consistent with GAAP. In order to demonstrate consistency with GAAP, institutions that use loss estimation models typically document the evaluation, the conclusions regarding the appropriateness of estimating loan losses with a model or other loss estimation tool, and the support for adjustments to the model or its results.

In developing loss measurements, institutions should consider the impact of current environmental factors and then document which factors were used in the analysis and how those factors affected the loss measurements. Factors that should be considered in developing loss measurements include the following: 16

(1) Levels of and trends in delinquencies and impaired loans;

(2) Levels of and trends in charge-offs and recoveries;

(3) Trends in volume and terms of loans;

(4) Effects of any changes in risk selection and underwriting standards, and other changes in lending policies, procedures, and practices;

(5) Experience, ability, and depth of lending management and other relevant staff;

(6) National and local economic trends and conditions;

(7) Industry conditions; and

(8) Effects of changes in credit concentrations.

For any adjustment of loss measurements for environmental factors, the institution should maintain sufficient, objective evidence to support the amount of the adjustment and to explain why the adjustment is necessary to reflect current information, events, circumstances, and conditions in the loss measurements.

The second item in Illustration C provides an example of how an institution adjusts its commercial real estate historical loss rates for changes in local economic conditions. Q&A #4 in Appendix A provides an example of maintaining supporting documentation for adjustments to portfolio segment loss rates for an environmental factor related to an economic downturn in the borrower's primary industry. Q&A #5 in Appendix A describes one institution's process for determining and documenting an ALLL for loans that are not individually impaired but have characteristics indicating there are loan losses on a group basis.

To verify that ALLL balances are presented fairly in accordance with GAAP and are auditable, management should prepare a document that summarizes the amount to be reported in the financial statements for the ALLL. The board of directors should review and approve this summary.

Common elements in such summaries include:

(1) The estimate of the probable loss or range of loss incurred for each category evaluated (e.g., individually evaluated impaired loans, homogeneous pools, and other groups of loans that are collectively evaluated for impairment);

(2) The aggregate probable loss estimated using the institution's methodology;

(3) A summary of the current ALLL balance;

(4) The amount, if any, by which the ALLL is to be adjusted; 17 and

(5) Depending on the level of detail that supports the ALLL analysis, detailed subschedules of loss estimates that reconcile to the summary schedule.

Illustration D describes how an institution documents its estimated ALLL by adding comprehensive explanations to its summary schedule.

Generally, an institution's review and approval process for the ALLL relies upon the data provided in these consolidated summaries. There may be instances in which individuals or committees that review the ALLL methodology and resulting allowance balance identify adjustments that need to be made to the loss estimates to provide a better estimate of loan losses. These changes may be due to information not known at the time of the initial loss estimate (e.g., information that surfaces after determining and adjusting, as necessary, historical loss rates, or a recent decline in the marketability of property after conducting a FAS 114 valuation based upon the fair value of collateral). It is important that these adjustments are consistent with GAAP and are reviewed and approved by appropriate personnel. Additionally, the summary should provide each subsequent reviewer with an understanding of the support behind these adjustments. Therefore, management should document the nature of any adjustments and the underlying rationale for making the changes. This documentation should be provided to those making the final determination of the ALLL amount. Q&A #6 in Appendix A addresses the documentation of the final amount of the ALLL.

An institution's ALLL methodology is considered valid when it accurately estimates the amount of loss contained in the portfolio. Thus, the institution's methodology should include procedures that adjust loss estimation methods to reduce differences between estimated losses and actual subsequent charge-offs, as necessary.

To verify that the ALLL methodology is valid and conforms to GAAP and supervisory guidance, an institution's directors should establish internal control policies, appropriate for the size of the institution and the type and complexity of its loan products. These policies should include procedures for a review, by a party who is independent of the ALLL estimation process, of the ALLL methodology and its application in order to confirm its effectiveness.

In practice, financial institutions employ numerous procedures when validating the reasonableness of their ALLL methodology and determining whether there may be deficiencies in their overall methodology or loan grading process. Examples are:

(1) A review of trends in loan volume, delinquencies, restructurings, and concentrations.

(2) A review of previous charge-off and recovery history, including an evaluation of the timeliness of the entries to record both the charge-offs and the recoveries.

(3) A review by a party that is independent of the ALLL estimation process. This often involves the independent party reviewing, on a test basis, source documents and underlying assumptions to determine that the established methodology develops reasonable loss estimates.

