The 1996 Act requires that a special global import quota for upland cotton be determined and announced immediately if, for any consecutive 4-week period, the Friday through Thursday average price quotation for the lowest-priced U.S. growth, as quoted for Middling 1 3/32 inch cotton, C.I.F. northern Europe (U.S. Northern Europe price), adjusted for the value of any cotton user marketing certificates issued, exceeds the Northern Europe price by more than 1.25 cents per pound. This condition was met for the consecutive 4-week period ending March 28, 2002. Therefore, the quota referenced as Special Cotton Import Quota Announcement Number 3 is established subject to the following dates and quantities.

The special import quota identifies a quantity of imports that is not subject to the over-quota tariff rate of a tariff-rate quota. The quota is not divided by staple length or by country of origin. The quota does not affect existing tariff rates or phytosanitary regulations. The quota does not apply to extra long staple cotton.

The Forest Service proposes to implement a five-year schedule of work to address declining forest health and improve red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) habitat. The goal is to create and restore natural conditions that historically withstand SPB and premature die-off or decline.

Additionally, the restoration and forest health initiative will enhance habitat for a viable RCW recovery population on the Talladega National Forest located in Calhoun, Cherokee, Clay, Cleburne, and Talladega Counties, Alabama.

The proposed action will focus on (1) Areas that are currently occupied by loblolly pine between the ages of 20-45 years old, (2) areas within the RCW HMA, and (3) areas of offsite, high risk stands of loblolly/Virginia pine.

The actions will include intermediate thinning in loblolly pine forests, intermediate thinning in RCW HMA's for habitat improvement, and restoration treatments (restoration cuts, thinning, etc.) to restore longleaf pine through artificial and natural regeneration.

Actions proposed include:

(1) Intermediate thinning of approximately 6,534 acres of 20-45 year old loblolly pine stands to increase vigor and growth, reduce short-term risk of SPB infestation, and as the first step towards longleaf restoration.

(2) Intermediate thinning of approximately 3,047 acres of red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) habitat inside the RCW Habitat Management Area (HMA).

(3) Removal of offsite, high-risk stands on approximately 9,136 acres of declining loblolly and Virginia pine. This includes 500 acres of non-commercial treatments. This forest health treatment will restore the areas to longleaf and will include both include artificial and natural regeneration. Treatments will range from complete removal of all species except favored hardwoods and longleaf; to intense thinning with enough longleaf left to naturally reestablish itself. The site preparation associated with these treatments will include prescribe burning and/or chemical treatment of competing vegetation as stated on page 2. Site-specific information is available at the Talladega Ranger office in Talladega, AL. and the Shoal Creek Ranger office in Heflin, AL.

1. Begin the process of improving forest health and vigor by thinning loblolly pine stands as the first step toward restoring a longleaf pine ecosystem and reducing short-term risk of SPB infestation and other risks associated with insect/disease infestations.

2. Reduce tree spacing to create, maintain, and improve RCW habitat.

3. Restore longleaf pine ecosystem to areas occupied by loblolly and Virginia pine that are of poor health, offsite, and have a high risk of insect/disease infestation and to improve existing longleaf stands through non-commercial treatments.

Whether to, and to what extent, implement a 5 year schedule of work that will improve forest health by thinning overstocked pine stands impacted by decline, disease and SPB; remove trees in over-crowded RCW area's to create and maintain, or improve suitable habitat; and use of restoration cuts to restore longleaf pine on historic longleaf pine sites. There are forest health issues that are common to the Talladega and Shoal Creek Ranger Districts. These issues, as with most forest health issues, are the end results of the following history of events:

Pre-settlement forests, prior to 1830, were predominantly longleaf pine and fire adapted species of oaks and hickories. The bottom were predominantly hardwood communities. A mix of hardwoods, loblolly pine, shortleaf pine, and some longleaf pine were in transition zones between the uplands and bottoms.

Natural fires (along with the influences of fuels, climate and moisture) maintained this ecosystem and species composition through time. Wildlife species, such as the red-cockaded woodpecker, that depended on this natural ecosystem were widespread.

The fire dependent longleaf pine ecosystem was the most prevalent forest type in the south during pre-settlement times. Forests were cleared for farming and charcoal production to furnish the iron industry. Based on early journals, the original ecosystem was maintained with frequent natural fires. The natural, upland forest community was primarily longleaf pine with associated shrubs and fire tolerant hardwoods. From 1908-1929 there was large-scale removal of longleaf pine for lumber and to fuel the iron industry.

Federal acquisition, relocation of farm families and establishment of National Forests took place from 1935-1940. During this time period there were large-scale soil stabilization projects completed through reforestation efforts. The primary species planted was loblolly pine due to availability of seed and early success establishing stands of loblolly. From 1940-1950 there was intensive fire suppression along with continued reforestation efforts and loss of natural shortleaf pine stands due to littleleaf disease. During the 1960's the first signs of loblolly decline were reported and research results from the 1990's show littleleaf disease as one pathogen causing loblolly decline.

Over the past decade, the Talladega and Shoal Creek Ranger District's has been experiencing Southern Pine Beetle infestations at epidemic levels, primarily in loblolly pine and Virginia pine stands. The epidemic peaked in the summer of 2000 and continued at very high levels through through 2001. These infestations have contributed to the immediate need for intermediate thinning to reduce the risk of SPB attack (Final Environmental Impact Statement For the Suppression of the Southern Pine Bettle).

Continued loss of imperiled longleaf pine communities, declining forest health, and the loss of red-cockaded woodpeaker habitat due to over stocking are our primary concerns or reason for initiating this project.

As a result of initial field examinations we propose to thin, as the first phase of longleaf restoration and to also improve stand health, 6,534 acres of loblolly/Virginia pine, thin 3,047 acres of RCW habitat, and convert 9,136 acres back to longleaf.

The scoping period associated with this Notice of Intent (NOI) will be thirty (30) days in length, beginning the day after publication. Preliminary scoping for this proposal began in February, 2002, when information was shared with the public on the proposal and plans to document the analysis in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A public meeting at the Talladega Ranger District office will be held on June 13, and June 15, from 9 a.m.-1 p.m. to discuss the proposal and visit some selected areas that may be treated.

The Talladega National Forest, Talladega and Shoal Creek Ranger Districts, is seeking additional information, comments, and assistance from Federal, State, and local agencies and other individuals or organizations that may be interested in or affected by the proposed action. This input will be used in preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The scoping process includes:

1. Identifying potential issues.

2. Identify issues to be analyzed in depth.

3. Eliminating insignificant issues or those, which have been covered by a relevant previous environmental analysis.

4. Exploring additional alternatives.

5. Identifying potential environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives.

1. Protection of soil and water resources.

2. Impacts of the proposed treatments on Federally listed species of plants and wildlife, which are defined by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended, Forest Service Regional Forester's Sensitive Species list, and upon locally rare species.

3. Protection of cultural resources.

4. Potential effects to management indicator species.

1. No Action: This alternative will serve as a baseline for comparison of alternatives. Present management activities will continue but the proposed project will not be done. This alternative will be fully developed and analyzed.

2. Proposed Action: Intermediate thinning of approximately 6,534 acres of 20-45 year old loblolly pine stands will be an initial step to improving forest health, reducing short-term SPB infestation risks, and restoring these areas to a longleaf pine ecosystem. Thinning will take place in stands that are over crowded, and it is proposed to allow the remaining trees more room to grow and increase tree vigor and health. It is anticipated that approximately 70 square feet of basal area per acre will remain in thinned areas.

This proposal also includes thinning of 3,047 acres to enhance and/or create existing or potential RCW habitat. Current areas providing RCW habitat are overstocked. Thinning these areas will create optimal conditions for RCW recruitment/replacement stands and foraging habitat.

The restoration treatments in the proposed action will encompass 9,136 acres. The types of tree removal, site preparation, and regeneration will vary according to site conditions and whether longleaf is present to provide a seed source. Restoration cuts will include complete removal of off-site species (excluding longleaf and favored hardwoods such as oaks and hickories), and thinning of existing off-site species. Site preparation methods associated with these treatments will range from or include a combination of prescribed burning, mechanical, and chemical treatment of competing vegetation. Chemical treatment of restoration stands will include directed foliar spray of a 3% solution of Garlon 4, 1/2 % Arsonal, and 1/2 % Sidekick. For injection, a 50% solution of Garlon 3 will be used. Regeneration of longleaf pine will depend on residual longleaf in the areas to be restored. Planted containerized longleaf, natural regeneration, or a combination of both will be the options for the restoration proposal.

3. Modified Proposed Action: This alternative would include a five-year program of thinning and restoration cuts. Site preparation would be done using mechanized equipment. Release of seedlings would be with hand tools. No herbicides would be used.

There are no special permits required from any State or Federal agencies in order to implement this project.

The USDA Forest Service is the lead agency for this project.

The Talladega and Shoal Creek Ranger Districts requests that comments be as specific as possible for this proposal and be sent to: EIS Team Leader Jeff Seefeldt, USDA Forest Service, 101 North Street, Talladega, AL 35160.

It is estimated that the draft EIS (DEIS) will be available for public comment by July 31, 2003. It is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate at this time.

To be helpful, comments on the DEIS should be as specific as possible and may address the adequacy of the statement of the merits of the alternative discussed (see the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 4 CFR 1503.3).

In addition, Federal court decisions have established that reviewers of DEIS's must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts the agency to the reviewers' position and contentions: Vermon Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NROC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Environmental objections that could have been raised at the draft stage may be waived if not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement FEIS). City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris , 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). The reason for this is to ensure that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the FEIS.

After the comment period ends on the DEIS, the comments will be analyzed, considered, and responded to by the Forest Service in preparing the final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The FEIS is scheduled to be completed by November 17, 2003. The responsible officials will consider the comments, responses, environmental consequences discussed in the final supplement, applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making a decision regarding this proposal. The responsible officials will document the decision and reasons for the decision in the Record of Decision. That decision will be subject to appeal under 3 CFR, part 215.

The responsible officials for this project will be Tony Tooke, District Ranger for the Talladega Ranger District, National Forests in Alabama at: 1001 North Street, Talladega, AL 35160 and Earl Stewart, District Ranger, Shoal Creek Ranger District, National Forests in Alabama at : 2390 Hwy. 46, Heflin, AL 36264.

RUS, in accordance with its environmental policies and procedures, required that SIPC prepare an Environmental Analysis reflecting the potential impacts of the proposed facilities. The Environmental Analysis, which includes input from federal, state, and local agencies, has been reviewed and accepted as RUS” Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project in accordance with 7 CFR 1794.41. The proposed project will be located in Williamson County, eight miles south of Marion, Illinois. The total amount of farmland that would be converted to non-agricultural use is estimated to be about 30 acres. Approximately 18 acres will be required for the units including the combustion turbines and support facilities. The proposed units will be constructed immediately west of the existing plant site on land owned by SIPC. The land was previously used for farming activities and is contained within sections 26, 27, and 35, Township 15 South, Range 2 East. The nearest airport, Williamson County Airport, is located approximately 8 miles north of the proposed site. The CT project will require two new stacks, each stack will be less than 60 feet tall. The height of the stacks is significantly lower than the height of nearby existing plant structures (stacks height varies between 200-400 ft.). No FAA permit will be required for the facility. We have determined that the proposed facility will not pose any hazards to air navigation.

The existing transmission facilities are adequate for the additional power generated by the new CT units and no additional transmission facilities are considered at present. The CT project will require the routing of natural gas pipeline to the site. The proposed gas pipeline is approximately 5.75 miles long. Generally the construction of the pipeline will require a right-of-way approximately 30 to 40 feet wide. The pipeline crossing of larger streams and wetlands will be accomplished with underground directional boring so that the stream channels, hydrology and vegetation will be least affected. The natural gas pipeline route will potentially affect only one parcel of jurisdictional wetland. The total area of crossing wetland due to natural gas pipeline is estimated to be about 5,750 square feet. Underground boring through the wetlands will minimize the impacts. All permanent streams will be crossed by underground borings while the shallow/intermittent streams will be cut and trenched. There are no floodplains or wetlands in the vicinity of the project location (at CT location); therefore, no impact is anticipated. Based on results of the wetland delineation it is unlikely that the proposed project will require an individual permit from the Corps of Engineers. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the Illinois Department of Natural Resources identified no significant impacts to fish and wildlife resources due to construction of the proposed project. Therefore, RUS has determined that no threatened or endangered species are likely to be impacted by the proposed construction.

The Illinois State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has reviewed the project and determined that no historic properties will be impacted by the proposed facility. RUS believes the project will have no impact on cultural and historic properties due to construction of the proposed project. However, the project is approved contingent on the following condition: if archaeological remains are discovered during construction activities, the work shall be stopped and SIPC will notify the SHPO and RUS immediately.

SIPC published notices of the availability of the EA and solicited public comments per 7 CFR 1792.42. Notices of availability of EA were published in the Southern Illinoisan newspaper, a daily circular, on April 12 & 13, 2002. The 30-day comment period on the EA for the proposed facility ended on May 14, 2002. No comments were received on the EA.

SIPC committed to follow Federal and state agency recommendations, and secure all necessary permits prior to constructing and operating the CT units. Based on the EA and SIPC's commitments to follow agency recommendations, RUS has concluded that the proposed action will not have a significant effect to various resources, including important farmland, floodplains, wetlands, cultural resources, threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat, air pollution, water quality, and noise. RUS has also determined that there would be no negative impacts of the proposed project on minority communities and low-income communities as a result of the construction of the project. RUS believes that there are no significant unresolved environmental conflicts related to this project.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions in effect as of January 1, 1995, the effective date of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the Department's) regulations are to the regulations at 19 CFR part 351 (2001).

On January 2, 2002, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on anhydrous sodium metasilicate (ASM) from France (67 FR 56). On January 29, 2002, the petitioner in this proceeding, PQ Corporation, submitted a request for an administrative review of sales by Rhodia HCPII, a manufacturer/exporter of ASM, for the period January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2001. The Department initiated an administrative review on February 26, 2002, (67 FR 8780).

On April 24, 2002, Rhodia submitted a letter to the Department stating that it did not export the subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review (POR).

The Department has received timely requests from Zibo Golden Harvest Machinery Limited Company (“Zibo Golden Harvest”) and Shanxi Fengkun Metallurgical Limited Company (“Fengkun”), in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), for new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), which has an April anniversary date.

