Title: Evaluation of the 14 State Summer Food Service Program Pilot Project.

OMB Number: Not yet assigned.

Expiration Date: N/A.

Type of Request: New collection of information.

Abstract: Subsection 18 (f) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA) (42 U.S.C. 1769 (f)), added by section 1(a)(4) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554, December 21, 2000), authorized the Secretary of Agriculture, through the Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), to conduct a pilot in each eligible State to increase the number of children participating in the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) in that State. Definition of “eligible State” was provided in the authorizing legislation. Fourteen States, specifically Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Texas and Wyoming, met the eligibility criteria and are participating in the pilot, which began in fiscal year (FY) 2001 and will continue through FY 2003. For SFSP purposes, Puerto Rico is defined as a “State” in section 13(a)(1) of the NSLA, 42 U.S.C. 1761(a)(1).

The authorizing legislation also requires FNS to conduct an evaluation of the pilot project to describe (a) any effect on participation by children and service institutions in the SFSP in the pilot States; (b) any effect of the pilot on the quality of meals and supplements served in the pilot States; and (c) any effect of the pilot on program integrity. OMB approval will be requested for the data collection instruments to be used for evaluating the impact of the 14 State SFSP Pilot Project on the three areas specified in the law.

Respondents: Respondents include: (a) State government SFSP staff; (b) continuing sponsors who were sponsoring SFSP before the pilot started; (c) new sponsors who began sponsoring the program since the pilot began; (d) former sponsors who did not participate in SFSP in FY 2000, 2001 or 2002; and (e) school food service directors of non-participating school districts with 50% or more enrolled students certified to receive free and reduced price school meals.

Estimated Number of Respondents: (a) up to 54 State government employees that administer SFSP; (b) 166 continuing sponsors; (c) up to 150 new sponsors; (d) up to 150 former sponsors; and (e) up to 150 school food service directors of non-participating school districts.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: One response per respondent with the exception of the 14 State Administrators who may be asked follow-up questions about program participation in FY 2003.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden is estimated to range from 15 minutes for school food service directors of non-participating school districts to 120 minutes for State government SFSP administration staff.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 383.5 hours. (a) State government SFSP administration staff (54 × 120 minutes) = 108 hours; (b) continuing sponsors (166 × 30 minutes) = 83 hours; (c) new sponsors (150 × 30 minutes)= 75 hours; (d) former sponsors (150 × 20 minutes + 30 × 60 minutes for focus groups) = 80 hours; and (e) school food service directors of non-participating school districts (150 × 15 minutes) = 37.5 hours.

This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.559 and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372 which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials (7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, and final rule related notice published at 48 FR 29114, June 24, 1983).

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3518), no new recordkeeping or reporting requirements have been included that are subject to approval from the Office of Management and Budget.

This notice is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of that Act. Additionally, this notice has been determined to be exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.

The terms used in this Notice shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the regulations governing the Summer Food Service Program for Children (7 CFR part 225).

In accordance with section 13 of the National School Lunch Act (NSLA)(42 U.S.C. 1761) and the regulations governing the SFSP (7 CFR part 225), notice is hereby given of adjustments in Program payments for meals served to children participating in the SFSP in 2002. Adjustments are based on changes in the food away from home series of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for All Urban Consumers for the period November 2000 through November 2001.

Section 104(a) of the William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-336) amended section 12(f) of the NSLA (42 U.S.C. 1760(f)) to allow adjustments to SFSP reimbursement rates to reflect the higher cost of providing meals in the SFSP in Alaska and Hawaii. Therefore, this notice contains adjusted rates for Alaska and Hawaii. This change was made in an effort to be consistent with other Child Nutrition Programs, such as the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program, which already had the authority to provide higher reimbursement rates for programs in Alaska and Hawaii.

The 2002 reimbursement rates, in dollars, for all States excluding Alaska and Hawaii:

The business meeting on January 18, begins at 10:00 AM, at the Forest Supervisor's Office of the Idaho Panhandle National Forests, 3815 Schreiber Way, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83815. Agenda topics will include election of Chairperson, develop criteria for reviewing project proposals, how to solicit projects, review project proposals, if available, and establishment of future meeting schedule. Due to unforeseen circumstances this document will be published less than 15 days before the meeting date.

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the possible impact of the proposed actions.

If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice for each service will be required to procure the services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the services to the Government.

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.

The following services are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

On April 30, 2001, the petitioner  1 requested an administrative review pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b) for one exporter  2 included in the antidumping duty order and five exporters included in three exporter/producer combinations  3 that received zero rates in the less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) investigation and thus were excluded from the antidumping duty order only with respect to brake rotors sold through the specified exporter/producer combinations.

On May 23, 2001, the Department initiated an administrative review covering Gren and the five exporters except with respect to excluded exporter/producer combinations ( see Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews (66 FR 28421, May 23, 2001)).

On June 6, 2001, we issued a questionnaire to each company listed in the brake rotor initiation notice. On June 25, 2001, the Department provided the parties an opportunity to submit publicly available information for consideration in these preliminary results.

On July 13, 2001, each of the exporters that received zero rates in the LTFV investigation stated that during the period of review (“POR”) it did not make U.S. sales of brake rotors produced by companies other than those included in its respective excluded exporter/producer combination. On July 19, 2001, the petitioner submitted a letter requesting the Department to conduct a verification of: (1) The response submitted by Gren; and (2) the no-shipment claims made by the five exporters named in the three exporter/producer combinations excluded from the antidumping duty order. On July 27, 2001, Gren submitted its questionnaire response.

On August 3, 2001, the petitioner submitted a letter in which it requested that the Department investigate a potential change in ownership of the five exporters included in the three exporter/producer combinations excluded from the antidumping duty order. On August 24, 2001, the petitioner submitted another letter in which it requested that the Department also verify Laizhou Luyuan's and Shenyang Honbase's U.S. importer which held ownership during the period of investigation (“POI”) in those two companies.

On August 20, 2001, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Gren, for which it received a response on September 18, 2001.

On October 2, 2001, the Department conducted a data query on brake rotor entries made during the POR from all exporters named in the excluded exporter/producer combinations in order to substantiate their claims of no shipments of subject merchandise made during the POR. As a result of the data query, the Department requested that the Customs Service confirm the actual manufacturer for specific entries associated with the excluded exporter/producer combinations.

In response to the petitioner's August 3 and 6, 2001, letters, the Department notified the petitioner on September 5, 2001, that it considered the change-in-ownership allegation with respect to the exporter/producer combinations excluded from the antidumping duty order to be outside the scope of this review.

On September 28, 2001, the petitioner submitted a letter in which it requested the Department to reconsider its decision not to investigate allegations of changes in ownership with respect to the exporter/producers combinations in this review.

After reconsidering the petitioner's November 5, 2001, request to examine any change in ownership of Laizhou Luyuan and Shenyang Honbase since the POI, the Department issued Laizhou Luyuan and Shenyang Honbase questionnaires on November 6, 2001, regarding the ownership of both companies. On November 27, 2001, Laizhou Luyuan and Shenyang Honbase submitted their responses to the supplemental questionnaire.

On December 31, 2001, the Department issued a memorandum stating that it preliminarily found no evidence that shipments of merchandise subject to the order were made by the five exporters included in the three exporter/producer combinations during the POR.

In accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, as amended, we determine that it is not practicable to complete this review within the original time frame because of the Department's decision to verify certain respondents in this review ( see “Verification” section of this notice for further discussion). We are currently unable to conduct verification and allow sufficient opportunity for the submission of interested party comments, prior to the current final results deadline. Thus, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and section 351.213(h)(2) of the Department's regulations, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the final results of these reviews until no later than 300 days from the date of publication of this notice.

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

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

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

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

The POR covers the period April 1, 2000, through March 31, 2001.

As provided in section 782(i)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.307, we intend to verify certain information relied upon in making our final results. On August 24, 2001, the petitioner requested that the Department conduct verification of the information and statements submitted by all exporter/producer combinations excluded from this order ( i.e., Laizhou Luyuan and Shenyang Honbase, Xinjiang/Zibo, and CAIEC/Laizhou CAPCO), the U.S. importer MAT, and Gren. We intend to verify Laizhou Luyuan, Shenyang Honbase, and the company that purchased a significant share in Laizhou Luyuan in accordance with 19 CFR 351.307. We also intend to verify CAIEC and Laizhou CAPCO. However, we do not intend to verify Gren because we do not find just cause has been demonstrated with respect to this company. In addition, verification of this company is not statutorily required, nor, has the petitioner provided a sufficient basis for examining Laizhou Luyuan's U.S. importer's data ( i.e., MAT).

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we have preliminarily determined that the exporters which are part of the three exporter/producer combinations which received zero rates in the LTFV investigation did not make shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Specifically, (1) neither CAIEC nor Laizhou CAPCO exported brake rotors to the United States that were manufactured by producers other than Laizhou CAPCO; (2) neither Shenyang Honbase nor Laizhou Luyuan exported brake rotors to the United States that were manufactured by producers other than Shenyang Honbase or Laizhou Luyuan; and (3) Xinjiang did not export brake rotors to the United States that were manufactured by producers other than Zibo ( see December 31, 2001, Memorandum from the case analyst to the file). In order to make this determination, we first examined PRC brake rotor shipment data maintained by the Customs Service. We then selected entries associated with each exporter and requested the Customs Service to provide documentation which would enable the Department to determine who manufactured the brake rotors included in those entries. On December 31, 2001, we placed on this record a memorandum which summarized the data provided by the Customs Service in response to our query. Based on the results of our query, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are preliminarily rescinding the administrative review because we found no evidence that the exporters in question made U.S. shipments of the subject merchandise during the POR. Although we still have not received manufacturer confirmation on some of the entries we selected in our sample, we will continue to pursue this matter with the Customs Service and seek to obtain the necessary data for consideration in our final results.

Based on information obtained in this proceeding, we issued supplemental questionnaires to two of the excluded companies, Laizhou Luyuan and Shenyang Honbase, in order to determine if a change in ownership occurred in either company.

Based on the data submitted by Shenyang Honbase, we find that there has been no change in ownership in this company since the POI. Therefore, there is no ownership issue with respect to Shenyang Honbase. Since the LTFV investigation, another company has purchased a significant portion of Laizhou Luyuan. The petitioner claims that because brake rotors exported by this other company are covered by the order, and because it owns the majority shares in Laizhou Luyuan, the Department should consider Laizhou Luyuan and this other company as one entity. Although a change in ownership has occurred with respect to Laizhou Luyuan, we find no evidence that this change in ownership has resulted in Laizhou Luyuan exporting subject merchandise to the United States which was not produced by itself or Shenyang Honbase ( i.e., the conditions under which Laizhou Luyuan's entries are excluded from the order).

In order to determine whether these two companies should be treated as one entity, we examined the extent to which the export operations of Laizhou Luyuan and this other company were intertwined such that this relationship has the potential to impact pricing and export decisions pertaining to the subject merchandise and create a potential for manipulation. Based on information in the record, we find that the export activities of Laizhou Luyuan and the company that purchased a significant portion of Laizhou Luyuan are not under common control even though common ownership does exist. For example, information in Laizhou Luyuan's response indicates that Laizhou Luyuan retained the same management before and after its purchase by the other company. Thus, we preliminarily find the export operations of Laizhou Luyuan and the other company are sufficiently separate of one another such that there is no significant potential for manipulation of pricing or export decisions.

Based on our examination of record evidence, we preliminarily determine that Laizhou Luyuan has not significantly changed its (1) management, (2) production facilities, (3) supplier relationships, or (4) customer base as a result of its purchase by the other company ( see pages 4 through 10 of Laizhou Luyuan's November 27, 2001, submission). Although the petitioner claims that Laizhou Luyuan's management, suppliers, and customers have changed significantly since the LTFV proceeding, there is no evidence that these changes were a result of the other company's purchase of Laizhou Luyuan. On the contrary, information on the record indicates that the changes mentioned by the petitioner appear to have occurred prior to the other company purchasing a significant share of Laizhou Luyuan. However, we will examine this issue further at verification.

Finally, we have no evidence at this time that the other company is exporting Laizhou Luyuan-made brake rotors which are not being assessed the PRC-wide rate upon entry into the United States or that Laizhou Luyuan is exporting brake rotors sourced through the other company.

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

The respondent in this review, Gren, is collectively-owned. Thus, a separate-rates analysis is necessary to determine whether this exporter is independent from government control ( see Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the People's Republic of China (“Bicycles” ) 61 FR 56570 (April 30, 1996)).

To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent in its export activities from government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department utilizes a test arising from the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“ Sparklers ”), and amplified in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (“ Silicon Carbide ”). Under the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if the respondent can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over export activities.

Gren has placed on the administrative record documents to demonstrate absence of de jure control, including the “The Enterprise Legal Person Registration Administrative Regulations,” promulgated on June 3, 1988; the 1990 “Regulation Governing Rural Collectively-Owned Enterprises of PRC;” and the 1994 “Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China.”

As in prior cases, we have analyzed these laws and have found them to establish sufficiently an absence of de jure control of collectively owned enterprises. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China (“Furfuryl Alcohol” ) 60 FR 22544 (May 8, 1995), and Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Partial-Extension Steel Drawer Slides with Rollers from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 29571 (June 5, 1995). We have no new information in this proceeding which would cause us to reconsider this determination with regard to Gren.

As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. See Silicon Carbide and Furfuryl Alcohol. Therefore, the Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether the respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates.

The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by, or subject to the approval of, a governmental authority; (2) whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses ( see Silicon Carbide and Furfuryl Alcohol ).

Gren has asserted the following: (1) It establishes its own export prices; (2) it negotiates contracts without guidance from any governmental entities or organizations; (3) it makes its own personnel decisions; and (4) it retains the proceeds of its export sales, uses profits according to its business needs, and has the authority to sell its assets and to obtain loans. Additionally, Gren's questionnaire responses indicate that its pricing during the POR does not suggest coordination among exporters. This information supports a preliminary finding that there is de facto absence of governmental control of export functions performed by Gren. See Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Administrative Review, 62 FR 55215 (October 23, 1997). Consequently, we have preliminarily determined that Gren has met the criteria for the application of separate rates.