(4) An evaluation of the appraisal process of the underlying collateral. This may be accomplished by periodically comparing the appraised value to the actual sales price on selected properties sold.

Management usually supports the validation process with the workpapers from the ALLL review function. Additional documentation often includes the summary findings of the independent reviewer. The institution's board of directors, or its designee, reviews the findings and acknowledges its review in its meeting minutes. If the methodology is changed based upon the findings of the validation process, documentation that describes and supports the changes should be maintained.

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.

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

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

Section 510 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360) requires that manufacturers and initial importers engaged in the manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, assembly, or processing of medical devices intended for human use and in commercial distribution register their establishments and list the devices they manufacture with FDA. This is accomplished by completing FDA Form 2891 entitled “Initial Registration of Device Establishment” and FDA Form 2892 entitled “Medical Device Listing.” In addition, each year active, registered establishments must notify FDA of changes to the current registration and device listing for the establishment. Annual changes to current registration information are preprinted on FDA Form 2891a and sent to registered establishments. The form must be sent back to FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health, even if no changes have occurred. Changes to listing information are submitted on Form 2892. On August 14, 2001, all hospitals who reprocess single-use devices will be required to register and list their activities. Under the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997, foreign manufacturers are now required to register their establishments and list their devices, but foreign registration and listing will be covered under a separate information requirement. FDA will also accept voluntary registration and listings from firms not covered above that wish to be registered with FDA.

In addition, under § 807.31 (21 CFR 807.31), each owner or operator is required to maintain a historical file containing the labeling and advertisements in use on the date of initial listing, and in use after October 10, 1978, but before the date of initial listing. The owner or operator must maintain in the historical file any labeling or advertisements in which a material change has been made anytime after initial listing, but may discard labeling and advertisements from the file 3 years after the date of the last shipment of a discontinued device by an owner or operator. Along with the recordkeeping requirements above, the owner or operator must be prepared to submit to FDA all labeling and advertising mentioned above (§ 807.31(e)).

The information collected through these provisions is used by FDA to identify firms subject to FDA's regulations and is used to identify geographic distribution in order to effectively allocate FDA's field resources for these inspections and to identify the class of the device that determines the inspection frequency. When complications occur with a particular device or component, manufacturers of similar or related devices can be easily identified.

The likely respondents to this information collection will be domestic establishments engaged in the manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, assembly, or processing of medical devices intended for human use and commercial distribution.

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

This year’s submission has broken out annual costs into two distinct phases, and the tables above summarized the estimated annual reporting burden hours for medical device establishments to report in compliance with the provisions imposed by this regulation.

On August 14, 2001, hospitals who reprocess single-use devices will be required to register their establishments and list those devices they reprocess. FDA has estimated that there will be approximately 2,000 such establishments that will fall into this category. The first year of the requirement will cause a one-time bolus of information to be submitted. FDA has separated the burden estimates into two tables to indicate year 1 (table 1 of this document) and subsequent year’s estimates (table 2 of this document). Year 1 will include burden hours based on this bolus of submissions during the first year and subsequent year’s estimates will indicate an adjustment for the new registrants for year 2 and beyond.

The annual reporting burden hours to respondents for registering establishments and listing devices is estimated to be 16,961 hours, and recordkeeping burden hours for respondents is estimated to be 49,500 hours. The estimates cited in the tables above are based primarily upon the annual FDA accomplishment report, which includes actual FDA registration and listing figures from fiscal year (FY) 2000. These estimates are also based on FDA estimates of FY 00 data from current systems, conversations with industry and trade association representatives, and from internal review of the documents referred to in the previous tables.

According to 21 CFR part 807, all owners/operators are required to list, and establishments are required to register. Each owner/operator has an average of two establishments, according to statistics gathered from FDA's registration and listing database. The database has 16,500 active establishments listed in it. Based on past experience, the agency anticipates that approximately 4,045 registrations will be processed during the first year (because of hospitals who reprocess single-use), and 2,045 registrations thereafter. The agency also anticipates that approximately 5,450 initial and update device listings will be submitted the first year (due to hospitals who reprocess single-use devices), and 3,450 thereafter. FDA anticipates reviewing 200 historical files annually. Finally, because initial importers (currently estimated at 6,200) do not have to maintain historical files and because of the addition of 2,000 hospitals who reprocess single-use medical devices, FDA estimates that the number of recordkeepers required to maintain the initial historical information will be 9,900.