As required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i) and (iii)(A), each of the companies identified above, which are also producers, has certified that it did not export brake rotors to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”), and that it has never been affiliated with any exporter or producer which did export brake rotors during the POI. Each company has further certified that its export activities are not controlled by the central government of the PRC, satisfying the requirements of 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B). Pursuant to the Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(A), Zibo Golden Harvest and Fengkun each submitted documentation establishing the date on which it first shipped the subject merchandise to the United States, the volume of that first shipment, and the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States.

In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.214(b), and based on information on the record, we are initiating new shipper reviews for Zibo Golden Harvest and Fengkun.

It is the Department's usual practice in cases involving non-market economies to require that a company seeking to establish eligibility for an antidumping duty rate separate from the country-wide rate provide de jure and de facto evidence of an absence of government control over the company's export activities. Accordingly we will issue a questionnaire to Zibo Golden Harvest and Fengkun (including a complete separate rates section), allowing approximately 37 days for response. If the response from each respondent provides sufficient indication that it is not subject to either de jure or de facto government control with respect to its exports of brake rotors, each review will proceed. If, on the other hand, a respondent does not demonstrate its eligibility for a separate rate, then it will be deemed to be affiliated with other companies that exported during the POI and that it did not establish entitlement to a separate rate, and the review of that respondent will be rescinded.

In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), we are initiating new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the PRC. Therefore, we intend to issue the preliminary results of these reviews not later than 180 days after the date on which the reviews are initiated. On May 7, 2002, Zibo Golden Harvest and Fengkun agreed to waive the time limits in order that the Department, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(j)(3), may conduct this review concurrent with the fifth annual administrative review of this order for the period April 1, 2001-March 31, 2002, which is being conducted pursuant to section 751(a)(1) of the Act. Therefore, we intend to issue the final results of this review not later than 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month.

President Bush has proposed to Congress that NIST investigate the building construction, the materials used, and the technical conditions that combined to cause the World Trade Center disaster following the airplane impacts. The scope of the NIST investigation will address the following primary objectives, which are to:

• Determine the probable technical causes of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings (the Twin Towers and WTC 7);

• Determine the factors that led to the injuries and fatalities, including all technical aspects of fire protection, response, evacuation, and occupant behavior and emergency response;

• Determine the procedures and practices that were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the World Trade Center buildings; and

• Identify building and fire codes, standards, and practices that warrant revision.

The investigation is to be part of a broader NIST response plan to the WTC disaster, which also is to include research and development and information dissemination and technical assistance.

To request an opportunity to speak, NIST must receive the following information via e-mail ( WTC@NIST.gov ) or FAX ((301)-975-6122) no later than 5:00 PM on June 17, 2002:

• Name and contact information (including FAX, phone and/or e-mail) of individual who will be speaking.

• Name and complete address of organization(s) speaker represents.

• A 150-200 word summary of key points to be made by the speaker relating to the scope of the pending NIST investigation.

Those who are selected to speak will be contacted by 12 noon on June 19, 2002, using the FAX, phone or e-mail address provided, and informed of the decision and the maximum amount of time allotted to each speaker. Speakers will be selected based on the following criteria: (1) Relevance of the 150-200 word summary to the primary objectives of the NIST investigation listed previously, (2) order in which requests are received, (3) balancing interests and perspectives, and (4) avoidance of duplication in comments and suggestions.

Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, those who wish to speak but cannot be accommodated on the agenda, and those who are unable to attend in person are invited to submit written statements and supporting material to the WTC Technical Information Repository, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, MS 8610, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8610 or electronically by e-mail to WTC@NIST.gov or by Fax to (301) 975-6122.

Statements made at the meeting and/or submitted to NIST may be recorded and transcribed and made available to the public at a later date. The meeting will be Web cast and linked to the NIST home page, http://www.nist.gov/. Details will be available on that Web site before the meeting.

The following web sites furnish results of studies concerning the periodic hypoxia associated with the northern Gulf of Mexico: http://www.cop.noaa.gov/pubs/das/das14.html, for results from the Nutrient Enhanced Coastal Ocean Productivity (NECOP) study, and; http://www.nos.noaa.gov/Products/pubs_hypox.html for Gulf of Mexico hypoxia reports produced by the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR). Hard copies of these reports can be obtained from the CSCOR/COP office. The Action Plan for reducing, mitigating, and controlling hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico that resulted from the CENR reports is available at: http://www.epa.gov/msbasin/planintro.htm

A general description of ongoing work in the northern Gulf of Mexico funded by the CSCOR/COP is provided at: http://www.cop.noaa.gov/Fact_Sheets/NGOMEX.htm A listing of the individual ongoing projects funded by the CSCOR/COP is provided at http://www.cop.noaa.gov/projects/GoMex/abstract-links.htm

University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) Ship Time Request Form is available in electronic format at: http://www.gso.uri.edu/unols/ship/shiptime.html. UNOLS' vessel requirements are identified later in this document under Part I: Schedule and Proposal Submission, (7) Budget of this document.

For complete program description and other requirements criteria for the Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research/Coastal Ocean Program, see the COP General Grant Administration Terms and Conditions annual notification in the Federal Register (66 FR 63019, December 4, 2001) and at the CSCOR/COP home page.

Coastal regions dominated by large rivers are disproportionately important to the biological production of the world's oceans primarily because these rivers carry large amounts of “new” nitrogen. The Northern Gulf of Mexico coastal ecosystem, which is influenced by the Mississippi River, supports high primary and secondary production and is an important river-dominated ecosystem. Approximately 20 percent of the U.S. commercial fishery landings, by dollar value, are from the northern Gulf. Major recreational fisheries also exist in this region.

There is a strong relationship between riverine inputs (especially nutrients) and primary production, followed in turn by zooplankton production and fish production in a classic nutrient-phytoplankton-zooplankton-fish (NPZF) food web. Because anthropogenic nitrogen loadings from the Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico have increased dramatically during the past several decades, many changes in the ecosystem of the northern Gulf have occurred, including (1) an initial increase in overall biological production, (2) the annual development of an extensive zone of bottom water hypoxia during the summer stratified period; and (3) an apparent shift from a balanced pelagic/demersal fish community to one significantly more dominated by pelagic fisheries.

Several past and present programs have studied the seasonal hypoxia associated with the northern Gulf of Mexico. Notably, from 1990 to 1997, the CSCOR/COP supported a study on Nutrient Enhanced Coastal Ocean Productivity (NECOP), and the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR) recently completed an integrated assessment of Gulf of Mexico hypoxia. Results and reports of these studies can be found on the web sites or obtained from CSCOR/COP as listed under “Electronic Access” of this document.

This solicitation for proposals will augment the existing program which was started in fiscal year 2000 and expanded in 2001, to examine the inter-relationships driving the Mississippi River-dominated Gulf of Mexico ecosystem. Abstracts of ongoing studies funded by CSCOR/COP in the northern Gulf of Mexico are available on the CSCOR/COP internet site that is provided in this document under “Electronic Access” of this document. All ongoing studies are scheduled to end by September 2003. The planned suite of studies will enable improved predictions about future effects of nutrient loading, eutrophication, hypoxia, and climate change on the northern Gulf of Mexico ecosystem.

The underlying goal of the entire program is to develop a predictive capability for the physical, chemical, and biological components of the Louisiana continental shelf ecosystem. In particular, it is desirable to obtain the ability to input different possible physical forcing and nutrient loading scenarios into a predictive model for the region in order to predict the effects on the oxygen concentrations and the biological system, including the effects on economically and ecologically important species. CSCOR/COP's intent is to provide timely and high-quality scientific results that can be used in an adaptive management program to restore and protect the Louisiana continental shelf ecosystem. The results of the funded research proposals should be useful to resource managers by helping them make informed decisions and assess alternative management strategies. This solicitation for proposals is one more step in the development of this predictive capability.

This announcement seeks proposals to conduct research focused on understanding the causes and effects of the hypoxic zone over the Louisiana continental shelf and the prediction of its future extent and impacts. At this time, top priorities for the CSCOR/COP research program include (1) modeling studies for the region of the northern Gulf of Mexico affected by seasonal hypoxia centered over the Louisiana continental shelf, and (2) observational studies necessary to support the modeling studies.

Modeling studies are requested that extend beyond prior modeling efforts for the region of the northern Gulf of Mexico affected by seasonal hypoxia. This could include a natural evolution from empirically based statistical models, to process-oriented modeling studies, to a predictive modeling capability. Models of particular interest include the following: Models of oceanographic and climate influences on water column stability and nutrient flux; the impacts of the combination of these factors on productivity, trophic response and hypoxic zone dynamics; and the ultimate impacts to, and responses of, commercially and recreationally important fisheries. Individual studies may model one or more of these portions of the desired whole, but the models must be designed so that they can be combined with other components to form an efficient, integrative whole.

The requested permits have been issued under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

Modification no. 2 to permit no. 1033 issued to Mr. David Nelson, Department of the Army, Engineer Research and Developmental Center, Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-6199, to extend the expiration date to December 31, 2002;

Modification no. 1 to permit no. 1316 issued to Dr. Jeff Schmid, The Conservancy of Southwest Florida, 1450 Merrihue Drive, Naples, Fl 34102, to allow attachment of time-depth recorders to the radio and sonic tags already being placed on 20 juvenile Kemp’s ridley sea turtles.

Modification no. 2 to permit no. 1231 issued to Llewellyn M. Ehrhart, Dept of Biological Science, University of Central Florida, P.O. Box 162368, Orlando, FL 32816, to allow attachment of satellite tags to no more than 20 large juvenile green turtles in the Indian River Lagoon and the nearby reef system between McLarty Museum and Ambersand Beach.

Issuance of the permit and modifications, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such actions (1) were applied for in good faith, (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species which is the subject of this permit, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

The mission of the 28th Infantry Division (Mechanized) is to be trained and equipped to join the active forces in time of war or national emergency to respond to orders of the Governor, to protect lives and property during natural and man-made disasters, to clean up the environment, to fight to eradicate the illicit flow of drugs, and to serve as role models for future generations. Each of the proposed actions is necessary to allow the PAARNG and PAANG to productively utilize FTIG to support its on-going military and civilian missions.

Two alternatives in addition to the proposed action were considered: (1) Alternative 2 includes a scaled down or modified version of some or all of the proposed projects. This alternative primarily changes the scope of the Tracked Vehicle Training Complex, Multi-Purpose Training Range Facility, and Muir Military Runway/Enhancement proposed actions. The three alternative projects, coupled with the other eight actions as proposed in the EIS, comprise Alternative 2 and (2) Alternative 3, whereby none of the proposed upgrade or facility construction actions would be implemented; on-going actions will be continue; no new construction projects would be authorized except those already under construction or contracted for construction.

By implementing the proposed actions, NGTC-FTIG can continue to provide training and support facilities necessary to ensure its long-term viability, sustainability and value as a major NGB training site. A summary of impact analyses of previously completed Environmental Assessments is incorporated into the FEIS.

The FOIA requires each Federal agency covered by the Act to specify a schedule of fees applicable to processing of requests for agency records. 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(i). On March 15, 1991, the Board published for comment in the Federal Register its proposed FOIA Fee Schedule. 56 FR 11114. No comments were received in response to that notice and the Board issued a final Fee Schedule on May 6, 1991.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(6) of the Board's regulations, the Board's General Manager will update the FOIA Fee Schedule once every 12 months. Previous Fee Schedule updates were published in the Federal Register and went into effect, most recently, on June 1, 2001, 66 FR 30176.

Accordingly, the Board issues the following schedule of updated fees for services performed in response to FOIA requests:

Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and guidance that promotes research and development leading to the production of biobased industrial products.

Tentative Agenda: Agenda will include discussions on the following:

• Full committee discussion of recommendations to the Secretaries of Energy and Agriculture and their designated Points of Contacts on the technical focus and direction of request for proposals issued under the Biomass Research and Development Initiative.

Public Participation: In keeping with procedures, members of the public are welcome to observe the business of the Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee. To attend the meeting and/or to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, you should contact Douglas E. Kaempf at 202-586-7766 or Bioenergy @ee.doe.gov (e-mail). You must make your request for an oral statement at least 5 business days before the meeting. Members of the public will be heard in the order in which they sign up at the beginning of the meeting. Reasonable provision will be made to include the scheduled oral statements on the agenda. The Chair of the Committee will make every effort to hear the views of all interested parties. If you would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so either before or after the meeting. The Chair will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business.

Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available for public review and copying within 60 days at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room; Room 1E-190; Forrestal Building; 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Please see the May 21, 2002 notice noted above for a discussion of the procedural history of CARB's LEV program including its ZEV requirements. As noted above, CARB has submitted a letter to EPA on May 21, 2002 which requests that EPA confirm that its 2001 ZEV amendments are within the scope of waivers previously granted by EPA.

Section 209(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (“Act”), 42 U.S.C. 7543(a), provides:

Section 209(b)(1) of the Act requires the Administrator, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, to waive application of the prohibitions of section 209(a) for any state that has adopted standards (other than crankcase emission standards) for the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines prior to March 30, 1966, if the state determines that the state standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards. California is the only state that is qualified to seek and receive a waiver under section 209(b). The Administrator must grant a waiver unless she finds that (A) the determination of the state is arbitrary and capricious, (B) the state does not need the state standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, or (C) the state standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202(a) of the Act.

CARB's May 21, 2002 letter to the Administrator notified EPA that it had adopted amendments to its ZEV program. The regulatory amendments covered by CARB's request are amendments to title 13, California Code of Regulations (CCR), section 1962 and the incorporated “California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2003 and Subsequent Model Zero-Emission Vehicles, and 2001 and Subsequent Model Hybrid-Electric vehicles, in the Passenger Car, Light-Duty Truck, and Medium-Duty Vehicle Classes,” and amendments to section 1900(b)(19)-(21), section 1960.1(k) and section 1961(a)(8)(A) and (d), title 13 CCR.

When EPA receives new waiver requests from CARB, EPA traditionally publishes a notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment and then publishes a decision in the Federal Register following the public comment period. In contrast, when EPA receives within the scope waiver requests from CARB, EPA traditionally publishes a decision in the Federal Register and concurrently invites public comment if an interested part is opposed to EPA's decision.