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

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

For Gren, we calculated export price based on packed, CIF U.S. port or FOB foreign port prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling charges in the PRC, marine insurance, and ocean freight in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. Because foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling fees, marine insurance, and ocean freight were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in an NME currency ( i.e., renminbi), we based those charges on surrogate rates from India ( see “Surrogate Country” section below for further discussion of our surrogate country selection). To value foreign inland trucking charges, we used a November 1999 average truck freight value based on price quotes from Indian trucking companies. To value foreign brokerage and handling expenses, we relied on public information reported in the 1997-1998 antidumping duty new shipper review of stainless steel wire rod from India. To value marine insurance, we relied on public information reported in the antidumping duty investigation of sulfur dyes, including sulfur vat dyes, from India. To value ocean freight, we used a May 2000 price quote from a U.S. shipping company.

In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as a NME country. Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is a NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority ( see Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 52100, 52103 (October 12, 2001). None of the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated normal value in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries.

Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value a NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or more market economy countries that (1) are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country, and (2) are significant producers of comparable merchandise. India and Indonesia are among the countries comparable to the PRC in terms of overall economic development ( see Memorandum from the Office of Policy to Irene Darzenta Tzafolias, dated June 21, 2001). In addition, based on publicly available information placed on the record, India is a significant producer of the subject merchandise. Accordingly, we considered India the primary surrogate country for purposes of valuing the factors of production because it meets the Department's criteria for surrogate country selection. Where we could not find surrogate values from India, we used values from Indonesia.

In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on the factors of production which included, but were not limited to: (A) Hours of labor required; (B) quantities of raw materials employed; (C) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and (D) representative capital costs, including depreciation. We used the factors reported by Gren which produced the brake rotors it exported to the United States during the POR. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported unit factor quantities by publicly available Indian or Indonesian values.

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

To value pig iron, steel scrap, ferrosilicon, ferromanganese, limestone, lubrication oil, ball bearing cups, and coking coal, we used April 2000-February 2001 average import values from Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India. We relied on the factor specification data submitted by the respondent for the above-mentioned inputs in its September 18, 2001, submission for purposes of selecting surrogate values from Monthly Statistics. Because we could not obtain a product-specific price from India to value lug bolts, we used a January-March 1999 product-specific import value from the Indonesian government publication Foreign Trade Statistical Bulletin ( see Bicycles, 61 FR at 19040 (Comment 17)). We also added an amount for loading and additional transportation charges associated with delivering coal to the factory based on June 1999 Indian price data contained in the periodical Business Line .

To value firewood, we used April 2000-February 2001 rather than April 1997-March 1998 average import values from Monthly Statistics. In its August 28, 2001, submission, the petitioner argues that the Department should value this input using data from Monthly Statistics which is less contemporaneous to the POR because new articles ( i.e., February 26, 2001, article from the Times of India and September 30, 1997, U.S. Department of Agriculture Report) submitted by the petitioner indicate that firewood values in India may have been increasing since 1997 due to a greater dependence and demand in rural areas. For these preliminary results, we have relied on the April 2000-February 2001 data from Monthly Statistics to value this input because it is contemporaneous with the POR and we find no basis for considering this value as aberrational or unrepresentative of firewood values applicable during the POR.

We based our surrogate value for electricity on data obtained from Conference of Indian Industries: Handbook of Statistics (“ CII Handbook ”) and from the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (“ CMIE data ”).

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

To value selling, general, and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses, factory overhead and profit, we used the 1998 financial data of Jayaswals Neco Limited and the 1998-1999 financial data of Kalyani Brakes Limited (“Kalyani”) and Rico Auto Industries Limited (“Rico”). We have not used the fiscal data obtained by the petitioner for Kalyani and Rico from the Indiainfoline.com web site because the data provided by this web site is incomplete for purposes of calculating ratios for SG&A, factory overhead profit. Specifically, the website data provided only expense data based on general categories of expenses and not on the basis of specific expenses. Specific expense data is necessary for determining whether a particular expense should be considered an overhead or selling expense and for calculating accurate surrogate value percentages.

Where appropriate, we removed from the surrogate overhead and SG&A calculations the excise duty amount listed in the financial reports. We made certain adjustments to the ratios calculated as a result of reclassifying certain expenses contained in the financial reports. For further discussion of the adjustments made, see the Preliminary Results Valuation Memorandum, dated December 31, 2001.

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

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

To value corrugated cartons, nails, paper cartons, paper cover, plastic bags, steel strip, tape, and tin clamps, we used April 2000-February 2001 average import values from Monthly Statistics. To value pallet wood, we used a 1998 pallet wood value from the Indonesian publication Indonesia Foreign Trade Statistics which the Department has used to value pallet wood in two recent antidumping duty proceedings ( see Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 1998-1999 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part, 66 FR 1953, 1955 (January 10, 2001) (“ TRBs ”) and accompanying decision memorandum at Comment 10, and Persulfates from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 65 FR 46691 (July 31, 2000)).

We preliminarily determine that the following margin exists for Gren during the period April 1, 2000, through March 31, 2001:

We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to the parties to this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held on June 28, 2002.

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

Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in case briefs and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested parties may be submitted not later than June 14, 2002. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, will be due not later than June 21, 2002. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties are also encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited.

The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later than 300 days after the date of publication of this notice.

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

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

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of brake rotors from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Gren will be the rate determined in the final results of review (except that if the rate is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.50 percent, a cash deposit rate of zero will be required); (2) the cash deposit rate for PRC exporters who received a separate rate in a prior segment of the proceeding will continue to be the rate assigned in that segment of the proceeding; (3) the cash deposit rate for the PRC NME entity will continue to be 43.32 percent; and (4) the cash deposit rate for non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

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

This administrative review and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 351.213.

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 (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the U.S. Department of Commerce's (the Department's) regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (2000).

On October 22, 1998, the Department published in the Federal Register the final affirmative antidumping duty determination of sales at less than fair value (LTFV) on certain preserved mushrooms from Chile ( see Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, 63 FR 56613, ( LTFV Final Determination )). We published an antidumping duty order on December 2, 1998 ( see Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, 63 FR 66529).

On January 31, 2001, the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from Chile with respect to Nature's Farm Products (Chile) S.A. (NFC), Ravine Foods Inc (Ravine), and Compan ia Envasadora del Atlantico (CEA) ( see Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 66 FR 8378). On February 8, 2001, the Department issued the antidumping questionnaire to: NFC via its U.S. parent, Nature Farm Products, Inc. (NFP/USA); Ravine, a Canadian company; and CEA, a Colombian company.

NFP/USA advised the Department on February 13, 2001, that NFC did not export or sell the subject merchandise to the United States, nor did NFP/USA import or sell the subject merchandise to the United States. However, NFP/USA advised the Department to send a copy of the questionnaire directly to NFC ( see Memorandum to the File dated February 13, 2001, which summarizes information received from NFP/USA), which the Department had already sent on February 12, 2001. We did not receive a response from NFC, nor did we receive a response from Ravine.

We received a questionnaire response from CEA in April 2001. We issued supplemental questionnaires in May and August 2001. CEA responded to these questionnaires in June, July, August and September 2001. On October 4, 2001, CEA's counsel confirmed in a telephone conversation that the entry of the subject merchandise reported in CEA's questionnaire response had already been liquidated by the Customs Service ( see Memorandum to the File from Sophie Castro dated October 9, 2001).

In November 2001, we requested information concerning CEA's reported sale transaction from NFC, NFP/USA, and CEA's customer, Horley Trading Co., Ltd. (Horley). We received responses from NFP/USA and Horley; we did not receive a response from NFC.

On July 19, 2001, due to the reasons set forth in the Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, 66 FR 37640 (July 19, 2001), we extended the due date for the preliminary results to November 15, 2001, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. On November 19, 2001, we again extended the due date of the preliminary results to December 31, 2001, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act ( see Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, 66 FR 57937 (November 19, 2001)).

The products covered by this order are certain preserved mushrooms, whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The preserved mushrooms covered under this order are the species Agaricus bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis. “Preserved mushrooms” refer to mushrooms that have been prepared or preserved by cleaning, blanching, and sometimes slicing or cutting. These mushrooms are then packed and heated in containers including but not limited to cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid medium, including but not limited to water, brine, butter or butter sauce. Preserved mushrooms may be imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. Included within the scope of this order are “brined” mushrooms, which are presalted and packed in a heavy salt solution to provisionally preserve them for further processing.

Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: (1) All other species of mushroom, including straw mushrooms; (2) all fresh and chilled mushrooms, including “refrigerated” or “quick blanched mushrooms”; (3) dried mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and (5) “marinated,” “acidified” or “pickled” mushrooms, which are prepared or preserved by means of vinegar or acetic acid, but may contain oil or other additives.

The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable under subheadings 2003.10.0027, 2003.10.0031, 2003.10.0037, 2003.10.0043, 2003.10.0047, 2003.10.0053, and 0711.90.4000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUs subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

According to the information developed in this review, CEA purchased provisionally preserved ( i.e., brined) mushrooms in bulk containers from NFC. CEA reported that it subsequently retorted and repacked the subject merchandise into commercial-size cans and sold and shipped them to its U.S. customer, Horley. These cans were packed with the Nature's Farm brand on the label and the statement “Distributed by Nature's Farm Products, Inc.” on the label. CEA reported its sale to Horley for purposes of this review and stated that, to the best of its knowledge, NFC did not have knowledge that the merchandise was destined for the United States at the time of NFC's sale to CEA.

We have determined, based on our analysis of the information provided by CEA, NFP/USA, and Horley, that the first party with knowledge of destination was NFC and therefore the relevant transaction in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act is NFC's sale to CEA for exportation to the United States. Although CEA claims that it is the first party in the chain of distribution who had knowledge that the ultimate destination of the sale was the United States, our determination that NFC is the exporter who had knowledge of destination is based on evidence that NFC was affiliated with NFP/USA, that NFP/USA and Horley are affiliated, and that NFP/USA and Horley were engaged in sales negotiations with CEA immediately prior to or at the same time as their affiliate NFC sold subject merchandise to CEA.

Horley and NFP/USA both claim to be unaffiliated with each other. They claim that Horley merely has a licensing, rental, and commission agreement with NFP/USA, which enables Horley to use the NFP/USA brand on canned mushroom labels, and that NFP/USA's senior staff members are employed with Horley only in the role of “technical consultants.”

Among the specific “persons” considered in reaching an affiliated decision are officers and directors of organizations, employer and employee, and “any person who controls any other person or such persons.” See section 771(33) of the Act. Moreover, “a person shall be considered to control another person if the person is legally or operationally in a position to exercise restraint or direction over the other person.”

The Statement of Administrative Action, H. Doc. No. 103-316, Vol. 1 (1994) (SAA) at 838 states that “[t]he traditional focus on control through stock ownership fails to address adequately modern business arrangements, which often find one firm operationally in a position to exercise restraint or direction over another even in the absence of an equity relationship. A company may be in a position to exercise restraint or direction, for example, through corporate or family groupings, franchises, or joint venture agreements, debt financing, or close supplier relationships in which the supplier or buyer becomes reliant upon the other.”

There are several factors on the record which lead us to believe that NFP/USA and its officers exercise control over Horley legally or operationally. NFP/USA claims that it ceased import operations immediately prior to Horley's commencement of business operations. Horley established an office at NFP/USA's facility, and the two entities continue to share the facility to this day. Furthermore, Horley commenced negotiations on the import of the subject merchandise from CEA even before it was legally incorporated, but only after NFP/USA, who was initially contacted by CEA, referred the business to Horley. In fact, NFP/USA's president is the only person on the record identified as negotiating the sale with CEA on Horley's behalf. Furthermore, NFP/USA's president is also the only person who has provided factual information on Horley's behalf in response to our questionnaires, although NFP/USA's vice president certified Horley's December 3, 2001, factual submission under 19 CFR 351.303(g)(1). In addition, Horley's accountant also has been employed as NFP/USA's accounting manager. Besides shared managers and shared facilities, Horley also shares something much more obvious with NFP/USA—NFP/USA's name. Horley has the rights to all of NFP/USA's brand names, according to the licensing agreement submitted to the Department. Therefore, although Horley does not market itself as NFP/USA, it markets its products as NFP/USA goods. Thus, for all intents and purposes, taken as a whole, we believe that the record demonstrates that NFP/USA and its officers have shepherded and significantly controlled Horley's transactions with CEA.

In Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, 1999 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 110 (October 28, 1999) ( Ta Chen ), the Department found two companies, Ta Chen and Sun, to be affiliated. In making this determination, the Department cited a number of factors, including (a) historical ties between the companies, (b) former Ta Chen employees working for Sun; and (c) Sun's distribution solely of Ta Chen products. See id. at 115-117. The Court of International Trade (CIT) affirmed the Department's affiliation determination, stating, “[e]ven if each of the individual connections between Ta Chen and Sun, standing alone, may not be sufficient to establish control, Commerce's conclusion that the numerous connections between Ta Chen and Sun were indicative of control was reasonable. Commerce did not rely on any one factor in concluding that Ta Chen and Sun were affiliated parties, rather, it determined that the combination of factors was sufficient proof of affiliation.” See id.

We find that the circumstances in this case are comparable to those contemplated in the SAA and similar to those in Ta Chen. The totality of factors demonstrate that NFP/USA and Horley are affiliated companies. The two companies share officers, business opportunities, office space, and product brand names. Such a relationship between these two companies indicates that NFP/USA controls Horley for purposes of this review, within the meaning of section 771(33)(G) of the Act.

As discussed in both the Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From Chile, 63 FR 41786 (August 5, 1998), and the LTFV Final Determination, NFP/USA and NFC are closely affiliated companies. For example, all of NFC's sales in the LTFV investigation were made through NFP/USA as constructed export price transactions. NFP/USA incurred the expense for certain NFC production activities ( see LTFV Final Determination, 63 FR at 56614). Further, NFP/USA acknowledged that “NFP/USA is the primary funding source of NFP's operations” ( id., 63 FR at 56623). The record of this review shows no change in this status until February 2000. Accordingly, NFP/USA was clearly affiliated with NFC when NFC sold its brined mushrooms to CEA in January 2000. Furthermore, CEA indicated in its questionnaire responses that it only pursued business with NFC after it was confident that Horley would purchase canned mushrooms from CEA (see CEA's December 7, 2001, submission at page 3). Thus, Horley was in sales negotiations with CEA at the same time NFP/USA's affiliate NFC was negotiating to sell the subject merchandise to CEA. As discussed above, Horley and NFP/USA are affiliated companies. Accordingly, we believe that the weight of the evidence supports our finding that NFC had knowledge at the time of its sale to CEA, through its affiliation with NFP/USA, that the ultimate destination of its sale of brined mushrooms to CEA was the United States.