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

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

Section 519(f) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360i(f)) directs FDA to issue regulations to require device manufacturers and importers to report promptly to FDA, any correction or removal of a device undertaken by such manufacturers and importers, if the correction or removal was undertaken to reduce a risk to health posed by the device or to remedy a violation of the act caused by the device which may present a risk to health. Under 21 CFR 806.10 and 806.20(a), FDA requires that each device manufacturer and importer shall submit a written report to FDA of any action initiated to correct or remove a device to reduce a risk to health posed by the device or to remedy a violation of the act caused by the device which may present a risk to health within 10-working days of initiating such correction or removal. In addition, each manufacturer and importer of a device who initiates a correction or removal of a device that is not required to be reported to FDA, shall keep a record of such correction or removal.

The information collected in the reports of corrections and removals will be used by FDA to identify marketed devices that have serious problems and to ensure that dangerous and defective devices are removed from the market, assuring that FDA has current and complete information regarding these corrections and removals and whether recall action is adequate. Failure to collect this information prevents FDA from receiving timely information about devices that may have a serious effect on the health of the users of the devices.

Respondents to this information collection are businesses or other for-profit manufacturers or importers of medical devices who must remove or correct medical devices that cause public health risk to the general public.

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

The following is an explanation of the burden estimate:

FDA estimates that it would take 10 staff hours to prepare and assemble a written report. For the estimated 880 reports, FDA estimates that respondents will spend 8,800 hours to prepare, assemble, and send the reports.

FDA estimates that it would take 10 staff hours to prepare a written record. For the estimated 440 records, the total recordkeeping burden is estimated at 4,400 hours per recordkeeper.

In the Federal Register of January 30, 1998 (63 FR 4571), FDA published a final rule to revise §§ 814.44(d) and 814.45(d) (21 CFR 814.44(d) and 814.45(d)) to discontinue publication of individual PMA approvals and denials in the Federal Register . Instead, revised §§ 814.44(d) and 814.45(d) state that FDA will notify the public of PMA approvals and denials by posting them on FDA’s Intranet home page at http://www.fda.gov; by placing the summaries of safety and effectiveness on the Internet and in FDA's Dockets Management Branch; and by publishing in the Federal Register after each quarter a list of available safety and effectiveness summaries of approved PMAs and denials announced in that quarter.

FDA believes that this procedure expedites public notification of these actions because announcements can be placed on the Internet more quickly than they can be published in the Federal Register , and FDA believes that the Internet is accessible to more people than the Federal Register .

In accordance with section 515(d)(4) and (e)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360e(d)(4) and (e)(2)), notification of an order approving, denying, or withdrawing approval of a PMA will continue to include a notice of opportunity to request review of the order under section 515(g) of the act. The 30-day period for requesting reconsideration of an FDA action under § 10.33(b) (21 CFR 10.33(b)) for notices announcing approval of a PMA begins on the day the notice is placed on the Internet. Section 10.33(b) provides that FDA may, for good cause, extend this 30-day period. Reconsideration of a denial or withdrawal of approval of a PMA may be sought only by the applicant; in these cases, the 30-day period will begin when the applicant is notified by FDA in writing of its decision.

The following is a list of approved PMAs for which summaries of safety and effectiveness were placed on the Internet in accordance with the procedure explained previously from January 1, 2001, through March 31, 2001. There were no denial actions during this period. The list provides the manufacturer's name, the product's generic name or the trade name, and the approval date.

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the documents at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pmapage.html.

In accordance with 21 CFR 20.108(c), which states that all written agreements and MOUs between FDA and others shall be published in the Federal Register , the agency is publishing notice of this MOU.

A notice of proposed allocations to States of FY 2001 funds for refugee social services was published in the Federal Register on April 27, 2001 (66 FR 21224).

The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) has available $143,621,000 in FY 2001 refugee social service funds as part of the FY 2001 appropriation for the Department of Health and Human Services (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001, as enacted into law by Section 1(a)(1) of Pub. L. No. 106-554).

The FY 2001 House Appropriations Committee Report (H.R. Rept. No. 106-645) reads as follows with respect to social services funds:

The FY 2001 Conference Report on Appropriations (H.R. Conf. 106-1033) reads as follows concerning social services:

ORR will use the $143,621,000 appropriated for FY 2001 social services as follows:

• $71,927,850 will be allocated under the 3-year population formula, as set forth in this notice for the purpose of providing employment services and other needed services to refugees.

• $12,693,150 will be awarded as continuation social service discretionary grants under prior year competitive grant announcements issued separately from this notice.