Because EPA has already received written comment on CARB's within the scope request for its 1999 ZEV amendments and because EPA anticipates a similar level of interest in CARB's 2001 ZEV amendments, EPA invites comment on the following issues: (1) Whether California's 1999 and 2001 ZEV amendments should be considered together or separately; (2) whether California's 2001 ZEV amendments (a) undermine California's previous determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are at least as protective of public health and welfare as comparable Federal standards, (b) affect the consistency of California's requirements with section 202(a) of the Act, and (c) raise new issues affecting EPA's previous waiver determinations; and (3) whether (a) California's determination that its 2001 ZEV amendments, to the extent they are not within the scope of previous waivers, are at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards is arbitrary and capricious, (b) California needs separate standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, and (c) California's standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are consistent with section 202(a) of the Act?

In recognition that public hearings are designed to give interested parties an opportunity to participate in this proceeding, there are no adverse parties as such. Statements by participants will not be subject to cross-examination by other participants without special approval by the presiding officer. The presiding officer is authorized to strike from the record statements that he or she deems irrelevant or repetitious and to impose reasonable time limits on the duration of the statement of any participant.

If hearing(s) are held, the Agency will make a verbatim record of the proceedings. Interested parties may arrange with the reporter at the hearing(s) to obtain a copy of the transcript at their own expense. Regardless of whether public hearing(s) are held, EPA will keep the record open until July 22, 2002. Upon expiration of the comment period, the Administrator will render a decision on CARB's request based on the record of the public hearing(s), if any, relevant written submissions, and other information that she deems pertinent. All information will be available for inspection at EPA Air Docket. (Docket No. A-2002-11).

EPA requests that parties wishing to submit comments specify which issue, noted above, they are addressing. Commenters may submit one document which addresses several issues but they should separate, to the extent possible, those comments that relate to the 1999 ZEV amendments, those that relate to the 2001 ZEV amendments, and those that relate to the LEVII amendments.

Persons with comments containing proprietary information must distinguish such information from other comments to the greatest possible extent and label it as “Confidential Business Information” (CBI). If a person making comments wants EPA to base its decision in part on a submission labeled CBI, then a nonconfidential version of the document that summarizes the key data or information should be submitted for the public docket. To ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently placed in the docket, submissions containing such information should be sent directly to the contact person listed above and not to the public docket. Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent allowed and by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the submission when EPA receives it, EPA will make it available to the public without further notice to the person making comments.

This action is directed to the public in general, nevertheless, a wide range of stakeholders will be interested in obtaining information on propanil, including environmental, human health and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the use of pesticides on food. Since other entities also may 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/. On the Home Page select “Laws and Regulations,” “Regulations and Proposed Rules” and then look up the entry for this document under the “ Federal Register —Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. To access the OPPTS Harmonized Guideline referenced in this document, go directly to the guidelines at http://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/home/guidelin.htm.

In addition, copies of the documents related to the propanil risk assessments and tolerance reassessment decision released to the public may be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm.

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket ID number OPP-2002-0033. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Room 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 ID number OPP-2002-0033 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 in this unit. Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding use of special characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be accepted on standard disks in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format. All comments in electronic form must be identified by docket ID number OPP-2002-0033. 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 document.

8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID 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.

The Agency has completed its assessment of the dietary risk of propanil (3',4'-dichloropropionanilide) and its principle metabolic degradate 3,4-dichloroaniline (3,4-DCA), and has determined that the level of dietary risk from exposure as a result of currently registered uses of propanil is not of concern to the Agency. Therefore, no mitigation measures are needed and no further actions are warranted at this time. Tolerances for the registered uses of propanil are reassessed. The Agency is still reviewing any possible risk to workers and the environment and, if risk mitigation is necessary, the Agency will provide its risk management decision, as well as any confirmatory data requirements, in the RED scheduled for later in 2002.

The Agency may determine that further action is necessary, once it is determined whether the anilides, such as propanil, share a common mechanism of toxicity as a group or with other neuroendocrine-disrupting chemicals. Such an incremental approach to the tolerance reassessment process is consistent with the Agency's goal of improving transparency in implementing FFDCA. For propanil, the established tolerances remain in effect until such time as a full reassessment of the cumulative risk from all anilide pesticides, such as propanil, may be needed and is completed.

This notice announces the tolerance reassessment decision for propanil. This decision has been developed as part of the public participation process that EPA and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) are using to involve the public in the reassessment of pesticide tolerances under FFDCA. EPA must review tolerances and tolerance exemptions that were in effect when the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) was enacted in August of 1996 to ensure that these existing pesticide residue limits for food and feed commodities meet the safety standard of the new law. Propanil was first registered in 1973 and is therefore subject to both reregistration and tolerance assessment under the FQPA amendments to FFDCA.

The FQPA amendments to FFDCA requires EPA to review all the tolerances for registered chemicals in effect on or before the date of the enactment. In reviewing these tolerances, the Agency must consider, among other things, aggregate risks from nonoccupational sources of pesticide exposure, whether there is increased susceptibility to infants and children and the cumulative effects of pesticides with a common mechanism of toxicity. The tolerances are considered reassessed once the safety finding has been made or a revocation occurs.

FFDCA requires that the Agency, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” The Agency does not have sufficient information at this time to determine whether the anilide pesticides, such as propanil, share a common mechanism of toxicity.

The Agency's human health findings for the pesticide propanil, discussed in Unit IV., are presented fully in the document: “Propanil-HED Revised Human Health Risk Assessment, February 28, 2002.” The risk assessments and other documents pertaining to the propanil tolerance reassessment decision are available for viewing in the public docket (see Unit I.B.2.) or on the Agency's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm.

Propanil is a selective post-emergent herbicide registered on rice, barley, oats, and spring wheat to control broadleaf and grass weeds in commercial settings. Propanil is also registered (but not currently marketed) for turf use at commercial sod farms. There are no existing or proposed residential uses of propanil products.

Propanil is formulated as an emulsifiable concentrate liquid (16.6%-58% active ingredient), a water dispersable granule (or dry flowable) (59.6%-81% active ingredient), a soluble concentrate liquid (41.2%-80.2% active ingredient), and a flowable concentrate (41.2% active ingredient). Propanil is typically applied as a broadcast treatment by groundboom sprayers and aerial equipment.

The estimate for total domestic use (annual average) is approximately 7 million pounds of active ingredient on a total of approximately 2 million acres treated. The crop with the highest use is rice, which accounts for approximately 99% of the annual average. Fifty to seventy percent of the U.S. rice crop is treated with propanil. Small grains comprise the remaining 1% of the annual average.

EPA has not assessed acute dietary risk for propanil since no appropriate endpoint attributable to a single exposure (dose) could be identified. An acute dietary reference dose was not established.

Chronic dietary risk is calculated by using the average consumption value for food and average residue values on those foods. A risk estimate that is less than 100% of the chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD), the dose at which an individual could be exposed over the course of a lifetime and no adverse health effects would be expected, does not exceed the Agency's level of concern. The cPAD is the chronic dietary reference dose (RfD) adjusted for the FQPA safety factor.

Chronic risk estimates from exposures to propanil in food do not exceed the Agency's level of concern (i.e., they are less than 100% of the cPAD). The chronic dietary (food only) risk estimate is 13% of the cPAD, for the most highly exposed population subgroup, all infants ( < 1 year).

The toxicity endpoint for the chronic dietary assessment is decreased hemoglobin, red blood cell count and/or packed cell volumes and is calculated using the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) (9 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day)) from the chronic/carcinogenicity study in the rat (no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL)) was identified).

The FQPA safety factor of 10x was retained for chronic exposures based on increased susceptibility following prenatal and postnatal exposure, the lack of a developmental neurotoxicity study; and neuroendocrine disruption in the rat. The uncertainty factor (UF) used in the RfD derivation is 300x. The UF is 100x (10x for interspecies extrapolation and 10x for intraspecies variability). An additional UF of 3x is applied for the use of a LOAEL instead of a NOAEL for an overall UF of 3,000x. Thus, the chronic RfD is 0.03 mg/kg/day and the cPAD is 0.003 mg/kg/day.

The propanil chronic dietary exposure assessment was conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM TM ) Software Version 7.73. The DEEM TM analysis evaluated the individual food consumption as reported by respondents in the USDA's Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII), 1989-1992, and accumulated exposure to the chemical for each commodity. To calculate chronic dietary risk from propanil use on food, EPA used the DEEM TM , along with average residue estimated from field trial data, and assumed 70% of the rice crop was treated with propanil. Field trial data are generally considered to be an upper-bound estimate of actual residues, and 70% is also a high-end estimate of the percent of the present rice crop treated. Thus, actual dietary risk is likely to be less than indicated by EPA's assessment. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) monitoring data were available, but not sufficient, due to lack of analysis for 3,4-DCA.

Drinking water exposure to pesticides can occur through ground water and surface water contamination. EPA considers both acute (1 day) and chronic (lifetime) drinking water risks and uses either modeling or actual monitoring data, if available, to estimate those risks. To determine the maximum allowable contribution of water allowed in the diet, EPA first looks at how much of the overall allowable risk is contributed by food, then calculates a “drinking water level of comparison” (DWLOC) to determine whether modeled or monitoring estimates exceed this level. In the case of propanil, no acute drinking water assessment has been conducted, because no acute endpoint was identified. The calculated chronic DWLOCs for propanil are 26 parts per billion (ppb) for children, 86 ppb for adult females, and 100 ppb for adult males.

Available data indicate that propanil will not persist in the environment and is in the medium mobility class for sand, sandy loam and clay loam soils, based on available mobility studies. Due to its mobility, propanil could possibly reach ground water but due to its rapid metabolism in a water/soil matrix, it is unlikely to persist for a sufficient amount of time to leach in significant quantities. (The possible exception are sites of extreme vulnerability and low metabolic capacity which would most likely occur only for terrestrial uses. However, if propanil does reach ground water in these vulnerable areas, it is expected to be stable). Propanil and its principle metabolic degradate, 3,4-DCA, and residues convertible to 3,4-DCA are the residues of concern for the drinking water risk assessment.

Monitoring data for propanil residues in ground water and surface water are available but not adequate to develop estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) for the aggregate dietary (food and water) risk assessment. Although not targeted to specific propanil use areas, United States Geological Survey (USGS) monitoring data do provide some information on the magnitude and frequency of propanil and 3,4-DCA detections. Propanil was found in about 3% of the 1,560 surface water samples analyzed with a maximum concentration of 2 parts per billion (ppb). 3,4-DCA was found in about 50% of the 68 samples with a maximum concentration of 8.9 ppb. All detects are well below the DWLOCs. Models have been used to estimate ground water and surface water concentrations expected from normal agricultural use.

Estimated surface water EECs, a range of 6-72 ppb, are below the DWLOC for all population subgroups except for children at the upper-bound EEC of 72 ppb. This subpopulation of children could be an area of concern because exposure estimates for this group exceed the DWLOC; however, the Agency believes that the concerns have been addressed by the conservative assumptions (field trial residue levels and 70% crop treated) used in the chronic dietary calculation. In this case, the Agency concludes that actual residues of propanil per se and 3,4-dichloroaniline (3,4-DCA combined) are likely to be less than the estimated DWLOC; and a conclusion can be drawn that no adverse toxicological effect will occur due to aggregate chronic exposure. Estimated drinking water concentrations are based on EPA's Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) screening model, which is a Tier II assessment that provides more refined, less upper-bound assumptions. The range of EECs represents different rice growing areas and normal versus overflow release.

Estimated ground water concentrations are based on the Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) model, which is a Tier I assessment that provides a high-end estimate. The drinking water EEC for ground water (0.35 ppb) is below the DWLOC for all population subgroups.

The aggregate risk assessment for propanil examines the combined risk from exposure through food and drinking water only . Chronic residential exposures are not expected because there are no residential uses for propanil and, thus, are not included in the aggregate risk assessment. As detailed above, for propanil the only interval of exposure to be assessed is chronic (1 year or more), and the only route of exposure to be assessed is oral (food and water). Generally, combined risks from these exposures that are less than 100% of the cPAD, are not considered to be a risk concern.

EPA has also evaluated the potential aggregate exposure to 3,4-DCA. Available data indicates that 3,4-DCA is a major metabolic degradate of propanil. 3,4-DCA is also a metabolite of linuron and diuron, but to a lesser extent. The Agency's Metabolism Assessment Review Committee does not recommend aggregating residues of 3,4-DCA for the propanil, linuron, and diuron risk assessments. 3,4-DCA is a significant residue of concern for propanil, but is not a residue of concern per se for linuron or diuron. Submitted data indicate that the maximum amount of 3,4-DCA formed from propanil is approximately 50% of propanil initially applied, based on results from the aerobic soil metabolism study. Neither diuron nor linuron metabolize to 3,4-DCA in appreciable amounts (less than 1% detection rate) of the parent compound in animal, plant, or water metabolism studies.

The registered uses for propanil, linuron, and diuron result in minimal co-occurrence of use. That is, there is very little overlap of use patterns and the use patterns are geographically limited for each chemical. Therefore, the risk assessments for each individual chemical fully assess the risks posed by the parent chemical and the metabolite, 3,4-DCA, individually.

Propanil is not registered for residential (home) use, nor is it used in or around public buildings, schools, or recreational areas where children might be exposed. Thus, there is no residential exposure to aggregate with the dietary exposure.

The use of propanil on turf is restricted to commercial sod farms only. Although propanil-treated sod may eventually be used in residential settings (i.e., residential lawns), propanil residues are not expected to exceed levels of concern for residential post-application risk. Since the proposed use of propanil on turf is post-emergent, applied at sod farms early in the turf growing season (well before harvest), the Agency concludes that the amount of time is adequate to allow residue dissipation to a level that would not pose any significant exposure to residents.

The Agency will assess occupational and ecological risks, any necessary mitigation as well as the need for confirmatory data in the forthcoming RED.

The existing tolerances for residues of propanil in/on plant, animal and processed commodities are established under 40 CFR 180.274(a)(1) and (a)(2). These tolerances are currently expressed as the combined residues of propanil (3',4'-dichloropropionanilide) and its metabolites (calculated as propanil). The Agency is now recommending that the propanil tolerance expression for plant and animal commodities be revised to specify that the residues of concern are propanil and its related compounds convertible to 3,4-DCA. To eliminate redundancy, the propanil tolerances separately listed under 40 CFR 180.274(a)(2) should be removed and 40 CFR 180.274(a)(1) should be redesignated as 40 CFR 180.274(a).