NFP/USA claims that it agreed to sever its affiliation with NFC in November 1999 ( see NFP/USA's December 3, 2001, submission at page 5). However, NFP/USA provided no evidence on the record of such an agreement. Moreover, NFP/USA acknowledges that NFC and NFP/USA remained legally affiliated until the formal transfer of NFP/USA's stock in February 2000.

NFP/USA and NFC were legally affiliated at the time of NFC's sale of brined mushrooms to CEA through NFP/USA's equity in NFC, as well as through their strong historical ties. Given that the subject merchandise was produced by NFC, and that it ultimately arrived in the United States in Horley's, and thereby NFP/USA's, control under the Nature's Farm brand name, the record evidence leads us also to conclude that NFC had knowledge of the ultimate destination of the product when it was sold to CEA.

As stated above under “Case History,” the Department initiated an administrative review of three companies: Ravine, NFC, and CEA.

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that “if an interested party or any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i), the administering authority shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this title.” Because Ravine and NFC have provided no information, we are assigning Ravine and NFC margins on the basis of the facts available, in accordance with section 776(a) of the Act. As we have determined that CEA's sale should be considered a sale by NFC, we have included this transaction in the rate assigned to NFC.

As noted above, Ravine did not respond to the Department's questionnaire. Therefore, the Department was unable to issue further questionnaires and review Ravine's information pursuant to sections 782(d) and 782(e) of the Act. Because of its refusal to cooperate in this review, we determine that the application of a rate based on facts available is appropriate pursuant to section 776(a)(2) of the Act.

As discussed above, NFC did not respond either to the Department's questionnaire, nor to the Department's November 2001 request for information. Thus we determine that the application of facts available is appropriate in the case of NFC.

Because Ravine and NFC have refused to participate in this administrative review, we preliminarily determine that an adverse inference is warranted in selecting facts otherwise available, in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act ( see, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Persulfates from The People's Republic of China , 62 FR 27222, 27224 (May 19, 1997); and Certain Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel From Italy: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 62 FR 2655 (January 17, 1997) (applying an adverse inference, as explained in detailed in Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel From Italy , 61 FR 36551, 36552, (July 11, 1996))).

Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds that an interested party “has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,” the Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of the party as facts otherwise available. Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” See SAA at 870. Furthermore, “an affirmative finding of bad faith on the part of the respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.” See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties: Final Rule , 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997).

Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available information derived from the petition, the final determination from the LTFV investigation, a previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the record. Under section 782(c) of the Act, a respondent has a responsibility not only to notify the Department if it is unable to provide requested information, but also to provide a “full explanation and suggested alternative forms.”

Ravine and NFC failed to respond to our request for information in any manner, thereby failing to comply with this provision of the statute and making it impossible for the Department to conduct an administrative review of their sales or entries. Therefore, we have determined that Ravine and NFC failed to cooperate to the best of their abilities and we have made an adverse inference in applying the facts available.

In this proceeding, the only rate that has been in effect has been the rate of 148.51% calculated for NFC and All Others in the LTFV Final Determination . Information from prior segments of the proceeding constitutes secondary information and section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that secondary information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The SAA provides that “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value ( see SAA at 870).

To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. See Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Review: Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof from Japan, 61 FR 57392 (November 6, 1996) ( TRBs ). However, unlike other types of information, such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources for calculated dumping margins. Thus, in an administrative review, if the Department chooses as adverse facts available a calculated dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time period. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the Department “will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin inappropriate. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin” ( id.; see also TRBs and Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 61 FR 6812, 6814 (Feb. 22, 1996) (where the Department disregarded the highest margin as adverse facts available because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin)).

As noted above, the highest calculated margin (and the only calculated margin) in the history of this proceeding is 148.51 percent. In the instant review, there are no circumstances indicating that this margin is inappropriate as facts available. Moreover, this rate is currently applicable to all subject merchandise. Assigning a lower rate, even if one were available, would effectively reward these companies for their failure to cooperate. Therefore, we find that the 148.51 percent rate is corroborated to the greatest extent practicable in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act.

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the dumping margin for the POR is as follows:

If requested, a hearing will be held 44 days after the date of publication of this notice, or the first work day thereafter.

Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested parties and rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the respective case briefs, may be submitted not later than 30 days and 37 days, respectively, from the date of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.309(c) and (d). Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties are also encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited.

The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.

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

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service upon completion of this review. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties. We will instruct the Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review on an importer-specific basis. We are also instructing Customs to apply a specific rate to all entries manufactured by NFC and sold to CEA.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be that established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 148.51 percent, the “All Others” rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

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

This administrative review and notice are published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221.

On February 14, 2001, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on natural paintbrushes from the People's Republic of China (PRC) (66 FR 10269). On February 28, 2001, the Department received a timely request from the petitioner for administrative reviews of Hunan Provincial and Hebei Founder in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b). On March 22, 2001, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1), the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on natural paintbrushes, for the period from February 1, 2000 through January 31, 2001, in order to determine whether merchandise imported into the United States is being sold at less than fair value prices. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocations in Part (66 FR 16037).

On September 12, 2001, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department rescinded the administrative review with regard to Hebei Founder since we found no entries or shipments from Hebei Founder during the POR. (See 66 FR 47450.) On December 6, 2001, the petitioner withdrew its request for this review with regard to Hunan Provincial.

The Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) provide that a party may withdraw its request for review within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Although the petitioner's request for withdrawal was more than 90 days from the date of initiation, consistent with the Department's past practice in the context of administrative reviews conducted under section 751(a) of the Act, the Department has discretion to extend the time period for withdrawal on a case-by-case basis. ( See e.g. Iron Construction Casings from Canada: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 45797 (August 27, 1998).) Rescission of this review would not prejudice any party in this proceeding, as Hunan Provincial would continue to receive its company-specific cash deposit rate to which it was subject at the time of the initiation of this review. The petitioners are the only party that requested a review of Hunan Provincial's sales for the February 1, 2000 through January 31, 2001 POR. Moreover, the Department has not yet devoted extensive time and resources to this review. Therefore, we determine that it is reasonable to extend the deadline under section 351.213(d), and to rescind this review.

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

This determination is issued and published in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1675) and 19 CFR 351.213(d).

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“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 (“URAA”). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the regulations at 19 CFR part 351 (2000).

The period of investigation (“POI”) is January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000.

We determine that certain welded large diameter line pipe from Mexico is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), as provided in section 735 of the Act. The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section of this notice.

On January 30, 2001, the Department initiated the above referenced investigation. See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Welded Large Diameter Line Pipe from Mexico and Japan, 66 FR 11266 (February 23, 2001). On August 15, 2001, the Department published a notice of its preliminary determination in the investigation. See Preliminary Determination, 66 FR 42841. From October 31, 2001 through November 5, 2001, the Department conducted a sales and cost verification for Productora Mexicana de Tuberia (“PMT”). See Sales and Cost Verification Report (November 14, 2001). We invited parties to comment on our Preliminary Determination. Petitioners submitted their case brief (“Petitioners' Brief”) on November 21, 2001. PMT did not submit a case brief or a rebuttal brief. The Department has conducted and completed the investigation in accordance with section 735 of the Act.

The product covered by this investigation is certain welded carbon and alloy line pipe, of circular cross section and with an outside diameter greater than 16 inches, but less than 64 inches, in diameter, whether or not stenciled. This product is normally produced according to American Petroleum Institute (API) specifications, including Grades A25, A, B, and X grades ranging from X42 to X80, but can also be produced to other specifications.

Specifically not included within the scope of this investigation is American Water Works Association (AWWA) specification water and sewage pipe and the following size/grade combinations of line pipe:

• Having an outside diameter greater than or equal to 18 inches and less than or equal to 22 inches, with a wall thickness measuring 0.750 inch or greater, regardless of grade.

• Having an outside diameter greater than or equal to 24 inches and less than 30 inches, with wall thickness measuring greater than 0.875 inches in grades A, B, and X42, with wall thickness measuring greater than 0.750 inches in grades X52 through X56, and with wall thickness measuring greater than 0.688 inches in grades X60 or greater.

• Having an outside diameter greater than or equal to 30 inches and less than 36 inches, with wall thickness measuring greater than 1.250 inches in grades A, B, and X42, with wall thickness measuring greater than 1.000 inches in grades X52 through X56, and with wall thickness measuring greater than 0.875 inches in grades X60 or greater.

• Having an outside diameter greater than or equal to 36 inches and less than 42 inches, with wall thickness measuring greater than 1.375 inches in grades A, B, and X42, with wall thickness measuring greater than 1.250 inches in grades X52 through X56, and with wall thickness measuring greater than 1.125 inches in grades X60 or greater.

• Having an outside diameter greater than or equal to 42 inches and less than 64 inches, with a wall thickness measuring greater than 1.500 inches in grades A, B, and X42, with wall thickness measuring greater than 1.375 inches in grades X52 through X56, and with wall thickness measuring greater than 1.250 inches in grades X60 or greater.

• Having an outside diameter equal to 48 inches, with a wall thickness measuring 1.0 inch or greater, in grades X-80 or greater.

The product currently is classified under U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTSUS”) item numbers 7305.11.10.30, 7305.11.10.60, 7305.11.50.00, 7305.12.10.30, 7305.12.10.60, 7305.12.50.00, 7305.19.10.30, 7305.19.10.60, and 7305.19.50.00. Although the HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.

All issues raised in the case briefs to this investigation are addressed in the December 28, 2001 Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Decision Memo”) from Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Group III to Faryar Shirzad, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded, and other issues addressed, all of which are in the Decision Memo, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this investigation and the corresponding recommendations in the Decision Memo, a public memorandum which is on file at the U.S. Department of Commerce, in the Central Records Unit, in room B-099. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content.

In the preliminary determination, the Department applied facts available to the mandatory respondent. Deficiencies present in respondent's response made it impossible for the Department to appropriately calculate a preliminary antidumping duty margin. Consequently, the Department assigned PMT-Tubacero the rate of 49.86 percent, the margin calculated from information in the petition and used for initiation. The Department also applied the 49.86 percent margin as the “All Others” rate.

Subsequent to the preliminary determination, we have determined that the use of total adverse facts available is appropriate for the final determination for our analysis of PMT and its collapsed affiliate Tubacero, hereinafter referred to as “PMT-Tubacero.” For a discussion of our determination with respect to this matter, see the Decision Memo. Consequently, we have continued to apply the rate of 49.86 percent for purposes of this final determination.

Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act provides that, where the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for all exporters and producers individually investigated are zero or de minimis margins, or are determined entirely under section 776 of the Act, the Department may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated “all-others” rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated. This provision contemplates that we weight-average margins other than facts available margins to establish the “all others” rate. Where the data do not permit weight-averaging such rates, the Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 870 (1994) (“SAA”) at 873 provides that we may use other reasonable methods. Because the petition contained only an estimated price-to-price dumping margin, which the Department adjusted for purposes of initiation, there are no additional estimated margins available with which to create the “all others” rate. Therefore, we applied the published margin of 49.86 percent as the “all others” rate.

In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing the Customs Service to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from Mexico that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register . The Customs Service shall continue to require a cash deposit or posting of a bond equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price as shown below. The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) of our final determination. As our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will, within 45 days, determine whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing Customs to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.

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 the APO is a sanctionable violation.

This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Goat Canyon Creek is located in the far western portion of the greater Tijuana River Watershed approximately one mile inland from the Pacific Ocean. The watershed is characterized by steep slopes, sandy soils with cobbles, pockets of native coastal sage scrub, riparian vegetation, and a high level of human-induced disturbance, especially during the last 20 to 30 years. A prominent result of changes in the watershed has been a significant increase in sediment yield in response to higher volumes of runoff and an increased sediment supply throughout the watershed. Increased sedimentation has adversely affected the local habitat communities of Goat Canyon and downstream within the Tijuana River Estuary. By the mid-1980s, it was estimated that erosion and sedimentation had resulted in the loss of 30 acres of intertidal wetland area in the Tijuana River Estuary. The composition and distribution of native habitat communities along the creek and on the alluvial fan have been altered, as has the morphology of the creek. Further, during storm events, sediment is deposited on Monument Road, which in turn blocks public access to Border Field State Park and impedes the U.S. Border Patrol.

On August 10, 2000, the National Ocean Service published in the Federal Register a Notice of Intent to prepare a joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Vol. 65 No. 155, 48971-48972). The stated intent of the proposed project was to enhance the existing Goat Canyon Creek and its natural habitat communities, including the Tijuana River Estuary, through the management of sediment within the canyon and on the adjacent alluvial fan. A notice announcing the availability of the draft EIS/EIR was published on October 12, 2001.

The final EIS/EIR examines the potential effects of the No Project Alternative and four project alternatives for construction of a sedimentation retention system within Goat Canyon and the alluvial fan. NOAA has identified Alternative D-1 as the Preferred Alternative based on an evaluation of the comparison of the impacts between the alternatives.

Alternative D-1 features an in-canyon diversion structure and sedimentation basin system consisting of two basins in series to capture the flow in Goat Canyon Creek. The system has been designed to contain the full 100-year flood event. The Preferred Alternative also involves construction of access roads around the basins, staging areas adjacent to the basins, a visual berm located between the basins and Monument Road, improvements to part of Monument Road and a multi-purpose trail, and creation of wetland habitat. The Preferred Alternative would be the most efficient at capturing sediment and would result in the least impacts to sensitive wetland habitats and endangered species.

Copies of the final EIS/EIR are available for review at the California State Parks, San Diego Coast District Office, 9609 Waples, Suite 200, San Diego, California, 92108, (858) 642-4200, the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve at 301 Caspian Way, Imperial Beach, California 91932, (619) 575-3613, and at the Imperial Beach Public Library, 810 Imperial Beach Boulevard, Imperial Beach, 91932, (619) 424-6981.

The formation of this ad hoc committee is in response to the Council's request for a committee to scope multi-year management approaches for the West Coast groundfish fishery. Multi-year management of the groundfish fishery would be synchronized with a multi-year groundfish stock assessment schedule. Full accommodation of federal notice and comment requirements would also be incorporated into the multi-year cycle. This is the second meeting of the committee, and the primary purpose of the meeting is to further develop the purpose and objectives of multi-year management, as well as alternative multi-year management approaches.

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

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at 503-326-6352 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

a. The commercial dredging companies seek extensions of their Corps Dredging Permits and PADEP Water Obstruction and Encroachment Permits, and PADEP Sand and Gravel License Agreements. These permits may be issued, suspended or modified pending completion of the NEPA process.

b. The purpose of this action is the issuance of permits to extract sand and gravel from the Allegheny and Ohio Rivers for commercial sale. This material supports diverse infrastructure and construction requirements for a variety of customers in the region.

c. Alternatives to be assessed are the complete cessation of commercial river dredging within the study area following denial of permit extensions and the expiration of existing permits held by the applicants; obtaining sand and gravel from the Allegheny and Ohio Rivers by commercial dredging by granting and extending the Department of the Army Section 10 and 404 permits to commercial sand and gravel companies for the removal of sand and gravel between river miles 0-69.5 on the Allegheny River and between river miles 0-40 on the Ohio River; and using land-based operations or importation of sand and gravel from other locations to meet the regional need for this material, implying complete cessation of commercial river dredging (other than for navigational purposes) and denial to extend existing permits held by the applicants.

d. The Corps has held numerous Stakeholder meetings between 1996 and 2000 in which the scope and direction of the study were discussed. State agencies; federal agencies; a public interest organization; and sand and gravel companies directly impacted by the permit request participated in these discussions.

e. Interested parties are encouraged to send written or electronic comments concerning issues to be addressed, required studies, alternatives, procedures or other related matters or requests for information regarding the proposed study process to the point-of-contact above. All comments and information requests should be postmarked no later than 30 days after this Notice of Intent is published in the Federal Register .

f. The EIS will assess the impacts of sand and gravel dredging on various ecological resources including aquatic resources (fish, mussels, threatened and endangered species, and water quality), hydrology, noise, and cultural resources.

g. Appendix B, 33 CFR Part 325, provides that the Corps District Engineer may require the Permit Applicant and/or his/her consultant to provide relevant information for the Corps use in preparing an EIS. The applicants are collecting information to provide to the Corps. Prior to preparation of the Draft EIS, however, the Corps is required to solicit public input into the process.

h. The Corps will schedule a public hearing after the Draft EIS is issued.

i. The Draft EIS is expected to be available to the public no later than June 2002.

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.

Title: Reading Excellence Act: School and Classroom Implementation and Impact Study.

Frequency: Annually.

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

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Abstract: The Reading Excellence Act School and Classroom Implementation and Impact Study (REA-SCII) is a six-year study to learn about the implementation and impact of the REA legislation on instructional practice in reading and on student reading achievement. The Study has the following features: (1) A representative sample of 75 schools that have received REA Local Reading Initiative sub-grants; (2) a longitudinal sample of kindergarten students followed through the end of second grade; measures of student reading performance; multiple observations of classroom reading instruction in grades K-2; and surveys of and interview/focus groups with key school and district staff.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, or should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, D.C. 20202-4651. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO.RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Sheila Carey at (202) 708-5359 or via her internet address Sheila.Carey@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Title: The Evaluation of Exchange, Language, International and Area Studies (EELIAS), NRC, FLAS and IIPP, UISFUL, Business and International Education Program (BIE), Centers for International Business Education Program (CIBE) and American Overseas Research Centers (AORC) (JS).

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions (primary).

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Abstract: BIE, CIBE and AORC are being added for clearance to the system that already contains four other programs. Information collection assist IEGPS in meeting program planning and evaluation requirements. Program officers require performance information to justify continuation funding, and grantees use this information for self evaluations and to request continuation funding from the Department of Education.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, or should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, D.C. 20202-4651. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO.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 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.

In mid-December of 2001, the Congress gave final approval to H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act. This bill, which now awaits the President's signature, will substantially revise the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), offering all of America's school children the opportunity and means to achieve academic success. In particular, the bill embodies the four key measures of the President's education reform plan: (1) Stronger accountability for results, (2) expanded flexibility and local control, (3) expanded options for parents, and (4) an emphasis on teaching methods that have been proven to work, particularly in reading instruction.

These measures are designed to produce fundamental reforms in classrooms throughout America. They will provide officials and administrators at the school, school district, and State levels substantial flexibility to plan and implement school programs that will help close the achievement gap between disadvantaged and minority students and their peers. At the same time, the new law will hold school officials accountable—to parents, students, and the public—for achieving results. These and other major changes to the ESEA through the No Child Left Behind Act will redefine the federal role in K-12 education to better focus on improving the academic performance of all American students. The full text of this pending law, and the House-Senate conference report summary of the final bill, may be found on the Internet at: http://edworkforce.house.gov/issues/107th/education/nclb/nclb.htm.

One key way that the Department provides flexibility for States and school districts to design their own approaches for improving the academic performance of all students is by encouraging the careful development and use of consolidated plans or applications. Use of consolidated plans or applications also will help accomplish the President's goal of reducing unnecessary and burdensome paperwork and focus planning and reporting on student achievement.

Sections 9301 and 9302 of the new law, like the predecessor provisions in sections 14301 and 14302 of the ESEA, as amended in 1994 by the Improving America's Schools Act (IASA), will offer States the option of seeking funding under most ESEA formula grant programs through these consolidated plans or applications instead of through individual program plans or applications that the law otherwise would require. As expressed in the forthcoming law, a consolidated plan or application would be designed “to improve teaching and learning by encouraging greater cross-program coordination, planning, and service delivery, to provide greater flexibility to State and local authorities, and to enhance integration of [the ESEA] programs * * * with State and local programs” (section 9301). States would submit not the information required for individual ESEA program plans or applications, but rather “only descriptions, information, assurances, * * * and other materials that are absolutely necessary for the consideration of the consolidated State plan or consolidated State application” (section 9302(b)(3)). Hence, the Department will be able to provide funding to States under many ESEA formula grant programs on the basis of this single plan or application.

In addition, section 9305 of the ESEA will extend similar flexibility to local educational agencies (LEAs), continuing the authority for LEAs to receive program funding through submission of consolidated local plans or applications under individual programs that the statute would otherwise require. It also clarifies existing law to ensure that State educational agencies (SEAs) do not require local education agencies (LEAs) to submit individual program plans or applications if they wish to submit a consolidated application.

Programs that may be included in a consolidated plan or application. Sections 9101(13) and 9302(a)(1) of the ESEA, as amended by the forthcoming No Child Left Behind Act, identify the programs that a State would be able to include in a consolidated plan or application. These programs are each of those authorized by—

Title I, Part A: Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies.

Title I, Part B, subpart 3: William J. Goodling Even Start Family Literacy Programs.

Title I, Part C: Education of Migrant Children.

Title I, Part D: Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk.

Title I, Part F: Comprehensive School Reform.

Title II, Part A: Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund.

Title II, Part D: Enhancing Education Through Technology.

Title III, Part A: English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement and Academic Achievement.

Title IV, Part A: Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities.

Title IV, Part B: 21st Century Community Learning Centers.

Title V, Part A: Innovative Programs.

Title VI, Part B, subpart 2: Rural and Low-Income School Program.

Other programs the Secretary may designate. Each State would be free either to submit a consolidated plan or application that includes any or all of these programs, or to submit a separate program plan or application for each of the programs the ESEA would otherwise require.

1. Criteria for consolidated State plans. After the 1994 reauthorization of the ESEA, the Department developed criteria for consolidated State plans that sought to align consolidated planning of the ESEA programs included in the States' plans with comprehensive school reform efforts that States were already undertaking on their own. Therefore, the criteria for the consolidated State plans that States have provided to the Department since 1994 stressed a comprehensive description of the State's—

• Goals and objectives for achievement of all students, including the content of the State's standards and assessments system under Title I, part A of the ESEA, and performance indicators, benchmarks, and timelines it had established for meeting these goals and objectives;

• Strategies, activities, and uses of resources under which the ESEA programs the State included in its consolidated plan would help to achieve State goals and objectives, including those related to such key components as Title I, part A schoolwide programs, professional development, safe and drug-free schools, and consolidated local planning;

• Process for ensuring that the consolidated State plan would continue to be revised, as necessary, to reflect changing circumstances and continuous improvement; and

• Process for promoting and maintaining public involvement in reviewing how well the plan was being implemented.

States also provided a limited amount of fiscal information that the Department needed to review before distributing ESEA program funding to ensure program accountability. All but one State now receive ESEA State formula grant program funding on the basis of these consolidated plans.

In the guidance it issued on preparation of these consolidated State plans, the Department informed States that its approval of those plans eliminated the need, for programs included in the plan, to develop separate program planning documents that the individual program statutes otherwise required. However, the Department also stressed that its approval of the consolidated State plans did not relieve States of their responsibility to adhere to all of the operational requirements that these statutes imposed, whether or not the statutes included them as required elements of individual program plans or applications.

2. Consolidated performance reports. In 1998, the Department distributed an initial consolidated performance reporting instrument that States began using to report annually on the performance of all programs included in their consolidated plans. This reporting instrument (and its subsequent revision) replaced the various individual program performance reports that States had previously sent at differing times to the Department. States report in a single document information in a number of areas, in particular (a) student achievement gains (principally for Title I, part A), (b) how LEAs carried out individual programs, including participation data, and (c) how well States and LEAs met performance measures for these programs that the Department had established in accordance with requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).

1. An overview. Consistent with the pending No Child Left Behind Act, the Department is developing proposed consolidated application and reporting procedures that States would integrate into a comprehensive State accountability system. Information States would submit in their consolidated applications would be integral to both overall State accountability and to the Department's ability to meet its basic administrative responsibilities.

We refer to the documents as “consolidated applications” rather than as “consolidated plans” to emphasize that this information would not constitute an educational or programmatic “plan” or “set of strategies.” By this we mean that the Department has no intention of reviewing (or approving) a State's plans for achieving program-by-program goals for academic achievement of all students and most other objectives and requirements of the individual ESEA programs. Instead the Department will review a consolidated application that contains the State's overall and individual programmatic goals and objectives that relate to improved student achievement, and its descriptions of the overall State system for measuring progress in achieving them. A State would be responsible to its own students and parents—but not to the Department —for putting in place effective strategies for meeting those goals and objectives.

Hence, the criteria for consolidated State applications would be designed to reflect a focus on the data that States will use to demonstrate results, in particular, improved student achievement levels of all students and narrowing of “achievement gaps.” In the consolidated annual reports, States would provide data on their success in achieving these results. Moreover, in order to reduce burden and enable the collection of more up-to-date information, the Department will be working to make this reporting system “web-based” so that information might be supplied electronically rather than in paper form.

2. Proposed key components of the new consolidated State application. More specifically, the consolidated State application would address—

• The State's definition of adequate yearly progress under section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act, and its timeline to ensure that all students are proficient not later that 12 school years after the end of the 2001-2002 school year as the new law will require, as it applies to both public elementary and secondary school students as a whole and the required subgroups: economically disadvantaged students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, disabled students, and limited English proficient students.

• The State's key objectives for each of the Federal programs included in the consolidated application and the populations those programs serve, as those objectives support increased achievement of all students ( e.g., its goals for increasing migrant-student high school completion rates, goals for reducing school violence, and goals for increasing the number of highly qualified teachers);

• So that progress can be tracked through the State's annual reports, (1) baseline data for the 2001-2002 school year for the indicators on which States would provide information in their annual reports under section 1111(h)(4), and (2) other baseline data relative to key objectives for each of the Federal programs included in the consolidated application and the populations those program serve, as those objectives support increased student achievement.

• The principal approaches the State would use, with federal and non-federal funds, to achieve adequate yearly progress for all students and the key objectives for each of the included ESEA programs and the populations they assist;

• The assessment and accountability systems the State would use for measuring whether it is successful in meeting (1) its adequate yearly progress goals for all students under sections 1111(b)(3) and (b)(2), respectively, and (2) the State's key objectives for each of the included ESEA programs; and

• Key information on specific ESEA programs that the Department needs to review in order to ensure programmatic or fiscal integrity.

3. Other considerations.

a. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 will make significant changes to the ESEA that are designed to give school officials, educators, and parents the tools they need to ensure that all students can achieve. However, this Act also will build upon school reform strategies that were begun under the previous statute and other federal and State initiatives. In this regard, provided that State plans are consistent with Department requirements, States would be able to draw upon information and data that they developed under the previous statute.

b. To gauge the success of the Nation in implementing the new Act, it is important that where possible States report their assessment data using common formats and measures. Therefore, the Department intends to work with States to determine how their data management systems may align.

c. Only a limited amount of program-specific information would be included in a consolidated State application. Yet, even if not addressed in the consolidated application, all operational and program-planning requirements of each program (as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act) included in a consolidated application are extremely important and need to be met. Many ESEA program statutes establish some of these operational and planning requirements in provisions that govern the content of individual program plans or applications. States would need to adhere to all of those requirements (as well as to those that appear elsewhere in the individual program statutes), and to maintain for public inspection documentation that confirms they have been met. (In order to help promote public dialogue on how States can most effectively implement the federal programs included in their consolidated applications, the Department also would encourage States to post on their Internet sites information on how they propose to meet key requirements of each program.)

Specific questions on which the Department seeks comment. Consolidated State applications can provide the Department with important information on how the State intends federal programs included in the application to promote increased achievement of all students. However, the principal importance of these consolidated applications (and reports) is their ability to communicate to the public, policy-makers, and others in each State the basis on which the State officials responsible for implementing the new law propose to hold themselves accountable for ensuring that no child is left behind.

It is in both of these contexts that we are interested in receiving public comment and reaction to all aspects of this proposal. However, in formulating your comments we ask that you pay particular attention to the following questions:

1. Goals, objectives, and baseline data. What kinds of State goals and objectives—in addition to the adequate yearly progress standards set forth in Title I, part A—might States adopt for measuring the success of programs included in the consolidated application? What baseline data might States use to measure success in meeting these key goals and objectives? How might States measure their success in implementing each program included in the consolidated application?

2. Phase-in process. The Department will need to distribute FY 2002 funds to States this coming July. States will have insufficient time by then to prepare high-quality consolidated applications that would reflect all of the desired information. Consequently, the Department would establish initial procedures and criteria under which States choosing to submit consolidated applications will be able to receive FY 2002 funds in a timely manner. However, given the requirements of the pending No Child Left Behind Act, and the urgency with which all of us will be working to implement it, the Department would want all States to have submitted complete consolidated State applications by a specific deadline, no later than the beginning of the 2003-04 school year. States plainly will need to be able to submit this information to the Department in two or more phases that reflect the differing amounts of time that will be needed to prepare the different parts of their applications.

What might this phase-in process look like? Consistent with the exigencies and program-specific schedules underpinning the No Child Left Behind Act, how much time would States need to provide the different information that would be included in the complete consolidated State application? What information should States be expected to provide in each phase? In addition, while the Department would insist that each State submit all of the information to be included in its consolidated application by the end of the 2003-2004 school year, some States may be able to submit their information earlier than others. Should the Department have States submit their information on different schedules that depend on when they have their data available?

3. Individual program requirements. Without undermining the important purposes of consolidated State applications, how can the Department do a better job of helping to ensure State, school district, and school adherence to the requirements of the individual programs that those consolidated applications include?

4. Consolidated performance reporting. Consolidated performance reporting for school years 2000-01 and 2001-02 will be conducted through the Office of Management and Budget-approved reporting form the Department prepared under the previous law. Are there elements of this report that the Department should retain for reporting under the No Child Left Behind Act? Which ones?

5. Flexibility initiatives under the new law. What implications do the No Child Left Behind Act's flexibility initiatives have for the consolidated State application and annual reporting effort? These initiatives include:

• Transferability of program funds, allowing any SEA to transfer 50 percent of its State-level funds under certain programs to State-level activities under other programs or under Title I, and LEAs to transfer 50 percent of their funds among programs or into Title I (Title VI, Part A, Subpart 2);

• The Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP), which allows small rural LEAs to consolidate certain federal program funds (Part B of Title VI);

• The Secretary's waiver authority (Title IX, Part D), and waiver decisions available to States under the Ed-Flex Partnership Demonstration Act of 1999 (Ed-Flex);

• The State Flexibility Program (state-flex), which allows SEAs to use certain federal funds for any ESEA purpose, direct the use of funds provided under Title V, Part A (formerly Title VI of the ESEA), and enter into local performance agreements with ten LEAs in each State (Title VI, Part A, Subpart 3, Chapter A); and

• Local flexibility authority, under which up to 80 additional LEAs will receive broad authority to consolidate funds (Title VI, Part A, Subpart 3, Chapter B).

6. Other considerations. Are there criteria and procedures for consolidated State applications (or plans) that, consistent with the requirements of sections 9301 and 9302 of the new Act, would better promote accountability for increased academic achievement of all students and other objectives of the No Child Left Behind Act? What are they? How should they be reflected in the procedures and content for consolidated State applications or plans that the Department establishes?

You may view this document, in Text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister.

To use the PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office toll free at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC area at (202) 512-1530.

35 U.S.C. 207 authorizes licensing of Government-owned inventions. Implementing regulations are contained in 37 CFR part 404. 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1) authorizes exclusive licensing of Government-owned inventions under certain circumstances, provided that notice of the invention's availability for licensing has been announced in the Federal Register .

The Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) is a cost-shared partnership between the government and industry to demonstrate advanced coal-based, power generation technologies. The goal is to accelerate commercial deployment of advanced technologies to ensure that the United States has clean, reliable, and affordable electricity. Electric power produced from coal is fundamental to a strong U.S. economy and to domestic energy security.

This CCPI solicitation is open to any technology advancement related to coal-based power generation that results in efficiency, environmental, and economic improvement compared to currently available state-of-the-art alternatives. The solicitation is also open to technologies capable of producing any combination of heat, fuels, chemicals, or other useful byproducts in conjunction with power generation. Prospective projects must ensure that coal is used for at least 75% of the fuel energy input to the process. Additionally, prospective projects must show the potential for rapid market penetration upon successful demonstration of the technology or concept.

The advanced technologies to be demonstrated under this program will be vital to the role that coal and other solid fuels will play on the world power production scene. Production of more electricity while creating a cleaner environment at lower cost has the potential to raise the standard of living of not only the citizens of the United States, but of the world as a whole.

Prospective applicants who would like to be notified as soon as the draft solicitation is available should register at http://www.netl.doe.gov/business. Click on the “Business Alert Registration and follow the instructions. Once you subscribe, you will receive an announcement by E-mail that the draft solicitation has been released to the public. Telephone requests, written requests, E-mail requests, or facsimile requests for a copy of the draft solicitation package will not be accepted and/or honored. The draft solicitation will be open for public comments on December 21, 2001. A public meeting/webcast will be held on January 17, 2002 and the draft solicitation will be closed to public comments on January 23, 2002.

The final solicitation will be made available on or about February 18, 2002. Applications must be prepared and submitted in accordance with the instructions and forms contained in the solicitation. The final solicitation document will allow for requests for explanation and/or interpretation.

The EIS will assess the environmental consequences of the agreement which BPA proposes with Peoples Energy, and the consequences of any modifications to the transmission system needed to provide an electrical connection under the terms of the agreement. In addition to these Federal actions, the EIS will consider the environmental consequences of construction and operation of the COB Energy Facility.

The proposed project has several components. In addition to the generating facility itself (described below), other components may include: (1) An electrical connection into the BPA's electrical transmission system, (2) upgrades to existing BPA Substations, (3) a new substation on-site, (4) potential system upgrades to be defined through impact studies of the facility, (5) a natural gas pipeline, and (6) water supply and process water pipelines.

The proposed COB Energy Facility would be a power development project beginning as a simple-cycle generation facility and expanding to a combined-cycle electric generating facility. Nominal generating capacity is 600 megawatts in the simple-cycle configuration and 1,150 megawatts in the combined-cycle configuration. The facility site would be located approximately 3 miles south of the City of Bonanza, on the east side of West Langell Valley Road No. 520 in Klamath County. The combined-cycle facility would consist of four combustion turbine generators, and each turbine generator would be coupled with a heat-recovery steam generator (HRSG) and two HRSG's will couple with a steam turbine generator.

The proposed COB Energy Facility would be fueled by natural gas from the existing Pacific Gas & Electric Gas Transmission Northwest (PG&E GTN) pipeline and delivered through a new, approximately 4.6-mile natural-gas pipeline. Natural gas would be burned in the combustion turbines. Expanding gases from combustion would turn rotors within the turbines that are connected to electric generators. The hot gases exhausted from the combustion turbines would be used to raise steam in the HRSGs. Steam from the HRSGs would be expanded through a steam turbine that drives its own electric generator. To increase steam-generating capacity, a duct burner system will be included in each HRSG. The duct burner will increase the steam generated in the HRSGs and increase the steam generator's electrical output.

Water would be needed at the facility to generate steam and cool the steam process. Water would be supplied from an existing well, known as the Babson well, located approximately 2.8 miles from the facility. The well would draw water from the deep basalt aquifer, which is isolated from the shallow well aquifer in the area. Process water from the facility would be discharged either for land application through nearby irrigation district systems, land applied on site for irrigation, or discharged to the Lost River during periods allowed by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

The COB Energy Facility would deliver electric power to the regional power grid through an interconnection to existing electric transmission lines that cross the facility site. The facility would tie into two or three of the existing electric transmission lines, owned by BPA, PacifiCorp, and Portland General Electric. A transmission planning study conducted by the three utilities will determine the optimal interconnection among the transmission lines. The study also will identify any upgrades to the existing lines or the Malin Substation that may be needed.

BPA is the lead Federal agency for the project EIS. The State of Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council is currently evaluating the Notice of Intent to Apply for a Site Certificate for the COB Energy Facility. Oregon's site evaluation process, like NEPA, provides opportunity for public participation, and a public meeting will be held by representatives from the Oregon Office of Energy at the January 15 meeting in Bonanza.

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

BPA intends to prepare an EIS addressing both the COB Energy Facility and the associated electric power interconnection facilities. BPA has established a 45-day scoping period during which affected landowners, concerned citizens, special interest groups, local governments, and any other interested parties are invited to comment on the scope of the proposed EIS. Scoping will help BPA ensure that a full range of issues related to this proposal is addressed in the EIS and also will identify significant or potentially significant impacts that may result from the proposed project. When completed, the Draft EIS will be circulated for review and comment, and BPA will hold a public comment meeting on the Draft EIS. BPA will consider and respond in the Final EIS to comments received on the Draft EIS.

BPA decided to prepare the EIS for the following reasons: (1) The COB Energy Facility would depend on an interconnect to existing electric transmission lines that may include a BPA line, (2) the interconnect could require upgrades to the existing BPA line, (3) the interconnection may include a new substation on the site, (4) the interconnection may require upgrades to the BPA Malin Substation, (5) the interconnect may result in other system impacts identified in the transmission study, and (6) no other Federal or State agency is currently preparing an EIS on the proposed project. Because no other EIS is being prepared, the scope of BPA's EIS will cover both the interconnection elements and the COB Energy Facility itself.

The principal issues identified thus far for consideration in the Draft EIS with respect to the COB Energy Facility are as follows: (1) Air and water quality impacts, (2) noise impacts from plant operation, (3) aesthetic impacts, (4) socioeconomic impacts created by an influx of construction workers into a sparsely populated area, (5) impacts on wildlife habitat, and (6) cultural resource impacts. The principal issues identified thus far for consideration in the Draft EIS with respect to the electric power transmission facilities are impacts of electrical interconnection on the grid system.

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

Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are Public Water Systems, primacy agents including regulators in the States, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Trust Territories; Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages, and in some instances, U. S. EPA Regional Administrators and staff.

Title: Information Collection Request for Public Water Systems Supervision Program: Public Notification Amendment. The current Public Notification ICR (EPA No. 1898.02; OMB No. 2040-0209) expires June 30, 2002.

Abstract: The 2001 PWSS Program ICR is the result of a consolidation of some rules and activities covered in the 1993 PWSS ICR and activities and rules previously covered in other OGWDW standalone ICRs. The current Public Notification ICR will be renewed as an amendment to the 2001 PWSS Program ICR. This ICR amendment revises the burden estimate for public notification regulations, as required by sections 1414(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Public water systems are required to give notification to all persons served when a violation of EPA drinking water standards occurs and for other situations posing a risk to health. EPA regulations define the form, manner, frequency, and content of the notices. Ensuring implementation of these requirements by public water systems is principally a responsibility of the States, territories and tribe that have assumed primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for public water systems under SDWA section 1413.

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

The EPA would like to solicit comments to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and, (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses).

Burden Statement: The estimated burden for Public Notification is approximately: 51,449 responses per year; 748,811 hours per year; and $4.035 million per year of total cost.

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. Any recommendations from the drinking water community and the general public on this issue will be given consideration by the Agency.

This announcement consists of three parts. The first part contains general information. The second part addresses the registrants' requests for registration cancellations and amendments to delete uses. The third part proposes existing stocks provisions that will be set forth in the cancellation order that the Agency intends to issue at the close of the comment period for this announcement.

This action is directed to the public in general. You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, sell, distribute, or use diazinon products. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, does not apply because this action is not a rule, for purposes of 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Electronically . You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select “Laws and Regulations” and then look up the entry for this document under the “ Federal Register --Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. To access information about the risk assessment for diazinon, go to the Home Page for the Office of Pesticide Programs or go directly to http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/op/diazinon.htm.

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPP-34225F. 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 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-34225F 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 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 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 OPP-34225F. 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 listed 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. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice or collection activity.

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

8. 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.

Certain registrants requested in letters dated June, August, and September 2001, that their diazinon registrations be amended to delete all indoor uses, certain agricultural uses, and any other uses that the registrants do not wish to maintain. The requests also included deletions of outdoor non-agricultural uses from the labeling of certain end-use products so that such products would be labeled for agricultural uses only. Similarly, other diazinon end-use registrants requested voluntary cancellation of their diazinon end-use registrations with indoor use and/or certain outdoor non-agricultural uses, and any other uses that the registrants do not wish to maintain. Pursuant to section 6(f)(1) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is announcing the Agency's receipt of these requests. These requested cancellations and amendments are consistent with the requests in December 2000 by the manufacturers of diazinon technical products, and EPA's approval of such requests, to terminate all indoor uses and certain agricultural uses from their diazinon product registrations because of EPA's concern with the potential exposure risk, especially to children. The indoor uses and agricultural uses subject to cancellation are identified in List 1 below:

Indoor uses: Pet collars, or inside any structure or vehicle, vessel, or aircraft or any enclosed area, and/or on any contents therein (except mushroom houses), including but not limited to food/feed handling establishments, greenhouses, schools, residences, commercial buildings, museums, sports facilities, stores, warehouses and hospitals.

Agricultural uses: Alfalfa, bananas*, Bermuda grass, dried beans, dried peas, celery*, red chicory (radicchio), citrus, clover, coffee, cotton, cowpeas, cucumbers*, dandelions, forestry (ground squirrel/rodent burrow dust stations for public health use)*, kiwi, lespedeza, parsley*, parsnips*, pastures, peppers*, potatoes (Irish and sweet)*, sheep, sorghum, squash (winter and summer)*, rangeland, Swiss chard*, tobacco, and turnips (roots and tops)*. (The Agency does not intend to disapprove or cancel any 24(c) Special Local Need registrations issued for the uses designated with an asterisk).

As mentioned above, the requests announced in this Federal Register notice also include registration cancellations and/or amendments to terminate certain uses that the registrants do not wish to maintain. The specific requests are identified in Tables 1 and 2 of this notice.

EPA has begun the process of reviewing the requested amendments which cannot be finalized until the end of the public comment period and provided that no substantial comments need to be addressed. EPA also intends to grant the requested product and use cancellations by issuing a cancellation order at the close of the comment period for this announcement unless the Agency receives substantive comments within the comment period that would merit its further review of these requests.

The registrants and end-use product registrations containing diazinon for which cancellation was requested are identified in the following Table 1.

Under section 6(f)(1)(A) of FIFRA, registrants may request, at any time, that EPA cancel any of their pesticide registrations. Section 6(f)(1)(B) of FIFRA requires that EPA provide a 30-day period in which the public may comment before the Agency may act on the request for voluntary cancellation. In addition, section 6(f)(1)(C) of FIFRA requires that EPA provide a 180-day comment period on a request for voluntary termination of any minor agricultural use before granting the request, unless: (1) The registrants request a waiver of the comment period, or (2) the Administrator determines that continued use of the pesticide would pose an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment. In this case, all of the registrants have requested that EPA waive the 180-day comment period. In light of this request, EPA is granting the request to waive the 180-day comment period and is providing a 30-day public comment period before taking action on the requested cancellations. Because of risk concerns posed by certain uses of diazinon, EPA intends to grant the requested cancellations at the close of the comment period for this announcement unless the Agency receives any substantive comment within the comment period that would merit its further review of these requests.

Pursuant to section 6(f)(1)(A) of FIFRA, the following companies have submitted a request to amend the registrations of their pesticide end-use products containing diazinon to delete certain uses from certain products. The following Table 2 identifies the registrants, the product registrations that they wish to amend, and the uses that they wish to delete through registration amendments.

Under section 6(f)(1)(A) of FIFRA, registrants may request, at any time, that their pesticide registrations be amended to delete one or more pesticide uses. The aforementioned companies have requested to amend their registrations and have requested that EPA waive the 180-day comment period. In light of this request, EPA is granting the request to waive the 180-day comment period and is providing a 30-day public comment period before taking action on the requested amendments to delete uses. Because of risk concerns posed by certain uses of diazinon, EPA intends to grant the requested amendments to delete uses at the close of the comment period for this announcement, unless the Agency receives any substantive comment within the comment period that would merit its further review of these requests.

EPA received requests for voluntary cancellation of the diazinon registrations identified in Tables 1 and requests for amendments to terminate certain uses of the diazinon registrations identified in Table 2. Pursuant to section 6(f) of FIFRA, EPA intends to grant these requests by issuing a cancellation order at the end of the 30-day comment period unless the Agency receives any substantive comment within the comment period that would merit its further review of these requests. In the event that EPA issues a cancellation order, EPA intends to include in that order the existing stocks provisions set forth in this section. For purposes of that cancellation order, the term “existing stocks” will be defined, pursuant to EPA's existing stocks policy published in the Federal Register of June 26, 1991 (56 FR 29362), as those stocks of a registered pesticide product which are currently in the United States and which have been packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation or amendment. Any distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks after the effective date of the cancellation order that the Agency intends to issue that is not consistent with the terms of that order will be considered a violation of section 12(a)(2)(K) and/or 12(a)(1)(A) of FIFRA.

EPA intends that the cancellation order includes the following existing stocks provisions:

1. Distribution or sale of products bearing instructions for use on agricultural crops . The distribution or sale of existing stocks by the registrant of any product listed in Table 1 or 2 that bears instructions for use on the agricultural crops identified in List 1 will not be lawful under FIFRA 1 year after the effective date of the cancellation order. Persons other than the registrant may continue to sell or distribute the existing stocks of any product listed in Table 1 or 2 that bears instructions for any of the agricultural uses identified in List 1 after the effective date of the cancellation order. However, it is lawful to ship such stocks for export consistent with the requirements of section 17 of FIFRA, or to properly dispose of the existing stocks in accordance with all applicable law.

2. Distribution or sale of products bearing instructions for use on outdoor non-agricultural sites . The distribution or sale of existing stocks by the registrant of any product listed in Table 1 or 2 that bears instructions for use on outdoor non-agricultural sites will not be lawful under FIFRA 1 year after the effective date of the cancellation order. Persons other than the registrant may continue to sell or distribute the existing stocks of any product listed in Table 1or 2 that bears instructions for use on outdoor non-agricultural sites after the effective date of the cancellation order. However, it is lawful to ship such stocks for export consistent with the requirements of section 17 of FIFRA, or to properly dispose of the existing stocks in accordance with all applicable law.

3. Distribution or sale of products bearing instructions for use on indoor sites . The distribution or sale of existing stocks by the registrant of any product listed in Table 1 or 2 that bears instructions for use at or on any indoor sites (except mushroom houses), shall not be lawful under FIFRA as of the effective date of the cancellation order, except for shipping stocks for export consistent with the requirements of section 17 of FIFRA, or properly disposing of the existing stocks in accordance with all applicable law.

4. Retail and other distribution or sale of existing stock of products for indoor use . The distribution or sale of existing stocks by any person other than the registrants of products listed in Table 1 or 2 bearing instructions for any indoor uses except mushroom houses will not be lawful under FIFRA after December 31, 2002, except for shipping stocks for export consistent with the requirements of section 17 of FIFRA, or properly disposing of the existing stocks in accordance with all applicable law.

5. Use of existing stocks . EPA intends to permit the use of existing stocks of products listed in Table 1 or 2 until such stocks are exhausted, provided such use is in accordance with the existing labeling of that product.

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” 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-1059. 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-1059 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-1059. 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 a pesticide petition (IF06300) from Aventis CropScience, 2 Alexander Drive, Research Trianagle Park, NC 27709 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a tolerance for residues of fenamidone, and its metabolites RPA 412708, RPA 412636, and RPA 410193 in or on the raw agricultural commodities: Potato, 0.05 parts per million (ppm) tomato, 1.0 ppm; tomato paste, 3.5 ppm, tomato puree, 3.5 ppm, bulb vegetable crop group, 1.5 ppm; cucurbit crop group, 0.1 ppm; head lettuce, 15.0 ppm; leaf lettuce, 20.0 ppm; wheat grain, 0.05 ppm, wheat straw, 0.5 ppm; wheat forage, 0.5 ppm, and wheat hay, 0.5 ppm. Tolerances are also proposed for fenamidone and its metabolite RPA 410193 on imported wine grapes at 0.5 ppm. EPA has determined that the petition contains 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 petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

1. Plant metabolism . The plant metabolism of fenamidone (RPA 407213) is adequately understood in four distinct crops (lettuce, tomatoes, potatoes, and grapes) to support these tolerances. In all cases, the primary residue was the parent fungicide, RPA 407213. The only significant metabolite was RPA 410193 (ÿ7Eÿ7Eÿ7Eÿ7Eÿ7Eÿ7Eÿ7Eÿ7Eÿ7Eÿ7Eÿ7Eÿ7Eÿ7Eÿ7E~17 of the total radioactive residue (TRR) in grapes, ÿ7E~9% of the TRR in tomatoes, < 1% of the TRR in lettuce (mostly in the wrapper leaves), and < 1% of the TRR in potatoes (haulm or tubers)). RPA 412708 and RPA 412636 were minor metabolites reported in the lettuce and potato metabolism studies, and may account for part of the unidentified residue reported in the grape and tomato metabolism studies.

2. Analytical method . Although residue levels approaching the proposed tolerances are unlikely, independently validated enforcement methods are available for determining residues of fenamidone and relevant metabolites. Residues are first extracted from the crop matrix by blending or shaking with a mixture of acetonitrile and water. After filtration, an aliquot of the extract is rotary evaporated to near dryness; then diluted with water. Cleanup is accomplished on a HRP polymeric solid phase extraction (SPE) cartridge and an amino SPE cartridge. Residues are quantified by high performance liquid chromotography (HPLC) with tandem mass spectrometric detection (LC/MS/MS). The method limits of quantification (LOQ) are 0.02 ppm for fenamidone, and its metabolites, RPA 412636, RPA 412708, and RPA 410193 in potato tubers, and processed fractions, tomatoes and processed fractions, cucumbers, squash, cantaloupes, head and leaf lettuce, onions, spinach, and wheat raw agricultural commodities and processed fractions.

3. Magnitude of residues —i. Cucurbit crops . The magnitude and decline of residues of fenamidone were determined on cucumber, cantaloupe, and summer squash, the representative commodities for the cucurbit vegetable crop group. Nine field trials were conducted on each crop during 1999. EXP 10623A, a suspension concentrate end use formulation containing 500 g fenamidone per liter, was applied as six broadcast applications, each at the maximum rate of 0.178 lb ai/acre (200 g ai/A/ha). Applications were made approximately 5 days apart. The target pre-harvest interval (PHI) was 14 days. Residues of fenamidone RPA 407213 were detected in two of nine trials of cucumbers at levels of 0.022 to 0.041 ppm, with the metabolite RPA 412708 measured in only one trial at 0.028 ppm. Quantifiable residues of fenamidone were measured in eight of nine trials of cantaloupes at levels ranging from 0.021 to 0.098 ppm, with no quantifiable residues of metabolites detected. Residues of parent fenamidone were found in only one of nine summer squash trials at 0.039 to 0.077 ppm with no quantifiable residues of any metabolites detected.

ii. Tomato . Seventeen residue trials were conducted in 1999-2000. EXP 10623A, a suspension concentrate containing 500 g fenamidone per liter, was applied as four broadcast applications of 0.268 lb ai/acre (300 g ai/ha) each or six broadcast applications of 0.178 lb ai/acre (200 g ai/A) each, for a maximum seasonal use rate of 1.068 lb ai/acre (1,200 g ai/ha). Applications were made approximately 5 days apart. The target PHI was 14 days. Cherry tomatoes were grown at 4 of the 18 trials. Trace residues of the fenamidone metabolite RPA 410193 were detected in tomatoes from only one trial, on cherry tomatoes, at levels of 0.023 to 0.028 ppm. Measurable residues of the parent fungicide, fenamidone were found in tomatoes from 15 of the 17 harvestable trials at levels ranging from 0.044 to 0.800 ppm. The residues did not seem to correlate with the application scenario. The extent of potential residue concentration in processed tomato fractions was estimated by processing tomatoes after application of fenamidone at 5X the maximum seasonal use rate. Fenamidone residues concentrated in tomato puree by a factor of about 2.2 and in tomato paste by a factor of about 3.5. When corrected to account for the exaggerated application rate, residue levels were 0.089 ppm in whole tomato fruit, 0.198 ppm in tomato puree and 0.316 ppm in tomato paste.

iii. Lettuce . In 2000, nine residue trials were conducted with fenamidone on leaf lettuce and nine trials were conducted on head lettuce. EXP 10623A was applied as four broadcast applications of 0.268 lb ai/acre (300 g ai/ha) each, for a maximum seasonal use rate of 1.068 lb ai/acre (1,200 g ai/ha). Applications were made approximately 5 days apart. The target PHI was 2 days. Residues of the parent fungicide, fenamidone (RPA 407213) were found in/on leaf lettuce from all nine trials at levels ranging from < LOQ to 17.5 ppm. Low levels of the metabolites RPA 410193 and RPA 412708 were found in five of the nine trials of leaf lettuce at levels up to 0.049 ppm. The metabolite RPA 412636 was found in one sample of leaf lettuce at a level of 0.031 ppm. Residues of the parent fungicide, fenamidone RPA 407213 were found in/on head lettuce from all nine trials at levels ranging from 0.815 to 11.7 ppm with the wrapper leaves, and from < LOQ to 2.90 ppm with the wrapper leaves removed. Low levels of the metabolite RPA 410193 were found in four of the nine trials of head lettuce with wrapper leaves at levels up to 0.029 ppm but not detected after the wrapper leaves were removed. Low levels of the metabolite RPA 412708 were found in five of the nine trials of head lettuce with wrapper leaves at levels up to 0.047 ppm but found in samples from only two trials after the wrapper leaves were removed. The metabolite RPA 412636 was found in head lettuce from only one trial at a level of 0.031 ppm before the wrapper leaves were removed and not at all after the wrapper leaves were removed.

iv. Potato . Eighteen residue trials were conducted with fenamidone on potatoes in 1999. EXP 10623A, a suspension concentrate containing 500 g fenamidone per liter, was applied as four broadcast applications of 0.268 lb ai/acre (300 g ai/ha) each or six broadcast applications of 0.178 lb ai/acre (200 g ai/ha) each, for a maximum seasonal use rate of 1.068 lb ai/acre (1200 g ai/ha). Applications were made approximately 5 days apart. The target PHI was 14 days. No quantifiable residues of fenamidone or metabolites were found in any potato tuber sample above the LOQ (0.02 ppm). The extent of potential residue concentration in processed potato fractions was estimated by processing potatoes after application of fenamidone at 5X the maximum seasonal use rate. The potato fractions included flakes, chips and wet peel. There were no measurable residues in the potato tuber or the potato chips despite the exaggerated application rate. Only parent fungicide, fenamidone RPA 407213, residues were found in the wet peel at levels of 0.043 to 0.049 ppm with an estimated concentration factor of 4.6. Trace residues of two fenamidone metabolites were found only in the potato flake fraction, RPA 412708 at 0.029 to 0036 ppm and RPA 412636 at 0.026 ppm. When corrected to account for the exaggerated application rate, residue levels of processed fractions were < the RAC LOQ of 0.02 ppm.

v. Onions . The magnitude and decline of fenamidone residues was determined on both dry bulb and green onions. There were eight harvestable trials of dry bulb onions and four harvestable trials of green onions. EXP 10623A, a suspension concentrate containing 500 g fenamidone per liter, was applied as six broadcast applications of 0.178 lb ai/acre (200 g ai/ha) each, for a maximum seasonal use rate of 1.068 lb ai/acre (1200 g ai/ha). Applications were made approximately 7 days apart. The target PHI was 7 days. Trace residues of the fenamidone metabolite RPA 412636 were detected in dry bulb onions from only one trial, at levels of 0.027 to 0.035 ppm. Measurable residues of the parent fungicide, fenamidone (RPA 407213), were found in dry bulb onions from only two of the eight harvestable trials at levels ranging from 0.021 to 0.126 ppm. Residues of the parent fungicide, fenamidone RPA 407213, were found in scallions collected from all four green onion trials at levels of 0.221 to 1.10 ppm. Low levels, up to 0.058 ppm, of each of the metabolites were detected in scallions from some of the four green onion trials.

vi. Wheat . Twenty-two residue trials were conducted with fenamidone on wheat in the 1999-2000 season. At each trial, a single broadcast application of the fenamidone was made to bare soil at 1.068 lb ai/acre (1,200 g ai/ha) in the fall (September-October 1999), which is the maximum recommended seasonal use rate. The test substance was EXP 10623A, a soluble concentrate containing 500 g fenamidone per liter. The winter wheat was planted 30 days after application and was harvested the following summer of 2000. Storage stability studies indicate that fenamidone and its metabolites are stable for the length and condition of storage (see 6.1.1 Stability of Residues During Storage of Samples for details). No quantifiable residues were found in any UTC samples. No residues of fenamidone or metabolites were found in wheat grain from any of the 22 trials. The limit of detection was 0.006 ppm. Low but quantifiable levels of the metabolite RPA 412636 were found in wheat forage from 10 of the 22 trials. The residues of RPA 412636 ranged from 0.021 to 0.071 ppm in the wheat forage tissue. Residues of the metabolite RPA 412708 were measurable 0.031 to 0.071 ppm in wheat forage from 3 of the 22 trials. Measurable levels of the metabolite RPA 412636 were found in wheat hay from 16 of the 22 trials. The residues of RPA 412636 ranged from 0.022 to 0.321 ppm in the wheat hay tissue. Residues of the metabolite RPA 412708 were measured at the LOQ of 0.020 ppm in 1 sample of wheat hay from 44 samples from the 22 trials. Measurable residues of the metabolite RPA 412636, ranging from 0.022 to 0.200 ppm, were found in wheat straw from 14 of the 22 trials.

vii. Wine grapes . Seventeen residue trials were conducted with fenamidone on grapes in the 1997 and 1998 growing seasons in Western Europe. In each case, the fenamidone was applied in combination formulations to be registered in Europe (Fosetyl-Al, mancozeb, copper and/or BAY 12921F). At each trial, multiple broadcast applications of fenamidone were made to grape vines at rates of 0.083 to 0.118 lb ai/acre (93 to 133 g ai/ha) each. Applications were made approximately 7 or 14 days apart. The target PHI was 20 to 40 days. The storage stability studies indicate that fenamidone residues are stable for the length and condition of storage. No quantifiable residues were found in any UTC samples. Measurable residues of the parent fungicide, fenamidone (RPA 407213), were found in fresh grape fruit at levels ranging from 0.047 to 0.71 ppm. The metabolite, RPA 410193 was found at levels ranging from 0.026 to 0.28 ppm. The combined residue in grape fruit was calculated to be 0.067 to 0.84 ppm. Measurable residues of the parent fungicide, fenamidone (RPA 407213), were found in grape juice at levels ranging from < LOQ to 0.110 ppm. The metabolite, RPA 410193 was found at levels ranging from 0.027 to 0.074 ppm. The combined residue in grape juice was calculated to be 0.013 to 0.28 ppm. Measurable residues of the parent fungicide, fenamidone (RPA 407213), were found in grape wine at levels ranging from < LOQ to 0.027 ppm. The metabolite, RPA 410193, was found at levels ranging from < LOQ to 0.34 ppm. The combined residue in grape wine was calculated to be < LOQ to 0.40 ppm. Measurable residues of the parent fungicide, fenamidone (RPA 407213), were found in grape at levels ranging from 0.055 to 0.56 ppm. The metabolite, (RPA 410193) was found at levels ranging from 0.024 to 0.13 ppm. The combined residue in grape was calculated to be 0.11 to 0.71 ppm.

viii. Dairy cows . In a guideline feeding study, dairy cows were dosed twice a day for 35 days with technical fenamidone at rates of 0.8, 0.24 and 8.0 ppm based on the diet. No residues were detected in whole milk at a limit of detection of 0.003 ppm. No residues were found in muscle, liver, kidneys or fat at a limit of detection of 0.017 ppm. Based on these findings, no tolerances for fenamidone or its metabolites are proposed in animal commodities.

1. Acute toxicity . A complete battery of acute toxicity studies for fenamidone have been conducted. The acute oral toxicity study in rats resulted in a LD 50 of > 5,000 mg/kg (males) and > 2,028 mg/kg (females). The acute dermal toxicity study in rats resulted in a LD 50 of > 2,000 mg/kg for both males and females. The acute inhalation study in rats resulted in a LC 50 of > 5 mg/L for males and females. Fenamidone was not irritating in the primary eye irritation or primary dermal irritation studies. The dermal sensitization study in guinea pigs was negative.

In an acute neurotoxicity study in rats, fenamidone was not neurotoxic at doses up to the limit dose of 2,000 mg/kg. The no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) was 500 mg/kg for males and 125 mg/kg for females.

2. Genotoxicty . Mutagenicity studies conducted include: A Salmonella typhimurium reverse mutation assay (negative at the limits of cytotoxicity and solubility with and without activation), in vitro unscheduled DNA synthesis test in rat liver (negative at the limits of cytotoxicity), in vitro chromosome aberrations test in human lymphocytes (positive at the limits of cytotoxicity and solubility), TK+/- mouse lymphoma assay (positive with activation, negative without), in vivo mouse micronucleus test (negative with toxicity at 2,000 mg/kg), and an in vivo unscheduled DNA synthesis assay in the rat (negative at up to 2,000 mg/kg with toxicity at the high dose level). Based on the data cited above, fenamidone is not considered to be mutagenic.

3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity . A teratology study was conducted with rats administered (orally) fenamidone on gestation days 6-15 at dose levels of 0, 25, 150, or 1,000 mg/kg/day. High dose dams had significantly decreased body weight and food consumption. High dose fetal body weights were less than controls and correlated with slightly delayed skeletal ossification secondary to maternal toxicity. The NOAEL for maternal and developmental toxicity is 150 mg/kg/day. The Lowest observed adversed effect level (LOAEL) was 1,000 mg/kg/day. A teratology study was conducted with rabbits administered (orally) fenamidone on gestation days 6-19 at dose levels of 0, 10, 30, or 100 mg/kg/day. The maternal NOAEL was 10 mg/kg/day. The developmental NOAEL was 100 mg/kg/day. The maternal LOAEL was 30 mg/kg/day, based on increased maternal liver weights at 30 and 100 mg/kg/day. Fenamidone demonstrates no potential to cause developmental toxicity in mammals.

A 2-generation definitive reproduction study was conducted with rats administered (orally) in the diet fenamidone at dose levels of 0, 3.9, 63.8, 328.3 mg/kg/day (males) and 0, 5.15, 84.4, 459.6 mg/kg/day (females). The NOAEL for maternal and off-spring toxicity was 5.15 mg/kg/day. The maternal NOAEL was based on decreased body weight and food consumption. The pup NOAEL is based on F1 pup body weight decrease. The reproductive NOAEL was > 328.3 mg/kg/day (males) and > 459.6 mg/kg/day (females). Fenamidone is not considered a reproductive toxicant at non-maternally toxic dose levels and shows no evidence of endocrine effects.

4. Subchronic toxicity . In a 13-week range-finding study, fenamidone was administered in the diets of male and female rats at dose levels of 0, 4.05, 10.41, 68.27, 343.93 mg/kg/day to males and 0, 4.81, 12, 83.33, 380.68 mg/kg/day to females. The NOAEL is 68.27 mg/kg/day (males) and 83.33 mg/kg/day (females) and the LOAEL is 343.93 mg/kg/day for males and 380.63 mg/kg/day for females based on adaptive liver changes at 68.27 mg/kg/day and increased liver and thyroid weights at the highest dose tested (HDT). In a 13-week subchronic feeding study, fenamidone was administered in the diet to mice at dose levels of 0, 11.33, 44.5, 220.2, 1,064.3 mg/kg/day to males and 0, 13.7, 54.1, 273.9, 1,375.2 mg/kg/day to females. The NOAEL is 44.5 mg/kg/day (males), and 54.1 mg/kg/day (females), and the LOAEL is 220.2 mg/kg/day (males), and 273.9 mg/kg/day (females) based on 14% increase in liver weight at the high dose. In a 28-day subchronic dermal study, fenamidone was applied to skin of male and female New Zealand white rabbits at doses of 0 or 1,000 mg/kg/day for 6 hours/day, 5 days/week. Treatment produced a slight decrease in food consumption (8-10%), and body weight (6%) in males only. In a 13-week study, fenamidone was administered in the diets of male and female dogs at 0, 10, 100, and 500 mg/kg/day. Based on clinical symptoms at the high dose, the NOAEL is 100 mg/kg/day and the LOAEL is 500 mg/kg/day.

In a subchronic neurotoxicity study, there was no evidence of neurotoxicity when fenamidone technical was administered to rats for 13 weeks at dosage levels up to 5,000 ppm (395.6-414.2 mg/kg/day), the MTD. The NOAEL for the study was 1,000 ppm (equivalent to 74.2-83.4 mg/kg/day).

5. Chronic toxicity . A 1-year oral study was conducted with dogs administered fenamidone at dose levels of 0, 10, 100, and 1,000 mg/kg/day in capsules. The NOAEL is 100 mg/kg/day for both sexes, based on significantly increased liver weights and biliary hyperplasia in the high dose. The LOAEL is 1,000 mg/kg/day.

A 2-year combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study was conducted with fenamidone administered in the diet to rats at doses of 0, 2.83, 7.07, 47.68, 260.13 mg/kg/day (males) and 0, 3.63, 9.24, 60.93, 335.10 mg/kg/day (females). The NOAEL for systemic toxicity is 2.83 mg/kg/day (males) and 3.36 mg/kg/day (females). The LOAEL is 7.07 mg/kg/day (males) 9.24 mg/kg/day (females). No statistically significant linear dose response was observed for any tumor incidence.

A 104-week combined carcinogenicity study in mice was conducted with mice administered fenamidone in the diet at dose levels of 0, 9.5, 47.5, 525.5, 1,100.2 mg/kg/day (males) and 0, 12.6, 63.8, 690.5, 1,393.2 mg/kg/day (females). The NOAEL was 9.5 mg/kg/day (males) and 12.6 mg/kg/day (females). The LOAEL for carcinogenicity was 47.5 mg/kg/day (males) and 63.8 mg/kg/day (females). The NOAEL is based on non-neoplastic liver changes and decreased body weight gain at the top two dose levels. Fenamidone demonstrates no potential for carcinogenic effects in mammals.

6. Animal metabolism . Metabolism studies conducted with goat and hen demonstrate that fenamidone is rapidly metabolized and excreted. Residue levels in edible animal tissues (meat, milk and eggs) are negligible and do accumulate in those tissues. The metabolic pathway proceeds via cleavage of the amino-phenyl group and the thiomethyl group with further metabolism by hydroxylation. There is also evidence to that glucuronide and sulfate conjugates are formed.

A single low dose (3 mg/kg), a single high dose (300 mg/kg) and a low dose (3 mg/kg) administered for 15 consecutive days were fed to rats. Fenamidone was relatively well absorbed at a nominal dose of 3 mg/kg in both sexes and intensively metabolized by phase I (oxidation, reduction and hydrolysis) and phase II (conjugation) reactions. The elimination of radiolabeled fenamidone was relatively rapid with the majority of the administered dose being excreted via the biliary route (for the low dose experiments). The comparison of the levels of radioactivity recovered in bile kinetic and ADME studies suggested that a part of the radioactivity excreted via the bile could be reabsorbed and subsequently re-excreted via the urine. High levels of radioactivity measured in blood samples from the tissue kinetics also supported this hypothesis. At the high dose level fenamidone was not very well absorbed: Some 50-60% of the radioactivity was present as parent compound in the feces. Radioactivity was widely distributed in the tissues with predominance in the thyroids, blood, liver, kidneys, fat and pancreas. Fenamidone is therefore expected to be rapidly and extensively metabolized and excreted in mammals.

7. Metabolite toxicology . The major dietary metabolites of fenamidone, RPA 412708, RPA 410193 and RPA 412636 were evaluated for mammalian toxicity in an acute oral toxicity study, a 90-day repeated dose study and in genotoxicity tests. The metabolites are considered to be of comparable toxicity to the parent fenamidone.

8. Endocrine disruption . Chronic, lifespan, and multi-generational bioassays in mammals and acute and subchronic studies on aquatic organisms and wildlife did not reveal endocrine effects. Any endocrine related effects would have been detected in this definitive array of required tests. The probability of any such effect due to agricultural uses of fenamidone is negligible.

1. Dietary exposure . Fenamidone is a fungicide with proposed uses on the food crops tomato, potato, head lettuce, leaf lettuce, the bulb vegetable crop group, and the cucurbit crop group. Although quantifiable residues are highly unlikely, wheat tolerances are also proposed to cover any conceivable plant back residues. An import tolerance for wine grapes is also proposed to cover imported wine. There are no residential uses proposed for fenamidone. Therefore the aggregate exposure would consist of any potential exposures to fenamidone residues from the above food crops from drinking water, and from imported wine. The chronic reference dose (RfD) of 0.03 mg/kg bwt/day is based on a NOAEL of 3 mg/kg bwt/day from a 2-year rat chronic study. There are no acute effects of concern for fenamidone and an acute analysis was not conducted.

i. Food . Chronic dietary exposure estimates resulting from the proposed and registered uses of fenamidone as listed above are well within acceptable limits for all sectors of the population. Potential dietary exposures from food were estimated using the chronic module of the DEEM TM software system, Version 7.62 (Novigen Sciences, Inc.), and the 1994-96 Department of Agriculture (USDA) consumption data. Anticipated residue values were calculated from the appropriate field trial studies conducted for fenamidone and its metabolites and submitted as part of the fenamidone petition. Processing factors were derived for tomato paste and puree and potato flakes and chips. For this chronic assessment, percent crop treated (PCT) values were estimated for the compound at market maturity. The PCT value for wine grapes is 20%. This assumes that all wine imported into the country (USDA FATUS tables) is made from grapes treated with fenamidone. This over estimates the risk significantly since fenamidone will only be registered on wine grapes in Western European countries. The wheat residue is included at 100% crop treated even though the actual plant back of a wheat crop behind vegetable crops (mostly potato) is estimated at 15%. Using these conservative assumptions, the most highly exposed population was children 1-6 utilizing 1.0% (0.000302 mg/kg/bwt/day) of the chronic RfD. The U.S. population utilized 0.8% (0.000236 mg/kg/bwt/day) of the RfD. Actual exposures are likely to be much less in real world situations because of the many conservative assumptions incorporated in this analysis.

ii. Drinking water . EPA's Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Drinking Water Exposure and Risk Assessments was used to perform the drinking water assessment. This SOP uses a variety of tools to conduct drinking water assessments, including water models such as SCI-GROW, FIRST, PRZMS/EXAMS, and monitoring data. If monitoring data are not available, then the models are used to predict potential residues in surface and ground water and the highest levels are assumed to be the drinking water residue. In the case of fenamidone, monitoring data do not exist, therefore SCI-GROW and FIRST were used to estimate a water residue. The calculated drinking water levels of comparison (DWLOC) for chronic exposure for all adults and children exceed the drinking water estimated concentration (DWEC) from the models. The chronic DWLOC for adults is 1,042 ppb. The chronic DWLOC for children/toddlers is 297 ppb. The DWEC for the worst case chronic scenario is 20 ppb. The drinking water levels of comparison are based on conservative dietary (food) exposures and are expected to be much higher in real world situations.

2. Non-dietary exposure . Fenamidone products are not labeled for residential uses (food or non-food), thereby eliminating the potential for residential exposure or non-occupational exposure.

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity. There is no available data to determine whether fenamidone has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances or how to include this pesticide in a cumulative risk assessment. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, fenamidone does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance petition, therefore, it has not been assumed that fenamidone has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.

1. U.S. population . Using the assumptions and data described above, based on the completeness, and reliability of the toxicity data, it is concluded that chronic dietary exposure to the proposed uses of fenamidone will utilize at most 0.8% of the chronic reference dose for the U.S. population. The actual exposure is likely to be much less as more realistic data, and models are developed. EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the RfD because the RfD represents the level at or below which daily aggregate exposure over a lifetime will not pose appreciable risk to human health. Drinking water levels of comparison based on the dietary and aggregate exposures are greater than highly conservative estimated levels, and would be expected to be well below the 100% level of the RfD, if they occur at all. Therefore, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will occur to the U.S. population from aggregate exposure (food and drinking water) to residues of fenamidone.

2. Infants and children . The relevant toxicity studies as discussed in the toxicology section above show no extra sensitivity of infants and children to fenamidone, therefore, the food quality protection act (FQPA) safety factor can be removed. Using the assumptions and data described in the exposure section above, the percent of the chronic RfD that will be used for exposure to residues of fenamidone in food for children 1-6 (the most highly exposed subgroup) is 1.0% (0.000302 mg/kg/bwt/day). Infants utilize 0.2% (0.000056 mg/kg/bwt/day) of the chronic RfD. There are no non-dietary concerns for infants and children. As in the adult situation, drinking water levels in comparison are higher than the worst case drinking water estimated concentrations, and are expected to use well below 100% of the reference dose, if they occur at all. Therefore, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will occur to infants and children from aggregate exposure to residues of fenamidone.

To date, no Codex, Canadian or Mexican tolerances exist for fenamidone.

Pursuant to Title IV of TSCA, Lead Exposure Reduction, 15 U.S.C. 2681-2692, and regulations promulgated thereunder, States and Tribes that choose to apply for lead-based paint activities program authorization must submit a complete application to the appropriate Regional EPA office for review. Complete, final applications will be subject to a public comment period, and reviewed by EPA within 180 days subject to a public comment period, and reviewed by EPA within 180 days of receipt. To receive EPA approval, a State or Tribe must demonstrate that its program is at least as protective of human health and the environment as the Federal program, and provides for adequate enforcement, section 404(b) of TSCA. As determined by EPA's review and assessment, the Cherokee Nation's application successfully demonstrated that the Tribes' lead-based paint activities programs achieve the protectiveness and enforcement criteria, as required for Federal authorization. Furthermore, no public comments were received regarding any aspect of the Cherokee Nations' application. EPA announced solicitation for public comment regarding the application in the Federal Register of January 25, 2000 (65 FR 3960) (FRL-6490-1).

TSCA section 404(b), 15 U.S.C. 2684(b), makes it unlawful for any person to violate, or fail or refuse to comply with, any requirement of an approved State or Tribal program. Therefore, EPA reserves the right to exercise its enforcement authority under TSCA against a violation of, or a failure or refusal to comply with, any requirement of an authorized State or Tribal program.

Pursuant to TSCA section 404(c), 15 U.S.C. 2684(c), the Administrator may withdraw a State or Tribal lead-based paint activities program authorization, after notice and opportunity for corrective action, if the program is not being administered or enforced in compliance with standards, regulations, and other requirements established under the authorization. The procedures EPA will follow for the withdrawal of an authorization are found at 40 CFR 745.324(i).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before certain actions may take effect, the agency promulgating the action must submit a report, which includes a copy of the action, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of this document in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

OMB Control No.: 3060-0653.

Title: Section 64.703(b) and (c), Consumer Information—Posting Requirement.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 56,200.

Estimated Time Per Response: 3.67 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 205,566 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Needs and Uses: As required by 47 U.S.C. Section 226(c)(1)(A), 47 CFR 64.703(b) provides that aggregators (providers of telephone to the public or transient users) must post in writing, on or near such phones, information about the pre-subscribed operator services, rates, carrier access, the FCC address to which consumers may direct complaints. Section 64.703(c) establishes a 30-day outer limit for updating the posted consumer information when an aggregator has changed the pre-subscribed operator service provider (OSP). Consumers will use this information to determine whether they wish to use the services of the identified OSP.

On June 8, 2001, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson announced a department-wide initiative to reduce regulatory burdens in health care and respond faster to the concerns of patients, health care providers, state and local governments, other institutions, and other individual Americans who are affected by HHS rules. On September 4, 2001, the Department published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register announcing its plans to establish an Advisory Committee on Regulatory Reform to provide findings and recommendations to the Secretary regarding potential regulatory changes. The Advisory Committee will commence its activities early in 2002.

Regulations play an important role in implementing statutes. Regulations establish and communicate rules and procedures for participation in public programs, for approval of products, and for the awarding of grants and contracts. The regulatory process also allows for public examination of proposed rules, comment on those proposals, and an explanation of how those comments were factored into final decisions by government agencies.

At the same time, in accomplishing these important tasks, regulations may impose a burden on individuals and organizations participating in public programs or seeking government approval or support. Some or most of these burdens may be necessary to carry out the statutory requirements and quite reasonable and appropriate in governing the expenditure of public funds and protecting the health and safety of individuals and the nation as a whole. But some of these burdens may be unnecessary, excessive, or inappropriate because they interfere with the operation of the programs to which they relate, are unduly intrusive, or are inconsistent with other requirements and thus unduly reduce flexibility, inhibit innovation, or impede efforts to improve quality of health care and access to health services or other rights and benefits for patients and consumers that are provided by law.

The Advisory Committee's ultimate goal is to (a) identify and prioritize regulations that impose barriers to delivering high quality, safe and effective care services, products and research, and (b) to recommend improvements or other ways to remove these barriers. To help the Committee achieve this goal, we are inviting the public to provide us with written comments on regulatory burdens created by HHS regulations. Those interested in responding to this request are asked to focus their comments on regulatory burdens in one or more of the following areas:

• Health care delivery,

• Health care operations,

• Development of pharmaceuticals and other medical products, and

• Biomedical and health services research

We encourage individuals as well as organizations to respond to this invitation, including but not limited to consumers, patients, researchers, clinicians and other health care professionals, employers, health care administrators, professional societies, trade associations, state and local governments, and universities. We encourage those who wish to respond to consider ways in which regulations or program requirements interfere with the delivery or receipt of care, innovation in health care delivery operations, or research, or the development of new products and treatments. In this regard respondents may find it helpful to consider their most recent interactions with HHS programs in order identify specific issues.

Because of the broad nature of the Committee's charge, it will be essential that comments be as specific as possible and focus on concerns related to burdens imposed by regulations or regulatory processes rather than the underlying statutes enacted by the Congress.

We ask that responses be limited to no more than five (5) one-sided, single-spaced pages and be accompanied by and IBM-compatible 3.5 inch diskette in WordPerfect or MS Word format. Additional attachments can be included but the Committee cannot guarantee that all of these materials can be read and considered. Therefore, major points should be made in the letter.

The Committee would appreciate it if those who respond would consider some or all of the following matters:

1. Which HHS regulations in the above-cited areas impose an unnecessary or unreasonable burden on individuals, groups, or organizations because these regulations:

• Are confusing;

• Impose unnecessary or excessive costs;

• Require an excessive number of reports or unreasonable record keeping;

• Impose requirements on the wrong individual or group;

• Carry excessive penalties;

• Are conflicting (examples include but are not limited to conflicts between HHS and State regulations, public and private sectors);

• Impede access to care or impede delivery of care;

• Impede efforts to innovate

• Are obsolete; and/or

• Interfere with the public or private sector's ability to respond to and prepare for emergencies.

2. What alternative approaches could be taken to achieve or accomplish the same goal with a lesser burden? For example, are there less burdensome approaches that are used by other entities such as state governments or private companies that could be adopted by HHS to achieve its goal with less burdensome requirements?

For each of the regulations discussed, the Committee asks you to include the following whenever possible:

• Citation of regulation involved or description of the regulation in as much detail as possible.

• Citation of relevant statute on which the regulation is based.

• A clear statement of the problem or concern.

• Identification of potential solutions to this problem or concern.

• A statement of how the proposed solutions would maintain the original intent of the statute (if possible, please provide citation of the original statute).

We recognize that many individuals may not be able to provide a full or accurate citation to particular regulations or statutes. That should not stop them from commenting. However, professional organizations and institutions, will probably have access to this information and are encouraged to provide specific citations.

We would also appreciate information on how you interact with the health care system (e.g., Are you a patient/consumer, physician, nurse, researcher, university, employer, health plan, hospital, nursing home, home health agency, pharmaceutical manufacturer, medical device, manufacturer?).

We will accept comments on regulatory reform if we receive them at the appropriate address, as provided below, by 5pm on March 5, 2002.

Individuals or organizations wishing to respond to this request may do so in writing by sending their comments to: Christy Schmidt, Executive Coordinator, Regulatory Reform Initiative, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, 200 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20201. Responses also can be made electronically on the Committee's website: www.regreform.hh.gov. Those who respond should recognize that their comments would be part of the public record of the Committee and, under the Freedom of Information Act, available to anyone who wishes to read them. The Committee will make attempts to segregate those comments that are of a personal nature but cannot guarantee that all such comments will be recognized.

Comments will be available for public inspection by appointment as they are received, generally beginning approximately January 25, 2002 in Room 801 of the Department's offices at 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC on Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 am to 5 pm. Appointments may be made by telephoning 202-401-5182.

After the close of the comment period, comments that are technically able to convert will be posted on the Regulatory Reform web site specified above.

In recent years, many important initiatives have been undertaken by regulatory authorities and industry associations to promote the international harmonization of regulatory requirements. FDA has participated in efforts to enhance harmonization and has expressed its commitment to seek scientifically based harmonized technical procedures for the development of pharmaceutical products. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify and then reduce differences in technical requirements for drug development among regulatory agencies in different countries.

FDA has actively participated in the ICH for several years to develop harmonized technical requirements for the approval of human pharmaceutical and biological products among the European Union, Japan, and the United States. The VICH is a parallel initiative for veterinary medicinal products. The VICH is concerned with developing harmonized technical requirements for the approval of veterinary medicinal products in the European Union, Japan, and the United States, and includes input from both regulatory and industry representatives.

The VICH Steering Committee is composed of member representatives from the: European Commission; European Medicines Evaluation Agency; European Federation of Animal Health; Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products; U.S. FDA; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Animal Health Institute; Japanese Veterinary Pharmaceutical Association; Japanese Association of Veterinary Biologics; and Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.

Two observers are eligible to participate in the VICH Steering Committee: One representative from the Government of Australia/New Zealand and one representative from the industry in Australia/New Zealand. The VICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, is provided by the Confédération Mondiale de L’Industrie de la Santé Animale (COMISA). A COMISA representative also participates in the VICH Steering Committee meetings.

In the Federal Register of December 18, 2000 (65 FR 79106), FDA published the notice of availability of the VICH draft guidance, giving interested persons until January 17, 2001, to submit comments. After consideration of comments received, the final draft guidance was changed in response to the comments and submitted to the VICH Steering Committee. At a meeting held on June 28, 2001, the VICH Steering Committee endorsed the final guidance for industry, VICH GL23. Following the endorsement of the final guidance document by the VICH Steering Committee, a change was made to the document in which the reference for each genotoxicity test in the basic battery of tests was moved and used as the heading for the paragraph describing that test. The change was of an editorial nature and did not change the scientific content or intent of the guidance document.

This guidance is one of a series of VICH guidances developed to facilitate the mutual acceptance of safety data necessary for the establishment of acceptable daily intakes for veterinary drug residues in human food by the relevant regulatory authorities. The guidance on the overall strategy for the evaluation of veterinary drug residues in human food (VICH Guidance on General Testing Approach) will be made available at a later time. This guidance was developed after consideration of the existing ICH guidances for pharmaceuticals for human use entitled “Genotoxicity: A Standard Battery of Genotoxicity Testing of Pharmaceuticals” and “Guidance on Specific Aspects of Regulatory Genotoxicity Tests for Pharmaceuticals.” Account was also taken of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development methodological guidances and of the current practices for evaluating the safety of veterinary drug residues in human food in the European Union, Japan, the U.S.A., Australia, and New Zealand.

This level 1 final guidance document is developed under the VICH process and is consistent with FDA’s good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). This document does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and will not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternate method may be used as long as it satisfies the requirements of applicable statutes and regulations.