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

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

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

• $20,000,000 will be awarded in prior year funds to increase educational support to schools with a significant proportion of refugee children and for the development of alternative cash assistance programs that involve case management approaches to improve resettlement outcomes. This support will include intensive English language training and cultural assimilation programs. Continuation awards will be made through a separate prior year announcement.

In addition, we are adding $20,500,000 in prior year funds to the FY 2001 formula social services allocation as two set-aside allocations as follows: (1) For outreach and assistance for low-income refugees and interpreter capacity-building services, and (2) as a set-aside for outreach, referral, and services for asylees, increasing the total amount available for the formula social services program in FY 2001 to $92,427,850.

Congress provided ORR with broad carry-over authority in the FY 2000 HHS appropriations law (as enacted into law by section 1000(a)(4) of Public Law 106-113) to use unexpended FY 1998 and FY 1999 CMA funds for assistance and other activities in the refugee program provided through September 30, 2001. The appropriations law states:

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

The Director is allocating $71,927,850 to States on the basis of each State's proportion of the national population of refugees who had been in the U.S. 3 years or less as of October 1, 2000 (including a floor amount for States which have small refugee populations).

The use of the 3-year population base in the allocation formula is required by section 412(c)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which states that the “funds available for a fiscal year for grants and contracts [for social services] * * * shall be allocated among the States based on the total number of refugees (including children and adults) who arrived in the United States not more than 36 months before the beginning of such fiscal year and who are actually residing in each State (taking into account secondary migration) as of the beginning of the fiscal year.”

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

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

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

The Director is also allocating an additional total of $20.5 million from prior year carry-over funds as two set-aside allocations as follow:

(1) $10.5 million to (a) provide referral services, including outreach, to ensure that refugees are able to access the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and other programs for low income populations; and (b) expand the capacity of communities to provide interpretation services for refugees through special training and hiring of interpreters to enable refugees to have equal access to medical, social, and certain legal services.

(2) $10 million to provide outreach, referrals, and social services to individuals granted asylum. Services for asylees may be provided only during the 5-year period following the date that asylum was granted.

Outreach, referral and interpretation services are not subject to the 5-year limitation and may be provided to refugees and asylees regardless of their length of time in the U.S. See 45 CFR 400.152(b). However, the need for outreach to asylees is greatest immediately after asylum is granted.

Regarding the first set-aside allocation, eligible refugee families often are not aware of, or do not know how to access, other Federal support programs available to low income working families in the community. We believe that these programs, including SCHIP, Food Stamps, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), Medicaid, Head Start, low-income housing, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), child care assistance, adult day care for aged dependents, and other support programs for low-income families, are important for the well-being of working refugees, particularly refugee families, and are necessary to help these refugees maintain employment and move toward full self-sufficiency.

The organizations funded by the first set-aside amount are expected to conduct outreach into the community to identify low-income refugees and to help these refugees enroll in and to be familiar with the services available and the participation requirements of these programs. We expect States to fund community-based organizations, to the maximum extent possible, to provide hands-on assistance, which means having the application forms available and helping refugees to fill out the application, accompanying the refugee to the eligibility office, assisting in the communication between the family and the eligibility worker, closely following the application process until the family has been found eligible, and then helping the family effectively use the service or support program in which they have been enrolled. For example, there may be different levels of medical coverage available to a family, depending on the ages of the children and the income level of the family, each with different requirements. It is important for the caseworkers/advocates funded through this initiative to understand the program requirements (such as a co-payment structure) in order to help the family make decisions and fully participate.

The organizations funded under this set-aside should develop effective ways to provide an on-going link between these services, the population they serve, and the targeted low income programs. Methods might include: partnering with schools to identify refugee children who may be eligible for SCHIP by virtue of their eligibility for the school lunch program; connecting with local Head Start programs to help identify refugee children who are eligible for SCHIP and other health care programs; arranging to have Medicaid eligibility workers visit the Mutual Assistance Association (MAA) or other participating organization on a scheduled basis; and working with other groups serving low income families, such as hospitals, WIC programs, low-income housing programs, and food assistance programs to make these services widely known to the refugee community being served.

It is also important that States provide as high a standard as possible in language interpretation to non-English speaking and to Limited-English-Proficient (LEP) refugees, particularly with regard to medical and legal issues. We are therefore including funding in the first set-aside for States to improve the availability and quality of interpreter services for refugees in their communities. The set-aside funds are to be used by States: (1) To fund specialized interpreter training for medical, legal, and social services; and (2) to pay for the hiring and employment of these trained interpreters by MAAs, voluntary agencies, and other community-based organizations serving refugees, to the maximum extent possible, in order to increase the number of skilled interpreters in the community.