The Agency has updated the list of raw agricultural and processed commodities and feedstuffs derived from crops (Table 1, OPPTS GLN 860.1000). As a result of these changes, propanil tolerances for certain raw agricultural commodities that have been removed from the livestock feed table need to be revoked. A number of tolerances are being revised (increased or decreased) to reflect updates to the propanil data base based on the submission of new livestock feeding studies, analytical methods, processing data, recovery methods, and/or field trial residue data. Additionally, some commodity definitions must be updated and/or corrected. A summary of propanil tolerance reassessments is presented below in Table 1.

Adequate residue data have been submitted to support the established tolerances for barley, grain; cattle, fat; goat, fat; hog, fat; horse, fat; milk; oat, grain; poultry, meat; rice, straw; sheep, fat; and wheat, straw. For these commodities, the established tolerances were found to be appropriate and will not change as part of this tolerance reassessment.

The established tolerance levels for barley, straw; oat, straw, and wheat, straw must be increased to reflect new recovery procedures. The established tolerance levels for cattle, meat byproducts; egg; goat, meat byproducts; hog, meat byproducts; horse, meat byproducts; poultry, meat byproducts, and sheep, meat byproducts have been increased based on the results of livestock feeding studies and revised dietary burden (exposure) to propanil. For rice, grain; rice, bran, and rice, hull, the existing tolerance levels were increased since data demonstrate that residues concentrate in bran and hulls when rice is processed, based on a reevaluation of crop field trial data.

The available data indicate that the tolerance levels can be decreased for cattle, meat; goat, meat; hog, meat; horse, meat; poultry, fat; and sheep, meat based on the results of a ruminant feeding study and a revised dietary burden.

Group commodity definitions will be revised as noted in Table 1. The established tolerances for rice mill fractions and rice polishings should be revoked according to Table 1 of OPPTS GLN 860.1000, since these commodities are no longer considered to be significant livestock feed items. As a result, the tolerances are no longer needed.

Adequate residue data have been submitted for the establishment of propanil tolerances for crayfish; oat, forage, and wheat, forage based on the crayfish metabolism study and wheat forage data.

Inadequate residue data are available for the establishment of propanil tolerances for barley, hay; oat, hay, and wheat, hay. The requested data for wheat, hay will be translated to barley, hay, and oat, hay.

The tolerances currently listed in 40 CFR 180.274(a)(2) are inadvertent duplicates of the tolerances established for the same commodities listed in 40 CFR 180.274(a)(1). The tolerances listed in 40 CFR 180.274(a)(2) should be removed because the duplicate tolerances found there are not needed.

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

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

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

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPP-2002-0065. 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 OPP-2002-0065 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 OPP-2002-0065. 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 Valent U.S.A. Corporation, P.O. Box 8025, Walnut Creek, CA 94596-8025 and represents the view of Valent U.S.A. Corporation. EPA is publishing the petition summary verbatim without editing it in any way. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.

EPA has received pesticide petitions (PP) 1E6272, 1E6285, and 2E6353 from the Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), Technology Centre of New Jersey, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, 681 U.S. Highway No. 1 South, North Brunswick, NJ 08902-3390 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing tolerances for residues of pyriproxyfen, 2-[1-methyl-2-(4-phenoxyphenoxy)ethoxy]pyridine, in or on the raw agricultural commodities as follows:

1. PP 1E6272 proposes tolerances for lychee, longan, Spanish lime, rambutan, and pulasan at 0.3 parts per million (ppm).

2. PP 1E6285 proposes tolerances for guava, feijoa, jaboticaba, wax jambu, starfruit, passionfruit, and acerola at 0.1 ppm, and

3. PP 2E6353 proposes tolerances for Bushberry subgroup 13 B at 1.0 ppm and lingonberry, juneberry, and salal at 1.0 ppm.

EPA has determined that the petitions contain data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petitions. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petitions. Pyriproxyfen is manufactured by Sumitomo Chemical Company, represented in the United States by Valent U.S.A. Corporation.

1. Plant metabolism. Metabolism of 14 C-pyriproxyfen labelled in the phenoxyphenyl ring and in the pyridyl ring has been studied in cotton, apples, tomatoes, lactating goats, laying hens and rats. The major metabolic pathways in plants is aryl hydroxylation and cleavage of the ether linkage, followed by further metabolism into more polar products by further oxidation and/or conjugation reactions. However, the bulk of the radiochemical residue on raw agricultural commodities (RAC) samples remained as parent. Comparing metabolites detected and quantified from cotton, apple, tomato, goat, hen and rat shows that there are no significant aglycones in plants which are not also present in the excreta or tissues of animals. The residue of concern is best defined as the parent, pyriproxyfen.

Ruminant and poultry metabolism studies demonstrated that transfer of administered 14 C-residues to tissues was low. Total 14 C-residues in goat milk, muscle and tissues accounted for less than 2% of the administered dose, and were less than 1 ppm in all cases. In poultry, total 14 C residues in eggs, muscle and tissues accounted for about 2.7% of the administered dose, and were less than 1 ppm in all cases except for gizzard.

2. Analytical method. Practical analytical methods for detecting and measuring levels of pyriproxyfen (and relevant metabolites) have been developed and validated in/on all appropriate agricultural commodities, respective processing fractions, milk, animal tissues, and environmental samples. The extraction methodology has been validated using aged radiochemical residue samples from metabolism studies. The methods have been validated in cottonseed, apples, soil, and oranges at independent laboratories. EPA has successfully validated the analytical methods for analysis of cottonseed, pome fruit, nutmeats, almond hulls, and fruiting vegetables. The limit of detection of pyriproxyfen in the methods is 0.01 ppm which will allow monitoring of food with residues at the levels proposed for the tolerances.

3. Magnitude of residues —i. Lychee . Three lychee field residue trials were conducted in 1998 in EPA Region 13. Each field site received two pyriproxyfen applications at 0.11 lb active ingredient/acre (a.i./A), with an interval of 10 to 11 days between applications, and a preharvest interval of 11 to 13 days. Pyriproxyfen residues on treated lychee samples ranged from 0.0759 to 0.272 ppm. These data support a tolerance for pyriproxyfen in or on lychee of 0.3 ppm.

ii. Guava . Three guava field residue trials were conducted in 1999 in EPA Region 13. Each field site received two pyriproxyfen applications at 0.11 lb a.i./A, with an interval of 13 days between applications, and a pre-harvest interval of 14 to 15 days. Pyriproxyfen residues on treated guava samples ranged from < 0.025 to 0.055 ppm. The data support a tolerance for pyriproxyfen in or on guava of 0.1 ppm.

iii. Blueberry . Eight blueberry field residue trials were conducted in 1999. Three trials were conducted in EPA Region 2, three trials in EPA Region 5, one trial in EPA Region 1, and one trial in EPA Region 12. Each field site received two pyriproxyfen applications at 0.1 lb ai/A with a retreatment interval ranging between 13 to 15 days. At seven trial locations samples were collected 6 to 8 days after the last application. At one trial location, samples were collected at 2, 7, 10, 14 and 21 days after the last application. Pyriproxyfen residues ranged from 0.14 ppm to 0.64 ppm for treated samples collected 6 to 8 days after the last application. In the residue decline study, pyriproxyfen residues ranged from 0.10 ppm to 0.22 ppm in treated samples collected at the first three sampling intervals, declining to as low as 0.03 ppm after 21 days after the last application. These data support a tolerance for pyriproxyfen in or on blueberries and commodities within the bushberry subgroup of 1.0 ppm.

An assessment of toxic effects caused by pyriproxyfen is discussed in Unit III.A. and Unit III.B. of the Federal Register dated April 4, 2001, (FRL-6772-4) (66 FR 17883).

1. Animal metabolism. The absorption, tissue distribution, metabolism and excretion of 14 C-labeled pyriproxyfen were studied in rats after single oral doses of 2 or 1,000 milligrams/kilograms body weight (mg/kg bw) (phenoxyphenyl and pyridyl label), and after a single oral dose of 2 mg/kg bw, phenoxyphenyl label only, following 14 daily oral doses at 2 mg/kg bw of unlabelled material. For all dose groups, most (88-96%) of the administered radiolabel was excreted in the urine and feces within two days after radiolabeled test material dosing, and 92-98% of the administered dose was excreted within seven days. Seven days after dosing, tissue residues were generally low, accounting for no more than 0.3% of the dosed 14 C. Radiocarbon concentrations in fat were the higher than in other tissues analyzed. Recovery in tissues over time indicates that the potential for bioaccumulation is minimal. There were no significant sex or dose-related differences in excretion or metabolism.

2. Metabolite toxicology. Metabolism studies of pyriproxyfen in rats, goats and hens, as well as the fish bioaccumulation study demonstrate that the parent is very rapidly metabolized and eliminated. In the rat, most (88-96%) of the administered radiolabel was excreted in the urine and feces within 2 days of dosing, and 92-98% of the administered dose was excreted within 7 days. Tissue residues were low 7 days after dosing, accounting for no more than 0.3% of the dosed 14 C. Because parent and metabolites are not retained in the body, the potential for acute toxicity from in situ formed metabolites is low. The potential for chronic toxicity is adequately tested by chronic exposure to the parent at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and consequent chronic exposure to the internally formed metabolites.

Seven metabolites of pyriproxyfen, 4′-OH-pyriproxyfen, 5′′-OH-pyriproxyfen, desphenyl-pyriproxyfen, POPA, PYPAC, 2-OH-pyridine and 2,5-diOH-pyridine, have been tested for mutagenicity, via Ames Assay, and acute oral toxicity to mice. All seven metabolites were tested in the Ames assay with and without S9 at doses up to 5,000 micro-grams per plate or up to the growth inhibitory dose. The metabolites did not induce any significant increases in revertible colonies in any of the test strains. Positive control chemicals showed marked increases in reverting colonies. The acute toxicity to mice of 4′-OH-pyriproxyfen, 5′′-OH-pyriproxyfen, desphenyl-pyriproxyfen, POPA, and PYPAC did not appear to markedly differ from pyriproxyfen, with all metabolites having acute oral Lethal Dose (LD 50 ) values greater than 2,000 mg/kg bw. The two pyridines, 2-OH-pyridine and 2,5-diOH-pyridine, gave acute oral LD 50 values of 124 (male) and 166 (female) mg/kg bw, and 1,105 (male) and 1,000 (female) mg/kg bw, respectively.

3. Endocrine disruption. Pyriproxyfen is specifically designed to be an insect growth regulator and is known to produce juvenoid effects on arthropod development. However, this mechanism-of-action in target insects and some other arthropods has no relevance to any mammalian endocrine system. While specific tests, uniquely designed to evaluate the potential effects of pyriproxyfen on mammalian endocrine systems have not been conducted, the toxicology of pyriproxyfen has been extensively evaluated in acute, sub-chronic, chronic, developmental, and reproductive toxicology studies including detailed histopathology of numerous tissues. The results of these studies show no evidence of any endocrine-mediated effects and no pathology of the endocrine organs. Consequently, Valent concludes that pyriproxyfen does not possess estrogenic or endocrine disrupting properties applicable to mammals.

1. Dietary exposure. An evaluation of chronic dietary exposure including both food and drinking water has been performed for the U.S. population and various sub-populations including infants and children. No acute dietary endpoint and dose was identified in the toxicology data base for pyriproxyfen, therefore, the Valent Corporation concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from acute dietary exposure.

i. Food. Chronic dietary exposure to pyriproxyfen residues was calculated for the U.S. population and 25 population subgroups assuming tolerance level residues, processing factors from residue studies, and 100% of the crop-treated. The analyses included residue data for all existing uses, pending uses, and proposed new uses. The results from several representative subgroups are listed below. Chronic exposure to the overall U.S. population is estimated to be 0.002984 mg/kg bw/day, representing 0.9% of the Reference Dose (RfD). For the most highly exposed sub-population, children 1 to 6 years of age, exposure is calculated to be 0.007438 mg/kg bw/day, or 2.1% of the RfD. Generally speaking, the Agency has no cause for concern if total residue contribution for established and proposed tolerances is less than 100% of the RfD.

ii. Drinking water . Since pyriproxyfen is applied outdoors to growing agricultural crops, the potential exists for pyriproxyfen or its metabolites to reach ground or surface water that may be used for drinking water. Because of the physical properties of pyriproxyfen, it is unlikely that pyriproxyfen or its metabolites can leach to potable ground water. To quantify potential exposure from drinking water, surface water concentrations for pyriproxyfen were estimated using GENEEC 1.3. The average 56-day concentration predicted in the simulated pond water was 0.16 parts per billion (ppb). Using standard assumptions about body weight and water consumption, the chronic exposure to pyriproxyfen from this drinking water would be 4.57 x 10 -6 and 1.6 x 10 -5 mg/kg bw/day for adults and children, respectively; 0.0046% of the RfD (0.35 mg/kg/day) for children. Based on this worse case analysis, the contribution of water to the dietary risk is negligible.

2. Non-dietary exposure. Pyriproxyfen is currently registered for use on residential non-food sites. Pyriproxyfen is the active ingredient in numerous registered products for flea and tick control. Formulations include foggers, aerosol sprays, emulsifiable concentrates, and impregnated materials (pet collars). With the exception of the pet collar uses, consumer use of pyriproxyfen typically results in acute and short-term intermittent exposures. No acute dermal, or inhalation dose or endpoint was identified in the toxicity data for pyriproxyfen. Similarly, doses and endpoints were not identified for short and intermediate term dermal or inhalation exposure to pyriproxyfen. The Valent Corporation has concluded that there are reasonable certainties of no harm from acute, short-term, and intermediate-term dermal and inhalation occupational and residential exposures due to the lack of significant toxicological effects observed.

Chronic residential post-application exposure and risk assessments were conducted to estimate the potential risks from pet collar uses. The risk assessment was conducted using the following assumptions: application rate of 0.58 mg active ingredient (ai)/day, average bw for a 1-6 year old child of 10 kg, the a.i. dissipates uniformly through 365 days (the label instruct to change collar once a year), 1% of the active ingredient is available for dermal and inhalation exposure per day (assumption from Draft EPA Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Residential Exposure Assessments, December 18, 1997). The assessment also assumes an absorption rate of 100%. This is a conservative assumption since the dermal absorption was estimated to be 10%. The estimated chronic term MOE was 61,000 for children, and 430,000 for adults. The risk estimates indicate that potential risks from pet collar uses do not exceed the Agency's level of concern.

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that the Agency must consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” Available information in this context include not only toxicity, chemistry, and exposure data, but also scientific policies and methodologies for understanding common mechanisms of toxicity and conducting cumulative risk assessments. For most pesticides, although the Agency has some information in its files that may turn out to be helpful in eventually determining whether a pesticide shares a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, EPA does not at this time have the methodologies to resolve the complex scientific issues concerning common mechanism of toxicity in a meaningful way.

There are no other pesticidal compounds that are structurally related to pyriproxyfen and have similar effects on animals. In consideration of potential cumulative effects of pyriproxyfen and other substances that may have a common mechanism of toxicity, there are currently no available data or other reliable information indicating that any toxic effects produced by pyriproxyfen would be cumulative with those of other chemical compounds. Thus, only the potential risks of pyriproxyfen have been considered in this assessment of aggregate exposure and effects.

Valent will submit information for EPA to consider concerning potential cumulative effects of pyriproxyfen consistent with the schedule established by EPA at 62 FR 42020 (Aug. 4, 1997) and other subsequent EPA publications pursuant to the Food Quality Protection Act.

1. U.S. population. —i. Chronic dietary exposure and risk adult sub-populations . The results of the chronic dietary exposure assessment described above demonstrate that estimates of chronic dietary exposure for all existing, pending and proposed uses of pyriproxyfen are well below the chronic RfD of 0.35 mg/kg bw/day. The estimated chronic dietary exposure from food for the overall U.S. population and many non-child/infant subgroups is from 0.002123 to 0.003884 mg/kg bw/day, 0.607 to 1.100% of the RfD. Addition of the small but worse case potential chronic exposure from drinking water (calculated above) increases exposure by only 4.57 x 10 -6 mg/kg bw/day and does not change the maximum occupancy of the RfD significantly. Generally, the Agency has no cause for concern if total residue contribution is less than 100% of the RfD. Valent concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the overall U.S. Population or any non-child/infant subgroups from aggregate, chronic dietary exposure to pyriproxyfen residues.

ii. Acute dietary exposure and risk adult sub-populations . No acute dietary endpoint and dose were identified in the toxicology data base for pyriproxyfen; therefore, it can be concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the overall U.S. population or any non-child/infant subgroups from aggregate, acute dietary exposure to pyriproxyfen residues.

iii. Non-dietary exposure and aggregate risk adult sub-populations . Acute, short term, and intermediate term dermal and inhalation risk assessments for residential exposure are not required due to the lack of significant toxicological effects observed. The results of a chronic residential post-application exposure and risk assessment for pet collar uses demonstrate that potential risks from pet collar uses do not exceed the Agency's level of concern. The estimated chronic term MOE for adults was 430,000.

2. Infants and children — i. Safety factor for infants and children. In assessing the potential for additional sensitivity of infants and children to residues of pyriproxyfen, FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA shall apply an additional margin of safety, up to 10-fold, for added protection for infants and children in the case of threshold effects unless EPA determines that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children.

The toxicological data base for evaluating pre-natal and post-natal toxicity for pyriproxyfen is complete with respect to current data requirements. There are no special prenatal or postnatal toxicity concerns for infants and children, based on the results of the rat and rabbit developmental toxicity studies or the 2-generation reproductive toxicity study in rats. Valent concludes that reliable data support use of the standard 100-fold uncertainty factor and that an additional uncertainty factor is not needed for pyriproxyfen to be further protective of infants and children.

ii. Chronic dietary exposure and risk infants and children . Using the conservative exposure assumptions described above, the percentage of the RfD that will be utilized by chronic dietary (food only) exposure to residues of pyriproxyfen ranges from 0.002601 mg/kg bw/day for nursing infants, up to 0.007438 mg/kg bw/day for children (1 to 6 years of age), 0.743 to 2.125% of the RfD, respectively. Adding the worse case potential incremental exposure to infants and children from pyriproxyfen in drinking water (1.6 x 10 -5 mg/kg bw/day) does not materially increase the aggregate, chronic dietary exposure and only increases the occupancy of the RfD by 0.0046% to 2.130% for Children (1 to 6 years of age). EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the RfD because the RfD represents the level at or below which daily aggregate dietary exposure over a lifetime will not pose appreciable risks to human health. Valent concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate, chronic dietary exposure to pyriproxyfen residues.

iii. Acute dietary exposure and risk infants and children . No acute dietary endpoint and dose were identified in the toxicology data base for pyriproxyfen; therefore, Valent believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate, acute dietary exposure to pyriproxyfen residues.

iv. Non-dietary exposure and aggregate risk infants and children . Acute, short term, and intermediate term dermal and inhalation risk assessments for residential exposure are not required due to the lack of significant toxicological effects observed. The results of a chronic residential post-application exposure and risk assessment for pet collar uses demonstrate that potential risks from pet collar uses do not exceed the Agency's level of concern. The estimated chronic term MOE for children was 61,000.

There are no presently existing Codex maximum residue levels (MRLs) for pyriproxyfen.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you petition EPA for emergency exemption under section 18 of FIFRA. 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 regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table in this unit could also be regulated. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action applies to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business is affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions. Since other entities also may 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,” “Regulations and Proposed Rules,” and then look up the entry for this document under the “ Federal Register —Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket ID number OPP-2002-0089. 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 ID number OPP-2002-0089 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 ID number OPP-2002-0089. 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.

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

8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID 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.

Under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136p), at the discretion of the Administrator, a Federal or State agency may be exempted from any provision of FIFRA if the Administrator determines that emergency conditions exist which require the exemption. California EPA, Department of Pesticide Regulation has requested the Administrator to issue a specific exemption for the use of avermectin on basil to control leafminer. Information in accordance with 40 CFR part 166 was submitted as part of this request.

As part of this request, the Applicant asserts that during the months of July through September of 1997, a severe leafminer infestation impacted the major basil growing areas of California. It is anticipated this year that if environmental conditions do not change, the basil growers will experience the same if not worse leafminer pest problem.

Basil is grown next to various vegetable crops that serve as host plants for leafminers. During the harvesting of these various vegetable crops, leafminers will migrate to the adjacent basil crop that also serves as an ideal host crop. Basil growers do not have an effective registered pesticide to control leafminers. Without avermectin net revenues are estimated at a loss of $195 per acre. With the use of avermectin net revenues are estimated to be $18 per acre.

The Applicant proposes to make no more than two applications per single cutting and no more than 3 to 6 applications can be made per cropping season. Between 0.01 lbs to 0.02 lbs active ingredient may be applied per acre. A maximum of 0.06 lbs active ingredient can be applied per acre per year. Avermectin, formulated as a 2.0% emulsifiable concentrate will be applied to no more than 3,000 acres of basil from July 1, 2002, until October 30, 2002, in California. If the maximum number of acres (3,000) were treated at the maximum application rate (0.06 lbs) than, a total of 180 lbs of avermectin could be applied.

This notice does not constitute a decision by EPA on the application itself. The regulations governing section 18 of FIFRA require publication of a notice of receipt of an application for a specific exemption proposing a use which has been requested in 3 or more previous years, and a petition for tolerance has not yet been submitted to the Agency. The notice provides an opportunity for public comment on the application.

The Agency, will review and consider all comments received during the comment period in determining whether to issue the specific exemption requested by the California EPA, Department of Pesticide Regulation.

Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available), and parts of this meeting will be closed. In order to increase the accessibility to Board meetings, persons requiring assistance should make arrangements in advance. The matters to be considered at the meeting are:

• May 2, 2002 (Open and Closed)

• FCS Building Association's Quarterly Report

• Corporate Approvals

• Conditions and Trends in the McLean Field Office Portfolio

• Overview of the 2002 Farm Bill

• Quarterly Report on Strategic Plan Goals

• Review of the FCS Building Association's Audit

In FY 2003, AHRQ is required to submit to the Congress the first annual report on prevailing disparities in health care. AHRQ's authorizing legislation requires that the Director prepare and annually submit to the Congress a report regarding prevailing disparities in health care delivery as it relates to racial factors and socioeconomic factors in priority populations. The legislation further specifies that priority populations include: Low income groups; minority groups; women; children; the elderly; and individuals with special health care needs, including individuals with disabilities and individuals who need chronic care or end-of-life care. The first NHDR will focus on health care disparities for these groups compared to other Americans with respect to access to and quality of care.

This effort will be implemented in partnership with other Agency and Department projects to ensure synergy with existing efforts, including, Healthy People 2010, HHS survey integration priorities and the AHRQ National Healthcare Quality Report. The report will provide answers on a national basis to critical questions about disparities in health care and will permit the development of a more complete picture of health care in America, including who has access to care and how good is the care received. The NHDR provides an important opportunity for the Department of Health and Human Services to further its long-term commitment to identifying and reducing avoidable disparities in health care.

The purpose of this Federal Register notice is to encourage submission of measures and candidate data sets for inclusion in the NHDR. The AHRQ will review nominations and supporting information and determine which measures and data sets will be included in the NHDR, seeking additional information as appropriate.

Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing were developed in accordance with Executive Order 12564 and section 503 of Public Law 100-71. Subpart C of the Guidelines, “Certification of Laboratories Engaged in Urine Drug Testing for Federal Agencies,” sets strict standards which laboratories must meet in order to conduct urine drug testing for Federal agencies. To become certified an applicant laboratory must undergo three rounds of performance testing plus an on-site inspection.

To maintain that certification a laboratory must participate in a quarterly performance testing program plus periodic, on-site inspections.

Laboratories which claim to be in the applicant stage of certification are not to be considered as meeting the minimum requirements expressed in the HHS Guidelines. A laboratory must have its letter of certification from SAMHSA, HHS (formerly: HHS/NIDA) which attests that it has met minimum standards.

In accordance with Subpart C of the Guidelines, the following laboratories meet the minimum standards set forth in the Guidelines:

The following laboratory voluntarily withdrew from the NLCP on April 30, 2002:

The following laboratory voluntarily withdrew from the NLCP on May 15, 2002:

The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information-collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and cost) is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information-collection burden is correct.

Paragraph (k)(3)(i) of this Standard requires a prominent display of adequate warning signs against the use of mobile transmitters. If the signs are infeasible, an alternative method needs to be developed to prevent premature detonation.

OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:

• Whether the proposed information-collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;

• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and cost) of the information-collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information-collection and -transmission techniques.

OSHA proposes to extend OMB's previous approval of the recordkeeping (paperwork) requirement specified in paragraphs (k)(3)(i) of the Blasting Operation Standard for Construction (29 CFR 1926.900). The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice, and will include this summary in its request to OMB to extend the approval of this information-collection requirement.

Type of Review: Extension of currently approved information-collection requirements.

Title: Blasting Operations.

OMB Number: 1218-0217.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions; Federal government; State, local or tribal governments.

Number of Respondents: 160.

Frequency of Response: On Occasion.

Total Responses: 160.

Average Time per Response: 8 hours.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1,280.

Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $1,704,000.

John L. Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 3-2000 (65 FR 50017).

The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information-collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and cost) is minimal, collection instruments are understandable, and OSHA's estimate of the information-collection burden is correct.

The Derricks Standard specifies two paperwork requirements. The following sections describe who uses the information collected under each requirements, as well as how they use it. The purpose of these requirements is to prevent death and serious injuries to employees by ensuring that the derrick is not used to lift loads its rated capacity and that all the ropes are inspected for wear and tear.

• Marking the Rated Load (paragraph (c)). Paragraph (c)(1) requires that for permanently installed derricks a clearly legible rating chart be provided with each derrick and securely affixed to the derrick. Paragraph (c)(2) requires that for non-permanent installations, the manufacturer provide sufficient information from which capacity charts can be prepared by the employer for the particular installation. The capacity charts must be located at the derrick or at the jobsite office. The data on the capacity charts provide information to the employees to assure that the derricks are used as designed and not overloaded or used beyond the range specified in the charts.

• Certification Records of Rope Inspections (paragraph (g)). Paragraph (g)(1) requires employers to thoroughly inspect all running rope in use, and to do so at least once a month. In addition, before using rope which has been idle for at least a month, it must be inspected as prescribed by paragraph (g)(3) and a record prepared to certify that the inspection was done. The certification records must include the inspection date, the signature of the person conducting the inspection, and the identifier of the rope inspected. Employers must keep the certification records on file and available for inspection. The certification records provide employers, employees, and OSHA compliance officers with assurance that the ropes are in good condition.

OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:

• Whether the proposed information-collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;

• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information-collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information-collection and -transmission techniques.

OSHA proposes to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the collection-of-information requirements specified by its Derricks Standard (29 CFR 1910.181). The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice, and will include this summary in its request to OMB to extend the approval of these information-collection requirements.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently information-collection requirement.

Title: Derricks Standard (29 CFR 1910.181).

OMB Number: 1218-0222.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions; Federal government; State, local, or tribal governments.

Number of Respondents: 10,000.

Frequency of Recordkeeping: On occasion; monthly.

Average Time per Response: Varies from 3 minutes (.05 hour) to post or keep information to 15 minutes (.25 hour) to inspect rope and to prepare, maintain, and disclose a certification record.

Total Annual Hours Requested: 28,530.

Total Annual Costs (O&M): $0.

John L. Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506), and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 3-2000 (65 FR 50017).

The business meeting is open to the public, subject to space availability. To make special arrangements for physically challenged persons, contact Judith Russell, Deputy Director, 1110 Vermont Avenue, NW., Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, e-mail jrussell@nclis.gov fax 202-606-9203 or telephone 202-606-9200.

Summary: The U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science is also holding a closed meeting to review the nominations for the National Award for Library Service. Closing this meeting is in accordance with the exemption provided under 45 CFR 1703.202(a)(9).

Date and Time: NCLIS Closed Meeting—June 27, 2002, 8:30 a.m. until 10 a.m.

Address: Conference Room, NCLIS Office, 1110 Vermont Avenue, NW., Suite 820 Washington, DC 20005.

Status: Closed meeting.

Each year Federal agencies create billions of records on paper, film, magnetic tape, and other media. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing retention periods for records and submit these schedules for NARA's approval, using the Standard Form (SF) 115, Request for Records Disposition Authority. These schedules provide for the timely transfer into the National Archives of historically valuable records and authorize the disposal of all other records after the agency no longer needs them to conduct its business. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent.

No Federal records are authorized for destruction without the approval of the Archivist of the United States. This approval is granted only after a thorough consideration of their administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private persons directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not they have historical or other value.

Besides identifying the Federal agencies and any subdivisions requesting disposition authority, this public notice lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records or indicates agency-wide applicability in the case of schedules that cover records that may be accumulated throughout an agency. This notice provides the control number assigned to each schedule, the total number of schedule items, and the number of temporary items (the records proposed for destruction). It also includes a brief description of the temporary records. The records schedule itself contains a full description of the records at the file unit level as well as their disposition. If NARA staff has prepared an appraisal memorandum for the schedule, it too includes information about the records. Further information about the disposition process is available on request.

1. Department of the Air Force, Agency-wide (N1-AFU-02-14, 103 items, 103 temporary items). Electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing that relate to command and control and to flying, missile, space, and other operations as well as electronic records that supplement or replace paper records relating to these matters that were previously approved for disposal. Records pertain to such subjects as wartime planning, Joint Chiefs of Staff communications, combat operations, search and rescue missions, space and missile operations, electronic warfare, radar, air defense and surveillance, planning for exercises and maneuvers, flight operations, aircrew management and training, aircraft utilization, air traffic control, and airfield management.

2. Department of the Air Force, Agency-wide (N1-AFU-02-15, 81 items, 81 temporary items). Electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing that relate to communications as well as electronic records that supplement or replace paper records relating to communications that were previously approved for disposal. Records relate to such subjects as systems policy and guidance, program management, general operations, telephone services, radio stations, communications security, and telecommunications service leasing.

3. Department of the Air Force, Agency-wide (N1-AFU-02-16, 93 items, 93 temporary items). Electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing that relate to Air Force health services, medical education, and the aerospace medicine program as well as electronic records that supplement or replace paper records relating to these matters that were previously approved for disposal. Records relate to such subjects as medical meetings, physical examinations, aeromedical evacuation, medical logistics, the treatment of patients, hospital accreditation, radiology, aerospace medicine programs, and bioenvironmental surveys.

4. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (N1-AU-02-13, 2 items, 1 temporary item). Electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing that relate to advanced technology assessments. Recordkeeping copies of these files are proposed for permanent retention. This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping medium.

5. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (N1-AU-02-14, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Records relating to Army Reserve military technician requirement exceptions, including requests to extend active military status and exceptions to same unit and same skills requirements. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing. This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping medium.

6. Department of Defense, Defense Commissary Agency (N1-506-02-2, 26 items, 26 temporary items). Short term records relating to internal agency evaluations and the equal employment opportunity (EEO) program. Included are such records as internal reviews and supporting documentation, copies of audits conducted by the General Accounting Office, the Department of Defense Inspector General, and the Defense Contract Audit Agency, EEO instructions, and files relating to special EEO events and awards. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing. This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping medium.

7. Department of Defense, Defense Information Systems Agency (N1-371-02-4, 18 items, 16 temporary items). Inspector general records. Included are such records as routine inspection reports, inspection work papers, complaint and investigation files, internal audit files, and audit reports. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing. Recordkeeping copies of selected inspection reports are proposed for permanent retention.

8. Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary (N1-48-01-3, 12 items, 11 temporary items). Records relating to Year 2000 (Y2K) Computer Century Conversion activities, including policies and planning, budget matters, actions take to protect specific systems, web pages, and electronic copies of records created using electronic mail or word processing systems. Proposed for permanent retention are Y2K informational posters and Y2K public awareness videotapes.

9. Department of State, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs (N1-59-01-22, 30 items, 22 temporary items). Records of the Office of Defense Trade Controls relating to the regulation of the export of defense articles and services. Records include arms export case files, arms exporter license registration files, disclosure files, correspondence files, and procedures files. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of reports on exports, international arms traffic regulations files, technical assistance to foreign countries agreement files, and compliance files. Also proposed for permanent retention is a database containing information about munitions-related items being sent to foreign countries.

10. Department of State, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs (N1-59-01-18, 14 items, 7 temporary items). Electronic copies of documents created in the Office of Plans, Policy, and Analysis using electronic mail and word processing. Proposed for retention are recordkeeping copies of files on small arms and light weapons, critical infrastructure and information security, non-lethal weapons, security assistance, land mine policy, defense planning, and defense trade.

11. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (N1-557-01-1), 9 items, 9 temporary items). Inputs, master files, outputs, and system documentation pertaining to the Licensing and Insurance System, an electronic system relating to the issuance of interstate operating authority for for-hire motor carriers, freight forwarders, and property brokers. Data includes applications for operating authorities, designation of process agents, certifications of insurance, surety bonds, and cancellation notices. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing.

12. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (N1-436-02-1, 4 items, 4 temporary items). Records of polygraph examinations given as part of criminal investigations or pre-employment applicant screening. This schedule reduces the retention period for employment examinations, which were previously approved for disposal. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing.

13. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration (N1-15-01-3, 10 items, 8 temporary items). Paper and electronic records used by the Environmental Agents Service to create, update, and modify records in the Agent Orange Registry, including electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing. The registry is used to track patient demographics, generate hypotheses for research studies, report birth defects among veterans' children, and assist in the planning and delivery of health care services. The master data files maintained on optical disk and related documentation are proposed for permanent retention.

14. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration (N1-15-01-4, 7 items, 7 temporary items). Paper and electronic records relating to the National Prosthetic Patient Database, including electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing. Records include personal identifying information of patients, names of suppliers and issuers, transaction descriptions, and other information pertaining to the procurement of prosthetic devices.

15. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of the General Counsel (N1-116-02-2, 6 items, 5 temporary items). Legal precedent reference files, tort claims files, and citizen and prisoner correspondence files. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing. Recordkeeping copies of tort claims involving extensive litigation or widespread media attention are proposed for permanent retention. Recordkeeping copies of the legal precedent subject files were previously scheduled for permanent retention.

16. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (N1-412-01-7, 3 items, 2 temporary items). Records accumulated in connection with citizen petitions for changes to rules relating to the Toxic Substances and Control Act that have been microfilmed. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing. Microfilm copies of records and paper records that have not been filmed are proposed for permanent retention.

Report of the task force on the Congressional Papers Roundtable Forum Legislative records outside of official custody Activities report of the Center for Legislative Archives Other current issues and new business.

The meeting is open to the public.

Cabot Performance Materials is licensed by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) under Source Material License SMB-920 for operations at the Boyertown, Pennsylvania site. All the processes in the plant and most of the radiological procedures have remained unchanged, except for the detailed procedures for monitoring and analyzing radiological conditions, in accordance with the reviews and agreements from the inspectors from Region I office of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Also, Cabot Performance Materials has modified the radiation safety programs, in order to strengthen and improve the levels of management, and the employee involvement.

The Commission hereby provides notice of an opportunity for a hearing on an application for license renewal, which is a proceeding falling within the scope of 10 CFR part 2, subpart L, “Informal Hearing Procedures for Adjudications in Materials and Operators Licensing Proceedings,” of the Commission's Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of Orders. Pursuant to § 2.1205(a), any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding may file a request for a hearing. In accordance with § 2.1205(d), a request for a hearing must be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this Federal Register notice. The request for a hearing must be filed with the Office of the Secretary either:

(1) By delivery to the Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff of the Office of the Secretary at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852; or

(2) By mail or telegram addressed to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.1205(f), each request for a hearing must also be served, by delivering it personally or by mail to:

(1) The applicant, Cabot Performance Materials, County Line, P.O. Box 1628, Boyertown, PA 19512-1608;

(2) The NRC staff, by delivery to the General Counsel, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852; or

(3) By mail addressed to the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

In addition to meeting other applicable requirements of 10 CFR Part 2 of the Commission's regulations, a request for a hearing filed by a person other than an applicant must describe in detail:

(1) The interest of the requestor in the proceeding;

(2) How that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding, including the reasons why the requestor should be permitted a hearing, with particular reference to the factors set out in § 2.1205(h);

(3) The requestor's areas of concern about the licensing activity that is the subject matter of the proceeding; and

(4) The circumstances establishing that the request for a hearing is timely in accordance with § 2.1205(d).

Any hearing that is requested and granted will be held in accordance with the Commission's “Informal Hearing Procedures for Adjudications in Materials and Operator Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR part 2, subpart L.

The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 450 5th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0102 (tel. 202-942-8090).

1. The Trust is an open-end management investment company registered under the Act and established in the state of Delaware. The Trust is organized as a series fund with multiple series. 1 The Company intends to offer seven (7) new series of shares (each, a “New Fund”). The Adviser, an investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, will serve as investment adviser to each New Fund. The Distributor, a broker-dealer unaffiliated with the Adviser and registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), will serve as the principal underwriter of the New Fund's shares.

2. Each New Fund will invest in a portfolio of securities (“Portfolio Securities”) generally consisting of the component securities of a specified fixed income securities index (each, an “Underlying Index”). 2 No entity that creates, compiles, sponsors, or maintains an Underlying Index will be an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, or an affiliated person of an affiliated person, of the Trust, the Adviser, the Distributor, or a promoter of a New Fund.

3. The investment objective of each New Fund will be to provide investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance of its relevant Underlying Index. Each New Fund will utilize as an investment approach a representative sampling strategy where each New Fund will seek to hold a representative sample of the component securities of the Underlying Index.  3 Applicants expect that each New Fund will have a tracking error relative to the performance of its respective Underlying Index of no more than 5 percent.

4. Shares of each New Fund (“Shares”) will be sold in aggregations of 50,000 Shares or more (“Creation Unit Aggregations”). It is currently anticipated that the price of a Creation Unit Aggregation will be approximately $5,000,000. Creation Unit Aggregations may be purchased only by or through a party that has entered into a participant agreement with the Distributor (“Authorized Participant”). Each Authorized Participant must be a participant in the Depository Trust Company (“DTC”). Creation Unit Aggregations generally will be issued in exchange for an in-kind deposit of securities and cash. An investor wishing to make an in-kind purchase of a Creation Unit Aggregation from a New Fund will have to transfer to the New Fund a “Portfolio Deposit” consisting of (a) A portfolio of securities that has been selected by the Adviser to correspond generally to the price and yield performance of the relevant Underlying Index (“Deposit Securities”), and (b) a cash payment to equalize any difference between the total aggregate market value per Creation Unit Aggregation of the Deposit Securities and the net asset value (“NAV”) per Creation Unit Aggregation of the New Fund (the “Balancing Amount”). 4 An investor purchasing a Creation Unit Aggregation from a New Fund will be charged a fee (“Transaction Fee”) to prevent the dilution of the interests of the remaining shareholders resulting from the New Fund incurring costs in connection with the purchase of the Creation Unit Aggregations. 5 Each New Fund will disclose the maximum Transaction Fees charged by the New Fund in its prospectus and the method of calculating the Transaction Fees in its statement of additional information (“SAI”).

5. Orders to purchase Creation Unit Aggregations will be placed with the Distributor, who will be responsible for transmitting the orders to the applicable New Fund. The Distributor will issue confirmations of acceptance, issue delivery instructions to the applicable New Fund to implement the delivery of Creation Unit Aggregations, and maintain records of the orders and confirmations. The Distributor also will be responsible for delivering prospectuses to purchasers of Creation Unit Aggregations.

6. Persons purchasing Creation Unit Aggregations from a New Fund may hold the Shares or sell some or all of them in the secondary market. Shares will be listed on the AMEX. One or more AMEX specialists will be assigned to make a market in Shares. The price of Shares traded on the AMEX will be based on a current bid/offer market, and each Share is expected to have a market value of approximately $100. Transactions involving the sale of Shares in the secondary market will be subject to customary brokerage commissions and charges.

7. Applicants expect that purchasers of Creation Unit Aggregations will include institutional investors and arbitrageurs (which could include institutional investors). The AMEX specialist, in providing for a fair and orderly secondary market for Shares, also may purchase Shares for use in its market-making activities on the AMEX. Applicants expect that secondary market purchasers of Shares will include both institutional and retail investors.  6 Applicants believe that arbitrageurs and other institutional investors will purchase or redeem Creation Unit Aggregations to take advantage of discrepancies between the Shares' market price and the Shares' underlying NAV. Applicants expect that this arbitrage activity will provide a market “discipline” that will result in a close correspondence between the price at which Shares trade and their NAV. In other words, applicants do not expect the Shares to trade at a significant premium or discount to their NAV.

8. Shares will not be individually redeemable. Shares will only be redeemable in Creation Unit Aggregations through each New Fund. To redeem, an investor will have to accumulate enough Shares to constitute a Creation Unit Aggregation. An investor redeeming a Creation Unit Aggregation generally will receive (a) A portfolio of Portfolio Securities specified on the date the request for redemption is made (“Redemption Securities”), which may not be identical to the Deposit Securities applicable to the purchase of Creation Unit Aggregations, and (b) a “Cash Redemption Payment,” consisting of an amount calculated in the same manner as the Balancing Amount, although the actual amounts may differ if the Redemption Securities are not identical to the Deposit Securities on the same day. An investor may receive the cash equivalent of a Redemption Security in unusual circumstances, such as where a redeeming entity is restrained by regulation or policy from transacting in the Redemption Security. A redeeming investor will pay a Transaction Fee to offset the New Fund's transaction costs, whether the redemption proceeds are in-kind or cash. An additional variable charge expressed as a percentage of the redemption proceeds, will be made for cash redemptions.

9. Applicants state that neither the Trust nor any New Fund will be marketed or otherwise held out as an “open-end investment company” or a “mutual fund.” Rather, the designation of the Trust and each New Fund in all marketing materials will be limited to the terms “exchange-traded fund,” “investment company,” “fund” or “trust” without reference to an “open-end fund” or “mutual fund,” except to contrast the Trust and each New Fund with a conventional open-end management investment company. Any marketing materials that describe the purchase or sale of Creation Unit Aggregations, or refer to redeemability, will prominently disclose that Shares are not individually redeemable and that owners of Shares may tender Shares for redemption to each New Fund in Creation Unit Aggregations only. The same type of disclosure will be provided in each New Fund's prospectus, SAI and all reports to shareholders.  7 The New Fund will provide copies of its annual and semi-annual shareholder reports to DTC participants for distribution to beneficial holders of Shares.

10. Applicants state that the Trust's website includes quantitative information updated on a daily basis, including, for each New Fund, daily trading volume, the previous business day's NAV and the reported closing price. The website will also include, for each New Fund, a calculation of the premium or discount of the mid-point of the bid-ask spread at the time of calculation of the NAV (the “Bid/Ask Price”) against NAV, and data in chart format displaying the frequency distribution of discounts and premiums of the Bid/Ask Price against NAV, within appropriate ranges, for each of the four previous calendar quarters.  8

1. Applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act granting an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), and 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act; and under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act granting an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the Act. 9

2. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions, if and to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.

3. Section 5(a)(1) of the Act defines an “open-end company” as a management company that is offering for sale or has outstanding any redeemable security of which it is the issuer. Section 2(a)(32) of the Act defines a redeemable security as any security, other than short-term paper, under the terms of which the holder, upon its presentation to the issuer, is entitled to receive approximately his proportionate share of the issuer's current net assets, or the cash equivalent. Because Shares will not be individually redeemable, applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act that would permit the Trust to register each New Fund as a series of an open-end management investment company and issue Shares that are redeemable in Creation Unit Aggregations. Applicants state that investors may purchase Shares in Creation Unit Aggregations from each New Fund and redeem Creation Unit Aggregations through each New Fund.

Applicants further state that because the market price of Creation Unit Aggregations will be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities, investors generally should be able to sell Shares in the secondary market at approximately their NAV.

4. Section 22(d) of the Act, among other things, prohibits a dealer from selling a redeemable security that is being currently offered to the public by or through an underwriter, except at a current public offering price described in the prospectus. Rule 22c-1 under the Act generally requires that a dealer selling, redeeming, or repurchasing a redeemable security do so only at a price based on its NAV. Applicants state that secondary market trading in Shares will take place at negotiated prices, not at a current offering price described in the prospectus, and not at a price based on NAV. Thus, purchases and sales of Shares in the secondary market will not comply with section 22(d) and rule 22c-1. Applicants request an exemption under section 6(c) of the Act from these provisions.

5. Applicants assert that the concerns sought to be addressed by section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act with respect to pricing are equally satisfied by the proposed method of pricing Shares. Applicants maintain that while there is little legislative history regarding section 22(d), its provisions, as well as those of rule 22c-1, appear to have been designed to: (a) Prevent dilution caused by certain riskless-trading schemes by principal underwriters and contract dealers; (b) prevent unjust discrimination or preferential treatment among buyers resulting from sales at different prices; and (c) assure an orderly distribution of investment company shares by eliminating price competition from dealers offering shares at less than the published sales price and repurchasing shares at more than the published redemption price.

6. Applicants believe that none of these purposes will be thwarted by permitting Shares to trade in the secondary market at negotiated prices. Applicants state (a) that secondary market trading in Shares would not cause dilution for owners of Shares because such transactions do not directly involve the assets of a New Fund, and (b) to the extent different prices exist during a given trading day, or from day to day, these variances will occur as a result of third-party market forces, such as supply and demand. Therefore, applicants assert that secondary market transactions in Shares will not lead to discrimination or preferential treatment among purchasers. Finally, applicants contend that the proposed distribution system will be orderly because arbitrage activity will ensure that the difference between the market price of Shares and their NAV remains narrow.

7. Section 17(a) of the Act makes it unlawful, except under certain circumstances, for any affiliated person of a registered investment company, or any affiliated person of such a person, acting as principal, to sell any security to, or purchase any security from, such registered investment company. Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines “affiliated person” to include any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with power to vote 5% or more of the outstanding voting securities of the other person and any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control, with the other person. Section 2(a)(9) of the Act provides that a control relationship will be presumed where one person owns more than 25% of another person's voting securities.

8. Applicants state that any person owning 5% or more of a New Fund's Shares or more than 25% of a New Fund's Shares will be affiliated with the New Fund. Applicants state that section 17(a) may prohibit such affiliated persons of a New Fund (and affiliated persons of these affiliated persons that are not otherwise affiliated with the Trust or the New Fund) from purchasing or redeeming Creation Unit Aggregations in kind. Applicants request an exemption from section 17(a) under sections 6(c) and 17(b) to permit these affiliated persons of the New Fund (and affiliated persons of these affiliated persons that are not otherwise affiliated with the Trust or the New Fund) to effect such transactions in Creation Unit Aggregations.

9. Section 17(b) authorizes the Commission to exempt a proposed transaction from section 17(a) if evidence establishes that the terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, and the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of the registered investment company and the general provisions of the Act. Applicants contend that no useful purpose would be served by prohibiting persons with the types of affiliations described above from purchasing or redeeming Creation Unit Aggregations. The deposit procedure for in-kind purchases and redemption procedure for in-kind redemptions will be the same for all purchases and redemptions. Deposit Securities and Redemption Securities will be valued under the same objective standards applied to valuing Portfolio Securities. Therefore, applicants state that in-kind purchases and redemptions will not favor affiliated persons, and affiliated persons of these affiliated persons, described above.

Applicants agree that the order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:

1. Applicants will not register a future series of the Trust that would rely on the requested relief, by means of filing a post-effective amendment to the Trust's registration statement or by any other means, unless applicants have requested and received with respect to such future series, either exemptive relief from the Commission or a no-action letter from the Division of Investment Management of the Commission.

2. Each New Fund's prospectus and the Product Description will clearly disclose that, for purposes of the Act, Shares are issued by the New Fund and that the acquisition of Shares by investment companies is subject to the restrictions of section 12(d)(1) of the Act.

3. As long as each New Fund operates in reliance on the requested order, the Shares of such New Fund will be listed on a national securities exchange.

4. Neither the Trust nor any New Fund will be advertised or marketed as an open-end fund or a mutual fund. Each New Fund's prospectus will prominently disclose that Shares are not individually redeemable shares and will disclose that the owners of Shares may acquire those Shares from the New Fund and tender those Shares for redemption to the New Fund in Creation Unit Aggregations only. Any advertising material that describes the purchase or sale of Creation Unit Aggregations or refers to redeemability will prominently disclose that Shares are not individually redeemable and that owners of Shares may acquire those Shares from the New Fund and tender those Shares for redemption to the New Fund in Creation Unit Aggregations only.

5. The website for the Trust, which will be publicly accessible at no charge, will contain the following information, on a per Share basis, for each New Fund: (a) the prior business day's NAV and the Bid/Ask Price, and a calculation of the premium or discount of such Bid/Ask Price against such NAV; and (b) data in chart format displaying the frequency distribution of discounts and premiums of the daily Bid/Ask Price against the NAV, within appropriate ranges, for each of the four previous calendar quarters. In addition, the Product Description for each New Fund will state that the website for the Trust has information about the premiums and discounts at which a New Fund's Shares have traded.

6. The prospectus and annual report for each New Fund will also include: (a) the information listed in condition 5(b), (i) in the case of the prospectus, for the most recently completed year (and the most recently completed quarter or quarters, as applicable) and (ii) in the case of the annual report, for the immediately preceding five years, as applicable; and (b) the following data, calculated on a per Share basis for one, five and ten year periods (or life of the New Fund), (i) the cumulative total return and the average annual total return based on NAV and Bid/Ask Price, and (ii) the cumulative total return of the relevant Underlying Index.

The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 450 5th St., NW, Washington, DC 20549-0102 (tel. 202-942-8090).

1. iShares, Inc. 3 is an open-end management investment company registered under the Act and incorporated in the state of Maryland. iShares Trust is an open-end management investment company registered under the Act and organized as a Delaware business trust. Each of the Companies is comprised of separate series, referred to as “Index Funds.” The shares of each Index Fund are referred to as “iShares.”

2. The Adviser, which is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, serves as investment adviser to the Companies. The Adviser may enter into sub-advisory agreements with additional investment advisers to act as subadvisers with respect to particular Index Funds. The Distributor, a broker-dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and a member of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., serves as the principal underwriter and distributor of the Companies' shares.

3. Each Index Fund seeks to provide investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance of publicly traded securities in the aggregate in particular markets, as represented by a particular securities index (each, a “Benchmark Index”). No entity that creates, compiles, sponsors or maintains any Benchmark Index is, or will be, an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, or an affiliated person of an affiliated person, of the Adviser, the Distributor, either Company or any subadviser or promoter of an Index Fund.

4. In the future, the applicants may offer additional Index Funds pursuant to certain of the Prior Orders (“Future Funds”) based on other Benchmark Indices. The applicants request that the order granted pursuant to the application apply to any Future Funds. Any Future Funds will (a) By advised by the Adviser or an entity controlled by or under common control with the Adviser and (b) comply with the terms and conditions of the order. References to the Index Funds include the Future Funds.

5. iShares are issued in large aggregations called “Creation Units.” Purchasers of Creation Units may separate a Creation Unit into individual iShares. 4 iShares are listed on a national securities exchange, as defined in section 2(a)(26) of the Act (an “Exchange”) 5 and traded in the secondary market in the same manner as other equity securities. Except when aggregated in Creation Units, iShares are not redeemable from the Companies. iShares are purchased and redeemed primarily on an “in-kind” basis: an investor purchasing a Creation Unit on an in-kind basis generally must deliver and an investor redeeming a Creation Unit on an in-kind basis generally will receive securities reflecting the names and weightings of the securities that comprise the Index Fund's portfolio. 6

6. Applicants will make available an iShares product description (“Product Description”) for distribution in accordance with an Exchange rule requiring Exchange members and member organizations effecting transactions in iShares to deliver a Product Description to investors purchasing iShares. Applicants state that any other Exchange that applies for unlisted trading privileges in iShares will have to adopt a similar rule. 7 The Product Description for an Index Fund will provide a plain English overview of the Index Fund, including its investment objective and investment strategies and the material risks and potential rewards of investing in the Index Fund. The Product Description also will provide a brief, plain English description of the salient aspects of the Index Fund's iShares. The Product Description will advise investors that a Prospectus and the Index Fund's Statement of Additional Information may be obtained, without charge, from the investor's broker or from the Distributor. The Product Description also will provide a website address (in most cases to a website maintained by the sponsor of the relevant Benchmark Index) where investors can obtain information about the composition and compilation methodology of an Index Fund's Benchmark Index.

1. Applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act granting an exemption from section 24(d) of the Act. The requested order would amend the Prior Orders and provide relief to the Index Funds that are the subject of the Fixed Income Application.

2. Section 24(d) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that the prospectus delivery exemption provided to dealer transactions by section 4(3) of the Securities Act does not apply to any transaction in a redeemable security issued by an open-end investment company. Applicants request an exemption from section 24(d) to permit dealers selling iShares to rely on the prospectus delivery exemption provided by section 4(3) of the Securities Act. 8

3. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class of persons, securities, or transactions, if and to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants state that for the reasons discussed below the requested relief meets these standards.

4. Applicants state that iShares will be listed on an Exchange and will be traded in a manner similar to other equity securities, including the shares of closed-end investment companies. Applicants note that dealers selling shares of closed-end investment companies in the secondary market generally are not required to deliver a prospectus to the purchaser.

5. Applicants contend that iShares, as a listed security, merit a reduction in the compliance costs and regulatory burdens resulting from the imposition of prospectus delivery obligations in the secondary market. Because iShares will be exchange-listed, prospective investors will have access to several types of market information about iShares. Applicants state that information regarding market price and volume will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services. The previous day's price and volume information also will be published daily in the financial section of newspapers. In addition, the iShares Web site ( http://www.ishares.com ) includes quantitative information updated on a daily basis, including, for each Index Fund, daily trading volume, the previous business day's net asset value (“NAV”) and the reported closing price. The Web site will also include, for each Index Fund, a calculation of the premium or discount of the mid-point of the bid-ask spread at the time of calculation of the NAV (the “Bid/Ask Price”) against NAV, and data in chart format displaying the frequency distribution of discounts and premiums of the Bid/Ask Price against the NAV, within appropriate ranges, for each of the four previous calendar quarters. 9 The iShares Web site also contains information with respect to the portfolio securities of each Index Fund, including their names, numbers of shares held by the Index Fund and the percentages of the Index Fund's portfolio, and reported closing prices of such securities.

6. Investors also will receive a Product Description describing the Index Fund and its iShares. Applicants state that, while not intended as a substitute for a prospectus, the Product Description will contain information about iShares that is tailored to meet the needs of investors purchasing iShares in the secondary market.

Applicants agree that the order of the Commission would amend the Prior Orders to grant the requested relief and to replace the existing conditions with the following conditions:

1. Applicants will not register any Future Fund by means of filing a post-effective amendment to a Company's registration statement or by any other means, unless (a) applicants have requested and received with respect to such Future Fund, either exemptive relief from the Commission or a no-action letter from the Division of Investment Management of the Commission or (b) such Future Fund will be listed on an Exchange without the need for a filing pursuant to rule 19b-4 under the Exchange Act.

2. Each Index Fund's Prospectus and Product Description will clearly disclose that, for purposes of the Act, iShares are issued by the Index Fund and that the acquisition of iShares by investment companies is subject to the restrictions of section 12(d)(1) of the Act.

3. As long as a Company operates in reliance on the requested order, the individual iShares will be listed on an Exchange.

4. Neither of the Companies nor any Index Fund will be advertised or marketed as an open-end fund or a mutual fund. Each Index Fund's Prospectus will prominently disclose that iShares are not individually redeemable shares and will disclose that the owners of iShares may acquire those iShares from the Index Fund and tender those iShares for redemption to the Index Fund in Creation Units only. Any advertising material that describes the purchase or sale of Creation Units or refers to redeemability will prominently disclose that iShares are not individually redeemable and that owners of iShares may acquire those iShares from the Index Fund and tender those iShares for redemption to the Index Fund in Creation Units only.

5. Before an Index Fund may rely on the order, the Commission will have approved, pursuant to rule 19b-4 under the Exchange Act, an Exchange rule requiring Exchange members and member organizations effecting transactions in iShares to deliver a Product Description to purchasers of iShares.

6. The Web site(s) for the Companies, which is and will be publicly accessible at no charge, will contain the following information, on a per iShare basis, for each Index Fund: (a) the prior business day's NAV and Bid/Ask Price, and a calculation of the premium or discount of such Bid/Ask Price against such NAV; and (b) data in chart format displaying the frequency distribution of discounts and premiums of the daily Bid/Ask Price against the NAV, within appropriate ranges, for each of the four previous calendar quarters. In addition, the Product Description for each Index Fund will state that the website(s) for the Companies has information about the premiums and discounts at which the Index Fund's iShares have traded.

7. The Prospectus and annual report for each Index Fund will also include: (a) the information listed in condition 6(b), (i) in the case of the Prospectus, for the most recently completed year (and the most recently completed quarter or quarters, as applicable) and (ii) in the case of the annual report, for the immediately preceding five years, as applicable; and (b) the following data, calculated on a per iShare basis for one, five and ten year periods (or life of the Index Fund), (i) the cumulative total return and the average annual total return based on NAV and Bid/Ask Price, and (ii) the cumulative total return of the relevant Benchmark Index.

The applicants agree that the order granting the requested relief with respect to the Index Funds proposed in the Fixed Income Application will be subject to the following condition:

8. Before an Index Fund may rely on the order, the Commission will have approved, pursuant to rule 19b-4 under the Exchange Act, an Exchange rule requiring Exchange members and member organizations effecting transactions in iShares of such Index Fund to deliver a Product Description to purchasers of iShares.

On October 22, 2001, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issued affirmative determinations under section 202(b) of the Trade Act (22 U.S.C. 2252(b)) that (1) carbon and alloy steel slabs, plate (including cut-to-length plate and clad plate), hot-rolled sheet and strip (including plate in coils), cold-rolled sheet and strip (other than grain-oriented electrical steel), and corrosion-resistant and other coated sheet and strip; (2) carbon and alloy hot-rolled bar and light shapes; (3) carbon and alloy cold-finished bar; (4) rebar; (5) carbon and alloy welded tubular products (other than oil country tubular goods); (6) carbon and alloy flanges, fittings, and tool joints; (7) stainless steel bar and light shapes; and (8) stainless steel rod are being imported in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industries producing those products. The Commissioners voting were equally divided with respect to the determination under section 202(b) of the Trade Act as to whether increased imports of (9) carbon and alloy tin mill products; (10) tool steel, all forms; (11) stainless steel wire; and (12) stainless steel flanges and fittings are being imported in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industries producing those products.

On March 5, 2002, the President issued Proclamation 7529, which established safeguard measures in the form of increases in duty and a tariff-rate quota pursuant to section 203 of the Trade Act on imports of the ten steel products described in paragraph 7 of that proclamation. Effective with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m., EST, on March 20, 2002, Proclamation 7529 modified the HTS so as to provide for such increased duties and a tariff-rate quota. Proclamation 7529 also authorized the USTR to further consider requests for the exclusion of particular products and, upon publication in the Federal Register of his finding that a particular product should be excluded, to modify the HTS provisions created by the Annex to that proclamation to exclude such particular product from the pertinent safeguard measure.

On April 18, 2002, USTR published a notice in the Federal Register informing interested persons that, to the extent possible, USTR would consider new requests for exclusion of products. It asked interested persons requesting the exclusion of such a product to respond to an exclusion requester's questionnaire by May 20, 2002, and indicated that procedures for submitting such additional requests for exclusion would be announced in a subsequent Federal Register notice.

USTR posted procedures for requesting new exclusions on its Web site, along with a new requester's questionnaire, and instructed interested persons to submit any requests by May 20, 2002. In a Federal Register notice published on May 21, 2002 (67 FR 35842), USTR indicated that interested persons objecting to these new exclusion requests should submit a new objector's questionnaire by a date to be announced later. We will post short descriptions of the products covered by the new exclusion requests on the USTR Web site, www.ustr.gov , in groups. The first group will be posted by June 5, 2002. Any interested person wishing to object to the exclusion of a product in this group, or otherwise comment on the product descriptions, should do so by 5:00 p.m. on June 19. Additional groups will be subsequently posted on the USTR Web site, along with an indication of the date and time for submission of objector's questionnaires.

Each request will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. USTR will grant only those exclusions that do not undermine the objectives of the safeguard measures. In analyzing the requests, USTR will consider whether the product is currently being produced in the United States, whether substitution of the product is possible, whether qualification requirements affect the requester's ability to use domestic products, inventories, whether the requested product is under development by a U.S. producer who will imminently be able to produce it in commercial quantities and any other relevant factors. Where necessary, USTR and/or the Commerce Department will meet with interested persons to discuss the information that was submitted and/or to gain additional information.

Every effort will be made to process requests as soon as possible consistent with the availability of resources and the quality of information that is received.

Interested persons should follow the instructions posted on the USTR and Commerce Department Web sites at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/steel/exclusion/. Failure to follow the instructions posted there may result in rejection of the questionnaire submission.

We strongly discourage the submission of business confidential information. Any questionnaire response that contains business confidential information must be accompanied by six copies of a public summary that does not contain business confidential information, and a diskette containing an electronic version of the public summary. Any paper submission and diskette containing business confidential information must be clearly marked “Business Confidential” at the top and bottom of the cover page (or letter) and each succeeding page of the submission, and on the label of the diskette. The version that does not contain business confidential information should also be clearly marked, at the top and bottom of each page, “public version” or “nonconfidential,” and on the label of the diskette.

This notice contains a collection of information provision subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB number. This notice's collection of information burden is only for those persons who wish voluntarily to object to a request for the exclusion of a product from the safeguard measures. USTR has submitted the new objector's questionnaire to OMB for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. It is expected that the collection of information burden will be no more than 11 hours per questionnaire and we estimate the submission of approximately 800 questionnaires. This collection of information contains no annual reporting or record keeping burden. Please send comments regarding the collection of information burden or any other aspect of the information collection to USTR at the address above.

The National Boating Safety Advisory Council (NBSAC) is a Federal advisory committee under 5 U.S.C. App. 2. It advises the Coast Guard regarding regulations and other major boating safety matters. NBSAC members are drawn equally from the following three sectors of the boating community: State officials responsible for State boating safety programs, recreational boat and associated equipment manufacturers, and national recreational boating organizations and the general public. Members are appointed by the Secretary of Transportation.

NBSAC normally meets twice each year at a location selected by the Coast Guard. When attending meetings of the Council, members are provided travel expenses and per diem.

We will consider applications for the following six positions that expire or become vacant in December 2002: Two representatives of State officials responsible for State boating safety programs, two representatives of recreational boat and associated equipment manufacturers, and two representatives of national recreational boating organizations. Applicants are considered for membership on the basis of their particular expertise, knowledge, and experience in recreational boating safety. Each member serves for a term of 3 years. Some members may serve consecutive terms.

In support of the policy of the Department of Transportation on gender and ethnic diversity, we encourage qualified women and members of minority groups to apply.

If you are selected as a member who represents the general public, we will require you to complete a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report (OGE Form 450). We may not release the report or the information in it to the public, except under an order issued by a Federal court or as otherwise provided under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a).

Title of Information Collection: Customer-Owned Service Lines, Customer Notification.

Type of Request: Existing information collection.

Abstract: RSPA regulation (49 CFR 192.16) requires operators of gas service lines who do not maintain buried customer piping up to building walls or certain other locations to notify their customers of the need to maintain that piping. Congress directed DOT to take this action in view of service line accidents. By advising customers of the need to maintain their buried gas piping, the notices may reduce the risk of further accidents.

In addition, each operator must make the following records available for inspection by RSPA/OPS or a State agency participating under 49 U.S.C. 60105 or 60106: (1) A copy of the notice currently in use; and (2) evidence that notices have been sent to customers within the previous 3 years.

As used in this notice, the terms “information collection” and “paperwork collection” are synonymous, and include all work related to preparing and disseminating information related to this customer notification requirement including completing paperwork, gathering information and conducting telephone calls.

Estimate of Burden: Minimal.

Respondents: Gas transmission and distribution operators.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,590.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 350.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 9,137 hours.

Title of Information Collection: Excess Flow Valves, Customer Notification.

OMB Number: 2137-0593.

Abstract: 49 U.S.C. 60110 directed DOT to prescribe regulations requiring operators to notify customers in writing about EFV availability, the safety benefits derived from installation, and the costs associated with installation. The regulations provide that, except where installation is already required, the operator will install an EFV that meets prescribed performance criteria at the customer's request, if the customer pays for the installation.

Respondents: Gas Distribution Pipeline Operators.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1590.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 20,000 hours.

As used in this notice, the terms ‘paperwork information’ and ‘paperwork collection’ are synonymous, and include all work related to preparing and disseminating information related to this customer notification requirement including completing paperwork, gathering information and conducting telephone calls.

In a Federal Register notice on August 2, 2000, (65 FR 47585) RSPA/OPS proposed to revise the incident and annual reports for gas transmission and gathering systems. After considering public comments, RSPA/OPS published a Federal Register notice on May 8, 2001 (66 FR 23316) to revise forms RSPA F 7100.2, Incident Report for Gas Transmission and Gathering Systems, and RSPA F 7100.2-1, Annual Report for Gas Transmission and Gathering Systems for use by operators in filing reports due on or after January 1, 2002.

The Federal pipeline safety regulations require gas transmission pipeline operators to file incident reports as specified at 49 CFR 191.15 and annual reports as specified at 49 CFR 191.17. The information collected on natural gas pipeline systems and incidents are an important source of data for identifying safety trends and for managing RSPA/OPS pipeline safety programs.

The studies of natural gas transmission pipeline incident report information revealed deficiencies in the data collected on these forms. In addition, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the General Accounting Office have urged RSPA/OPS to revise the information collected on the natural gas pipeline incident and annual report forms to improve its usefulness. NTSB Safety Recommendation P-96-1 suggests that RSPA/OPS:

Additional information is needed on natural gas transmission operator annual reports for normalizing the incident information and for adequately characterizing the nation's natural gas pipeline infrastructure. RSPA/OPS worked with representatives of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America and the American Gas Association to review the natural gas transmission incident and annual report forms to make the information collected more useful to industry, government, and the public.

RSPA/OPS has revised the incident and annual report forms to improve the usefulness of the reported data. The failure cause categories have been expanded from five to 25 on the incident report. The annual report form includes two new sections: (1) Mileage by decade of installation and (2) mileage by class location.

To: Owners and Operators of Natural Gas Transmission Systems.

Subject: Revised Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Incident and Annual Report Forms.

Purpose: To inform gas transmission pipeline owners and operators that revised forms RSPA F 7100.2, Incident Report for Gas Transmission and Gathering Systems, and RSPA F 7100.2-1, Annual Report for Gas Transmission and Gathering Systems, are ready and available for use by natural gas transmission pipeline owners and operators, and accessible from the OPS website.

Advisory: As of January 1, 2002, owners and operators of gas transmission pipeline systems should use only the revised forms RSPA F 7100.2, Incident Report for Gas Transmission and Gathering Systems, and RSPA F 7100.2-1, Annual Report for Gas Transmission and Gathering Systems. As of January 1, 2002, all incidents meeting the reporting criteria in 49 CFR 191.15 are to be reported using the revised form RSPA F 7100.2. Beginning March 15, 2002, the annual reports required by 49 CFR 191.17 are to be filed using the revised form RSPA F 7100.2-1.

Forms and instructions are available upon request as described in 49 CFR 191.19 or are downloadable from the OPS home page at http://ops.dot.gov (in the “FORMS” section under “ONLINE LIBRARY”). RSPA/OPS is also implementing electronic reporting for natural gas transmission pipeline incidents by January 1, 2002, and for annual reports by January 15, 2002, for the annual report due March 15, 2002. Details are available on the OPS home page.

RSPA/OPS has revised the incident report form to improve the usefulness of incident reporting by expanding the cause categories from five to 25. This will assist in trending and normalization of incident data. The natural gas transmission operator annual report form has also been revised to improve its usefulness. The annual report form includes two new sections: (1) Mileage by decade of installation and (2) mileage by class location.

RSPA/OPS understands that operators may need some time to adjust information collection systems and research the new information requested for the annual report filing. If exact information is unavailable, requests for extensions of the filing date may be made to OPS' Information Resources Manager at (202) 366-4569. Pipeline owners and operators may estimate mileage by decade and mileage by class location.

RSPA/OPS reminds owners and operators to file supplemental written reports (on RSPA Form F7100.2) if additional information on an incident later becomes available.

Owners and operators are reminded that all relevant costs must be included in the estimated property damage total on the initial written incident or accident report as well as on supplemental reports. This includes (but is not limited to) costs of: Property damage to the operator's facilities and to property of others; commodity/product not recovered; facility repair and replacement; gas distribution service restoration and relighting; leak locating; right-of-way clean-up, and environmental clean-up and damage. Facility repair, replacement, or change that is not necessitated by the incident should not be included.

Title: U.S. Income Tax Return for Real Estate Investment Trusts.

OMB Number: 1545-1004.

Form Number: 1120-REIT.

Abstract: Form 1120-REIT is filed by a corporation, trust, or association electing to be taxed as a real estate investment trust in order to report its income and deductions and to compute its tax liability. IRS uses Form 1120-REIT to determine whether the income, deductions, credits, and tax liability have been correctly reported.

Current Actions: There are no changes being made to the form at this time.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 363.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 127 hours, 28 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 46,268.

The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

Title: Passive Activity Loss Limitations.

OMB Number: 1545-1008.

Form Number: 8582.

Abstract: Under Internal Revenue Code section 469, losses from passive activities, to the extent that they exceed income from passive activities, cannot be deducted against nonpassive income. Form 8582 is used to figure the passive activity loss allowed and the loss to be reported on the tax returns.

Current Actions: There are no changes being made to the form at this time.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations, individuals, and farms.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,622.282.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 4 hours, 46 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 17,254,834.

The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.

Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

Title: Application for Amounts Due Estates of Persons Entitled to Benefits, VA Form 21-609.

OMB Control Number: 2900-0064.

Type of Review: Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired.

Abstract: The form is used to gather information to determine the individual(s) who may be entitled to accrued benefits of deceased beneficiaries.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on March 6, 2002, at pages 10256-10257.

Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

Estimated Annual Burden: 375 hours.

Estimated Average Burden Per Respondent: 30 minutes.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 750.

Title: Time Record (Work-Study Program), VA Form 22-8690.

OMB Control Number: 2900-0379.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: When a claimant elects to receive an advance payment, VA will make the advance payment for 50 hours, but will withhold benefits (to recoup the advance payment) until the claimant completes his or her 50 hours of service. VA will not pay any additional amount in advance payment cases until the claimant completes a total of 100 hours of service (50 hours for the advance payment and 50 hours for an additional payment). If the claimant elects not to receive an advance payment, benefits are payable when the claimant completes 50 hours of service. VA Form 22-8690 is used to report the number of hours completed and to ensure that the amount of benefits payable to a claimant who is pursuing work-study is correct.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on March 6, 2002, at pages 10255-10256.

Affected Public: Individuals or households, Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit institutions, State, Local or Tribal Governments.

Estimated Annual Burden: 13,667 hours.

Total annual responses: 164,000.

Estimated Average Burden Per Respondent: 5 minutes.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 41,000.