Interpretation requires a great deal of skill—interpreters need to be fluent in English and the language spoken by the refugee. They must have the ability to quickly understand the message and terminology, if technical, in one language and to express it as quickly and correctly in another language. In addition to fluency in two languages, interpreters must have the skills to handle confidential client information and to deal with a variety of professionals in the medical, legal, law enforcement, social services, and other fields. All interpreters should be working under a recognized code of ethics.

States should use qualified training programs or trainers to provide the interpreter training. Several strategies may be employed, e.g., the direct training of interpreters in a group setting, paying the course tuition and associated expenses for individuals at a community college or university, and the training of trainers in order to establish and maintain an efficient training capacity in the community. To the extent possible, we would expect States to use an established curriculum rather than incurring costs to develop a new one. Funding of interpreter services should be directed to areas of greatest need and to the most linguistically isolated communities.

States must determine a community's capacity to ensure refugee access to medical and other services, and then examine how best to fund and maintain interpreter services for refugees based upon the need and size of refugee population. For example, an interpreter bank with dedicated interpreters may be a preferred option if the needs of the community can justify full-time interpreters. However, because the provision of interpreter services may not fully occupy funded staff in some locations or in certain languages, States may choose to train bilingual caseworkers at voluntary resettlement agencies, MAAs and refugee service providers. These workers are frequently called upon to interpret and should receive interpreter training. States may also consider cross-training of interpreters so that they may also assist, for example, in enrolling clients in SCHIP, Medicaid, or other services for low-income clients, and/or serve as case managers or in other staff positions. Staff with both bilingual interpreter skills and knowledge of the family services network, such as child protective services and the domestic violence system, are also highly desirable.

We also encourage States to set up creative ways to maintain and expand the availability of interpreter services in the community, such as seeking reimbursement for services from the courts, hospitals, and agencies which may be able to pay for interpreter services but have been otherwise hindered in providing these services by the lack of available and appropriately trained individuals. Fees from low-income refugee clients, however, may not be sought.

Regarding the second set-aside allocation, individuals granted asylum do not have voluntary agency caseworkers to bring them into the network of refugee program and benefits. They often are unaware of the benefits to which they are entitled. Outreach activities under the second set-aside allocation should be conducted with the goal of providing information to asylees or of providing information to the agencies and organizations that traditionally have contact with asylees and may be able to assist them in accessing needed services and benefits. For example, outreach through organizations and agencies may include training seminars on benefits-eligibility conducted for attorneys that represent asylum seekers, monthly liaison meetings with the District Office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to establish effective contacts, or provision of benefits and eligibility materials to local English as a Second Language (ESL) programs for distribution to students. This set-aside amount may also be used to provide social services to asylees. Although the formula social services funds are available to serve asylees, States may augment this funding using these set-aside funds for those agencies who are already serving, or expect to serve, refugees and asylees. Or, States may elect to hold a separate competition for the funds, depending upon State administrative procedures and programmatic need. As for refugees, services to asylees are those covered in 400.154 and 155.

A State that can demonstrate that the total amount of set-aside funds awarded is not needed to provide the services described above may submit a written request to the Director to use a portion of the funds for another non-employment service. This request must fully describe how the need for the specified set-aside services is already being met in the State, as well as a description of the additional service proposed, why it is needed, and how it will be provided.

In using the set-aside amount, funds should be directed to refugee specific organizations, where possible, such as refugee MAAs, qualified community based organizations with refugee experience, voluntary resettlement agencies, or refugee service providers.

Eligibility for refugee social services includes persons who meet all requirements of 45 CFR 400.43 (as amended by 65 FR 15409 (March 22,2000)).

Services to refugees must be provided in accordance with the rules of 45 CFR Part 400 Subpart I—Refugee Social Services. Although the allocation formula is based on the 3-year refugee population, States are not required to limit social service programs to refugees who have been in the U.S. only 3 years. However, under 45 CFR 400.152, States may not provide services funded by this notice, except for referral and interpreter services and citizenship and naturalization preparation services, to refugees who have been in the United States for more than 60 months (5 years).

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

In the past, a number of States have focused primarily on serving refugee cash assistance (RCA) recipients because of the need to help these refugees become employed and self-sufficient within the 8-month RCA eligibility period. Now, with the passage of welfare reform, refugee recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) also face a time limit for cash assistance and need appropriate services as quickly as possible to become employed and self-sufficient. In order for refugees to move quickly off TANF, we believe it is crucial for these refugees to receive refugee-specific services that are designed to address the employment barriers that refugees typically face.

Some States are doing remarkably well in helping refugees achieve self-sufficiency. For this reason, this may be a good time for these States to re-examine the range of services they currently offer to refugees and expand beyond employment services to address the broader needs that refugees have in order to successfully integrate into the community.

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

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

No comments were received.

Of the funds available for FY 2001 for social services, $71,927,850 is allocated to States in accordance with the formula specified in A. below. In addition, $20.5 million in set-aside funds are allocated in accordance with the formulas specified in B. and C. below.

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

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

2. The total number of refugees, Cuban/Haitian entrants, and Amerasians from Vietnam who arrived in the United States not more than 3 years prior to the beginning of the fiscal year for which the funds are appropriated, as shown by the ORR Refugee Data System. The resulting per capita amount is multiplied by—

3. The number of persons in item 2, above, in the State as of October 1, 2000, adjusted for estimated secondary migration.

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

B. A State's allowable first set-aside allocation is calculated as follows:

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

2. The total number of refugees, Cuban/Haitian entrants, and Amerasians from Vietnam who arrived in the United States not more than 3 years prior to the beginning of the fiscal year for which the funds are appropriated, as shown by the ORR Refugee Data System. The resulting per capita amount is multiplied by—

3. The number of persons in item 2 above, in the State as of October 1, 2000, adjusted for estimated secondary migration.

C. A State's allowable second set-aside allocation is calculated as follows:

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

2. The total number of asylees who were granted asylum in FY 2000 by the INS asylum corps (22,809), the asylum judges of the Executive Office of Immigration Review (12,763), and the Bureau of Immigration Appeals (1,402).

The calculations in B. and C. above yield the set-aside formula allocations for each State.

Adding the results for A., B., and C. above yields the total formula allocation for each State.

The population estimates for the allocation of funds in FY 2001 for the formula social service allocation and the first set-aside are based on data on refugee arrivals from the ORR Refugee Data System, adjusted as of October 1, 2000, for estimated secondary migration. The data base includes refugees of all nationalities, Amerasians from Vietnam, Cuban and Haitian entrants.

For fiscal year 2001, ORR's formula social service allocations for the States are based on the numbers of refugees, Amerasians, and entrants in the ORR data base. The numbers are based upon the arrivals during the preceding three fiscal years: 1998, 1999, and 2000.

The estimates of secondary migration are based on data submitted by all participating States on Form ORR-11 on secondary migrants who have resided in the U.S. for 36 months or less, as of September 30, 2000. The total migration reported by each State is summed, yielding in- and out-migration figures and a net migration figure for each State. The net migration figure is applied to the State's total arrival figure, resulting in a revised population estimate.

Estimates are developed separately for refugees and entrants and then combined into a total estimated 3-year refugee/entrant population for each State. Eligible Amerasians are included in the refugee figures. Havana parolees (HP's) are enumerated in a separate column in Table 1, below because they are tabulated separately from other entrants. For FY 2000 and FY 1999, Havana parolee arrivals for all States are based on actual data. For FY 1998, Florida's HP's (10,183) are based on actual data, while HP's in other States (3,258) are prorated according to the State's proportion of the three-year entrant populations.

The second set-aside is based on the number of asylees granted asylum in FY 2000, according to data received from the Department of Justice for cases approved by the Asylum Corps, the immigration judges of the Executive Office of Immigration Review, and the Bureau of Immigration Appeals. These data show the asylee's zip code of record. Because we are asking States to set up systems to identify and serve those asylees in need of services, we have added this second set-aside amount to the total allocation for States. During the next year, ORR intends to revise the ORR-11 and seek OMB approval to capture the number of asylees and secondary migrants accessing services at the county level. ORR will adjust the social services formula 3-year population based on these data.

Table 1, below, shows the estimated 3-year populations, as of October 1, 2000, of refugees (col. 1), entrants (col. 2), Havana parolees (col. 3); total refugee/entrant population, (col. 4); the formula amounts which the population estimates yield, (col. 5); the allocation amounts after allowing for the minimum amounts (col. 6); first set-aside allocation, (col. 7); the 1 year asylee population (col. 8); the second set-aside amount, (col. 9); and the total allocation (col. 10).

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

The following amounts are for allocation for refugee social services in FY 2001: