Title: Consumer Data to Support Risk Assessments, Regulation Development, and Food Safety Education Initiatives.

Expiration Date of Approval: 3 years.

Type of Request: Regular.

Abstract: FSIS has been delegated the authority to exercise the functions of the Secretary as provided in the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451, et seq. ), and the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 U.S.C. 1031-1056). These statutes provide that FSIS is to protect the public by ensuring that meat, poultry, and egg products are safe, wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled and packaged.

To accomplish this objective, several program areas within FSIS need consumer data. The Office of Public Health and Science (OPHS) needs consumer behavior data for food safety risk assessments. The Office of Policy, Program Development, and Evaluation (OPPDE) needs data on consumer practices and expectations for regulatory impact analyses and policy development. The Food Safety Education and Communications Staff needs data on consumer knowledge and behavior to identify food safety education needs and to develop and evaluate educational campaigns. Since FSIS now works in a risk analysis policy framework, the timeliness and comprehensiveness of consumer data is increasingly important to achieve the Agency goal of protecting the public health by significantly reducing the prevalence of foodborne hazards from meat, poultry, and egg products.

To meet the Agency's need for timely consumer data related to meat, poultry, and egg products, FSIS has considered three options: (1) Depending on other recurring government surveys, (2) conducting surveys via the Internet, and (3) conducting probability web-enabled panel surveys. The first option, adding questions to other recurring government surveys, is not feasible because FSIS requires specific consumer data obtained in a timely manner. These surveys usually occur only periodically and limit the content and quantity of questions that FSIS may add. The second option, Internet surveys, does not provide statistically valid results that are representative of the U.S. population. The third option, web-enabled panel surveys, is the best option because it has the speed of Internet surveys, but, unlike Internet surveys, it is based on true probability sampling and is a research method that produces reliable information for decision-making.

FSIS is requesting OMB approval of a new Information Collection Request to conduct consumer surveys that use the web-enabled panel survey methodology. Specifically, the initial survey will include questions on:

• How consumers store, handle, and prepare specific meat, poultry, and egg products;

• How well consumers understand and follow the 4 Fight BAC! TM food safety messages and other safe food handling instructions;

• Consumers' expectations and concerns regarding labeling; and

• Consumers' awareness of food safety rules related to residues.

Estimate of Burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average .25 hours (15 minutes) per response.

Respondents: Adult household food preparers in the United States who prepare meat or poultry products at least three times a week.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 2400.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 600 hours.

Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained from Lee Puricelli. See ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS .

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FSIS' functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of FSIS' estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to both Lee Puricelli at the address provided above, and the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20253.

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to better ensure that minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it and make copies of this Federal Register publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update. FSIS provides a weekly Constituent Update, which is communicated via Listserv, a free e-mail subscription service. In addition, the update is available on-line through the FSIS web page located at http://www.fsis.usda.gov. The update is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, recalls, and any other types of information that could effect or would be of interest to our constituents/stakeholders. The constituent Listserv consists of industry, trade, and farm groups, consumer interest groups, allied health professionals, scientific professionals, and other individuals that have requested to be included. Through the Listserv and web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience.

For more information contact the Congressional and Public Affairs Office, at (202) 720-9113. To be added to the free e-mail subscription service (Listserv) go to the “Constituent Update” page on the FSIS web site at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/update/update.htm. Click on the “Subscribe to the Constituent Update Listserv” link, then fill out and submit the form.

Title: Industry Stakeholder Survey.

Expiration Date of Approval: 3 years.

Type of Request: Regular.

Abstract: FSIS has been delegated the authority to exercise the functions of the Secretary as provided in the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451, et seq. ), and the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 U.S.C. 1031-1056). These statutes provide that FSIS is to protect the public by ensuring that meat, poultry, and egg products are safe, wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled and packaged.

Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) direct Federal agencies to conduct regulatory impact analysis, and to consider flexible regulatory approaches. In order to perform these mandatory analyses it is often necessary to survey regulated industry to determine existing practices, and the changes in those practices, likely under various policy options.

FSIS is seeking OMB clearance to conduct surveys to implement Executive Order 12866, RFA, and SBREFA. Participation in the surveys will be voluntary. FSIS will use the information gathered from these surveys to identify current business practices. FSIS projects 1 survey per year, with a sample of about 200 to 1,000 respondents for each mail survey. FSIS will target the questions to the appropriate sample population to reduce response burden.

Estimate of Burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1/2 hour per response.

Respondents: regulated industry, health and science professionals, consumers.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 3000.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 1500 hours.

Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained from Lee Puricelli. See ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS .

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FSIS' functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of FSIS' estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including thorough use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to both Lee Puricelli at the address provided above, and the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20253.

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to better ensure that minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it and make copies of this Federal Register publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update. FSIS provides a weekly Constituent Update, which is communicated via Listserv, a free e-mail subscription service. In addition, the update is available on-line through the FSIS web page located at http://www.fsis.usda.gov. The update is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, recalls, and any other types of information that could effect or would be of interest to our constituents/stakeholders. The constituent Listserv consists of industry, trade, and farm groups, consumer interest groups, allied health professionals, scientific professionals, and other individuals that have requested to be included. Through the Listerv and web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience.

For more information contact the Congressional and Public Affairs Office, at (202) 720-9113. To be added to the free e-mail subscription service (Listserv) go to the “Constituent Update” page on the FSIS web site at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/update/update.htm. Click on the “Subscribe to the Constituent Update Listserv” link, then fill out and submit the form.

The Oak Ridge Project area includes portions of the Oak Creek and Dry Creek. These areas are managed as Range (RNG) under the Manti-La Sal National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA, 1986).

The project area encompasses approximately 615 total acres. The project area contains about 463 acres of aspen and aspen/mixed conifer types that could be silviculturally treated to provide a more diverse ecosystem. Drainages within the project area include Dry and Oak Creek. The Oak Creek Inventories Roadless Area is within and adjacent to the project area. Approximately 125 acres of the proposed treatments are within the Oak Creek Inventoried Roadless Area.

Forest development road (FDR) 50138 provides access through the area and to a parcel of state owned land. The proposed treatment units are adjacent to this road. This proposal has been developed through consultation with Forest Service specialists, and other individuals and agencies with interest in the resources of the area.

Purpose #1—Move towards restoration of the ecological structure, function, processes, and composition of the aspen component of the landscape.

Need: Eighty-three percent of the aspen/mixed conifer stands (463 acres) in the Oak Creek Ridge Project Area are in a mid-aged to mature condition, the other 75 acres is in a young structural stage. Conifers are encroaching in these aspen stands and crowding the shade-intolerant aspen. Fire exclusion and lack of any alternate regeneration treatment over the past 100 years has caused the decline of these stands and changed the distribution of the structural stages. Converting the mature aspen/mixed conifer stands to a seedling/sapling structure will move the project area closer to the desired future condition discussed in the NFMA (National Forest Management Act) analysis.

1. Harvest approximately 1 MMBF of aspen/mixed conifer on approximately 125 acres. Burning of slash concentrations and fencing will follow treatment.

2. Chainsaw fell conifers on approximately 75 acres of existing young aspen stands.

3. Reconstruction (culvert replacement) of approximately 2.5 miles FDR (Forest Development Road) 138.

No additional alternatives other than “No Action” have been identified at this time.

The Forest Supervisor, Elaine Zieroth is the responsible official for this project. The Forest Supervisor's office of the Manti-La Sal National Forest is located at 599 West Price River Drive, Price, Utah 84501, phone: 435-637-2817.

The Forest Supervisor of the Manti-LaSal must decide whether to conduct vegetation management activities now or to defer management until a later time.

If she decides to apply vegetation management activities now, she must decide the following specific management activities:

• Which acres to treat

• What, if any, acres to treat with harvest

• What, if any, acres to treat with conifer removal

• What mitigation and/or monitoring measures to implement to meet Forest standards and minimize resource damage

• Whether to close roads not needed for resource management.

Agency representatives and other interested people are invited to visit with Forest Service officials at any time during the EIS process. Two specific time periods are identified for the receipt of formal comments on the analysis. The two comment periods are: (1) During the scoping process, the next 30 days following publication of this notice in the Federal Register , and (2) During the formal review period of the Draft EIS. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register .

Possible impacts to the Oak Creek Inventoried roadless Area if the project is implemented as stated in the proposed action.

This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development of the environmental impact statement.

Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent Environmental Review: A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register .

The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. 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). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the August 10, 2002 comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.

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

The proposed action would promote forest health by removing trees that are dead, or affected by insects, disease, overstocking, or defects on approximately 550 acres. This treatment would help reach the goal of creating multi-storied, disease resistant, stands in this area.

Existing roads would be extended approximately 0.5 miles where access is needed. A total of 4 roads would be reconstructed for approximately 1 mile. Approximately 9 miles of wildlife closures would occur on 18 roads. Two segments of roads would be decommissioned for about 1 mile. Approximately 12 miles of roads not needed for future management would be closed.

The planning area is located approximately 38 miles south of Hood River, Oregon in portions of Sections 1, 12, & 13, of T.5 S., R.9 E., and portions of Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 17, & 18, of T.5 S., R. 10 E., Willamette Meridian, Wasco County, Oregon. The planning area does not include any wilderness, RARE II inventoried roadless, or other unroaded areas. It is outside the White River Wild and Scenic River corridor as identified in the “White River Wild and Scenic River Plan.” The planning area is immediately adjacent to the White River late successional reserve (LSR). The planning area is identified as a Tier 2 Key Watershed in the Northwest Forest Plan. The Juncrock Timber Sale is included in the C-1, Timber Emphasis allocation, and the B-2, Scenic Viewshed allocation, of the Forest Plan.

Two preliminary issues have been identified; the impacts from removing mature and over-mature trees, and the impacts from extending existing roads. This analysis will evaluate a range of alternatives for implementation of the project activities including a no-action alternative.

Since the summer issue of 1998, the Juncrock Planning Area has been identified in “Sprouts”, the Mt. Hood National Forest quarterly publication that lists upcoming proposed projects. There have been two field trips with interested public groups. Future scoping will include continued inclusion in “Sprouts”, and continued identification and clarification of issues, identification of key issues to be analyzed in depth, and identification of potential environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives.

The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft EIS must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft EIS stage but are not raised until after completion of the final EIS may be waived or dismissed by the courts. 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). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final EIS.

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

The draft EIS is planned to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public review in August 2002. At that time, copies of the draft EIS will be distributed to interested and affected agencies, organizations, Indian Tribes, and members of the public for their review and comment. The EPA will publish a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the draft EIS in Federal Register . The comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date the NOA appears in the Federal Register .

The Forest Service is seeking information, comments, and assistance from other agencies, organizations, Indian Tribes, and individuals who may be interested in or affected by the proposed action. Your comments are appreciated throughout the analysis process.

Comments received in response to this proposed action, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposed action and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR parts 214 or 217. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that, under the FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service will inform the requestor of the agency's decision regarding the request for confidentiality, and where the request is denied, the agency will return the submission and notify the requestor that the comments may be resubmitted with or without names and address within thirty days.

The final EIS is scheduled to be available by December 2002. In the final EIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to substantive comments received during the comment period for the draft EIS. The responsible official is Gary Larsen, Mt. Hood National Forest Supervisor. The responsible official will decide which, if any, of the alternatives will be implemented. The Juncrock Planning Area decision and rationale will be documented in a Record of Decision, which will be subject to Forest Service Appeal Regulations (36 CFR part 215).

The meeting is open to the public. Public comment opportunity will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the Committee at that time.

Agenda items to be covered include: (1) a field review of current proposed resource project proposal, (2) public comments. The meeting is open to the public. Public input opportunity will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the Committee at that time.

On April 17, 2002, the Department issued its final determination in the antidumping duty investigation of folding metal tables and chairs from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 20090 (April 24, 2002). On May 10, 2002, the Department issued its amended final determination in the antidumping duty investigation of folding metal tables and chairs from the PRC. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 34898 (May 16, 2002) (“Amended Final Determination”). In the Amended Final Determination, the Department amended the weighted-average margin for Feili Furniture Development Co., Ltd. and Feili (Fujian) Co., Ltd. (“Feili Group”), Dongguan Shichang Metals Factory Co. Ltd., and New-Tec Integration Co., Ltd.

On June 4, 2002, the International Trade Commission notified the Department of its final determination pursuant to section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of less-than-fair-value imports of folding metal tables and chairs from the PRC. The Commission also determined that critical circumstances do not exist with regard to imports of such merchandise that are subject to the Department's affirmative critical circumstances finding.

The merchandise subject to this investigation consists of assembled and unassembled folding tables and folding chairs made primarily or exclusively from steel or other metal, as described below:

(1) Assembled and unassembled folding tables made primarily or exclusively from steel or other metal (“folding metal tables”). Folding metal tables include square, round, rectangular, and any other shapes with legs affixed with rivets, welds, or any other type of fastener, and which are made most commonly, but not exclusively, with a hardboard top covered with vinyl or fabric. Folding metal tables have legs that mechanically fold independently of one another, and not as a set. The subject merchandise is commonly, but not exclusively, packed singly, in multiple packs of the same item, or in five piece sets consisting of four chairs and one table. Specifically excluded from the scope of folding metal tables are the following:

Banquet tables. A banquet table is a rectangular table with a plastic or laminated wood table top approximately 28″ to 36″ wide by 48″ to 96″ long and with a set of folding legs at each end of the table. One set of legs is composed of two individual legs that are affixed together by one or more cross-braces using welds or fastening hardware. In contrast, folding metal tables have legs that mechanically fold independently of one another, and not as a set.

(2) Assembled and unassembled folding chairs made primarily or exclusively from steel or other metal (“folding metal chairs”). Folding metal chairs include chairs with one or more cross-braces, regardless of shape or size, affixed to the front and/or rear legs with rivets, welds or any other type of fastener. Folding metal chairs include: those that are made solely of steel or other metal; those that have a back pad, a seat pad, or both a back pad and a seat pad; and those that have seats or backs made of plastic or other materials. The subject merchandise is commonly, but not exclusively, packed singly, in multiple packs of the same item, or in five piece sets consisting of four chairs and one table. Specifically excluded from the scope of folding metal chairs are the following:

The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheadings 9401710010, 9401710030, 9401790045, 9401790050, 9403200010 and 9403200030 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs Service purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise is dispositive.

In accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department is directing Customs officers to assess, upon further advice by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price of the merchandise for all relevant entries of folding metal tables and chairs from the PRC. The antidumping duties will be assessed on all unliquidated entries of folding metal tables and chairs from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after December 3, 2001, the date on which the Department published its notice of preliminary determination in the Federal Register . See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 60185. On or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register , customs officers must require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins as noted below. The PRC-wide rate applies to all exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC other than the companies named. The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

This notice constitutes the antidumping duty order with respect to folding metal tables and chairs from the PRC. Interested parties may contact the Department's Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building, for copies of an updated list of antidumping duty orders currently in effect.

This order is published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Act.

On April 18, 1996, the Department initiated an antidumping investigation to determine whether imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) (61 FR 18377, April 25, 1996). On May 16, 1996, the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) notified the Department of its affirmative preliminary injury determination.

On October 10, 1996, the Department and Mexican tomato growers initialed a proposed agreement suspending the antidumping investigation, and on October 28, 1996, the Department preliminarily determined that imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico are being sold at LTFV in the United States. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Fresh Tomatoes from Mexico , 61 FR 56607 (November 1, 1996) ( Preliminary Determination ). On the same day, the Department and certain producers/exporters of fresh tomatoes from Mexico signed the final suspension agreement. See Suspension of Antidumping Investigation: Fresh Tomatoes from Mexico , 61 FR 56618 (November 1, 1996). On May 31, 2002, Mexican tomato growers accounting for a large percentage of all fresh tomatoes imported into the United States from Mexico submitted to the Department a notice of their withdrawal from the agreement suspending the antidumping investigation on fresh tomatoes from Mexico.

The products covered by this investigation are all fresh or chilled tomatoes (fresh tomatoes) except for cocktail tomatoes and those tomatoes which are for processing. For purposes of this investigation, cocktail tomatoes are greenhouse-grown tomatoes, generally larger than cherry tomatoes and smaller than roma or common round tomatoes, and are harvested and packaged on-the-vine for retail sale. For purposes of this investigation, processing is defined to include preserving by any commercial process, such as canning, dehydrating, drying or the addition of chemical substances, or converting the tomato product into juices, sauces or purees. Further, imports of fresh tomatoes for processing are accompanied by an “Importer's Exempt Commodity Form” (FV-6) (within the meaning of 7 CFR 980.501(a)(2) and 980.212(i)). Fresh tomatoes that are imported for cutting up, not further processed ( e.g. , tomatoes used in the preparation of fresh salsa or salad bars), and not accompanied by an FV-6 form are covered by the scope of this investigation.

All commercially grown tomatoes sold in the United States, both for the fresh market and for processing, are classified as Lycopersicon esculentum. Important commercial varieties of fresh tomatoes include common round, cherry, plum, and pear tomatoes, all of which, with the exception of cocktail tomatoes, are covered by this investigation. Tomatoes imported from Mexico covered by this investigation are classified under the following subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States (HTSUS), according to the season of importation: 0702 and 9906.07.01 through 9906.07.09. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

On May 31, 2002, Mexican tomato growers accounting for a large percentage of all fresh tomatoes imported into the United States from Mexico provided written notice to the Department of their withdrawal from the agreement suspending the antidumping investigation on fresh tomatoes from Mexico. Pursuant to the terms of the suspension agreement, these withdrawals will become effective 60 days after this notification to the Department, i.e. , July 30, 2002. Because the suspension agreement will no longer cover substantially all imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico, the Department intends to terminate the suspension agreement effective July 30, 2002.

With the termination of the suspension agreement on July 30, 2002, in accordance with section 734(i)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department intends to resume the underlying antidumping investigation. Pursuant to section 734(i)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department intends to resume the investigation as if it had published the affirmative preliminary determination under section 733(b) of the Act on July 30, 2002. As explained in the Preliminary Determination at 61 FR 56609, the Department postponed the final determination until the 135th day after the date of the preliminary determination. The Department therefore intends to make its final determination in the resumed investigation by December 12, 2002.

On October 1, 2001, the Department initiated a five-year sunset review of the suspended antidumping investigation on fresh tomatoes from Mexico pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (66 FR 49926, October 1, 2001). On January 29, 2002, the Department published its preliminary results of the sunset review (67 FR 4237, January 29, 2002) ( Preliminary Results ). In the Preliminary Results , the Department preliminarily found that termination of the suspended antidumping duty investigation on fresh tomatoes from Mexico would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping. On May 13, 2002, the Department extended the deadline for the final results of sunset review until August 27, 2002 (67 FR 35099, May 17, 2002).

If the Department terminates the suspension agreement, there will no longer be a suspended investigation for which to perform a sunset review. Therefore, the Department hereby announces its intent to terminate the sunset review of the suspended LTFV investigation on fresh tomatoes from Mexico, effective July 30, 2002.

Given the unusual nature of this proceeding ( e.g. , based on our analysis of U.S. Customs data, three of the originally investigated companies have not exported tomatoes to the United States in the last two years) and the significant lapse of time since initiation of the investigation ( i.e. , over six years), the Department is considering selecting new respondents and collecting updated information for use in completing the investigation of sales at LTFV. In the event we collect updated information, the period of investigation will be from April 1, 2001, through March 31, 2002. This period reflects the most recently completed four fiscal quarters before the Mexican tomato growers accounting for a large percentage of all fresh tomatoes imported into the United States from Mexico provided written notice to the Department of their withdrawal from the suspension agreement. The Department invites interested parties to submit comments on this issue.

Interested parties should submit comments to the U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Interested parties must file rebuttal comments within three days after the deadline for submission of comments. A list of authorities used, a table of contents, and an executive summary of each comment should accompany these submissions to the Department.

The Department has notified the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its intent to terminate the suspension agreement and resume the LTFV investigation. If the Department makes a final affirmative determination, then the ITC is scheduled to make its final determination concerning injury within 45 days after publication of the Department's final determination (by approximately January 27, 2003). If both the Department's and the ITC's final determinations are affirmative, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order.

The Department will instruct the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) to suspend liquidation of entries of fresh tomatoes from Mexico that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the termination of the suspension agreement, which is July 30, 2002. Customs shall require antidumping duty cash deposits or bonds for entries of the subject merchandise based on the preliminary dumping margins, which range from 4.16 to 188.45 percent.

Administrative protective orders previously granted in the original investigation will remain in effect. Any necessary amendments for changes in staff must be submitted promptly.

This determination is issued and published in accordance with section 733(f) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(f)) and 19 CFR 353.15(1996).

Section 735(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to issue (1) the final determination regarding sales at less than fair value (LTFV) in this investigation within 75 days after the date of its preliminary determination. However, section 735(a)(2) of the Act states that the Department may postpone the final determination until not later than 135 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination if, in the case of a proceeding in which the preliminary determination by the administering authority under section 733(b) was affirmative, a request in writing for such a postponement is made by an exporter which accounts for a significant portion of the exports of the merchandise which is subject to the investigation. Section 351.210 of the Department's regulations further states that the exporter must also request that the Department extend the provisional measures from a four month period to a period of not more than 6 months. Alternatively, in the case of a proceeding in which the preliminary determination by the administering authority under section 733(b) was negative, the request for postponement may be made in writing by the petitioner.

On May 9, 2002, the Department published the preliminary determination regarding sales at LTFV in this investigation (67 FR 31268). We preliminarily determined that certain cold-rolled carbon steel flat products (cold-rolled steel) from the Netherlands are being, or likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV, as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. On May 1, 2002, Corus Staal BV, the sole respondent in this investigation, requested that the Department postpone the final determination to 135 days after the publication of the preliminary determination and requested that the Department extend the provisional measures period from four months to a period not longer than 6 months.

Given the fact that the Department made an affirmative preliminary determination and the largest exporter/producer of imports during the period of investigation requested postponement and also asked that the Department extend the provisional measures from a four month period to a period of not more than six months, as required by the Department's regulations, we are postponing the final determination until no later than September 23, 2002 ( i.e. , 135 days after the publication of the preliminary determination).

This extension is in accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act.

Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. Sections 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. The regulations implementing Title III are found at 15 CFR part 325 (2001).

The Office of Export Trading Company Affairs (“OETCA”) is issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b), which requires the Department of Commerce to publish a summary of the Certificate in the Federal Register . Under section 305 (a) of the Act and 15 CFR 325.11(a), any person aggrieved by the Secretary's determination may, within 30 days of the date of this notice, bring an action in any appropriate district court of the United States to set aside the determination on the ground that the determination is erroneous.

1. Products. All products.

2. Services. All services.

3. Technology Rights. All intellectual property rights associated with Products or Services, including, but not limited to: patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets.

4. Export Trade Facilitation Services (as they Relate to the Export of Products, Services, and Technology Rights). Export Trade Facilitation Services include professional services in the areas of government relations and assistance with state and federal programs; foreign trade and business protocol; consulting; market research and analysis; collection and dissemination of information on trade opportunities; marketing; negotiations; joint ventures; export management; export licensing; advertising; documentation and services related to compliance with customs requirements; insurance and financing; trade show exhibitions and seminars; organizational development; management and labor strategies; transfer of technology; and facilitating transportation and shipping.

The Export Markets include all parts of the world except the United States (the fifty states of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands).

ROCACO and/or its Member may:

1. Develop Export Trading Companies who provide and/or arrange for the provision of Export Trade Facilitation Services;

2. Engage in promotional and marketing activities and collect information on trade opportunities in the Export Markets and distribute such information to clients;

3. Enter into exclusive and/or non-exclusive licensing and/or sales agreements with Suppliers for the export of Products, Services, and/or Technology Rights to Export Markets;

4. Enter into exclusive and/or non-exclusive agreements with distributors and/or sales representatives in Export Markets;

5. Allocate export sales or divide Export Markets among Suppliers for the sale and/or licensing of Products, Services, and/or Technology Rights;

6. Allocate export orders among Suppliers;

7. Establish the price of Products, Services, and/or Technology Rights for sales and/or licensing in Export Markets;

8. Negotiate, enter into, and/or manage licensing agreements for the export of Technology Rights;

9. Enter into contracts for shipping; and

10. Exchange information on a one-to-one basis with individual Suppliers regarding inventories and near-term production schedules for the purpose of determining the availability of Products for export and coordinating export with its distributors.

1. In engaging in Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operation, neither ROCACO nor its Member will intentionally disclose, directly or indirectly, to any Supplier any information about any other Supplier's costs, production, capacity, inventories, domestic prices, domestic sales, or U.S. business plans, strategies, or methods that are not already generally available to the trade or public.

2. ROCACO and its Member will comply with requests made by the Secretary of Commerce on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce or the Attorney General for information or documents relevant to conduct under the Certificate. The Secretary of Commerce will request such information or documents when either the Attorney General or the Secretary of Commerce believes that the information or documents are required to determine that the Export Trade, Export Trade Activities, and Methods of Operation of a person protected by this Certificate of Review continue to comply with the standards of Section 303(a) of the Act.

1. “Member,” within the meaning of Section 325.2(1) of the Regulation, is The REIS Foundation.

2. “Supplier” means a person who produces, provides, or sells Products, Services and/or Technology Rights.

This Certificate protects ROCACO, its Member, and their directors, officers, and employees acting on their behalf from private treble damage actions and government criminal and civil suits under U.S. federal and state antitrust laws for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out during its effective period in compliance with its terms and conditions.

A copy of this certificate will be kept in the International Trade Administration's Freedom of Information Records Inspection Facility Room 4102, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

The Commercial Service is accepting applications for the International Buyer Program (IBP) for events taking place between October 1, 2003, and September 30, 2004. A contribution of $7,000 for shows of five days or less is required. For shows more than five days in duration, or requiring more than one International Business Center, a contribution of $9,000 is required.

Under the IBP, the Commercial Service seeks to bring together international buyers with U.S. firms by selecting and promoting U.S. domestic trade shows in international markets in industries with high export potential. Selection of a trade show is valid for one event, i.e., a trade show organizer seeking selection for a recurring event must submit a new application for selection for each occurrence of the event. Even if the event occurs more than once in the 12-month period covering this announcement, the trade show organizer must submit a separate application for each event.

The Commercial Service will select approximately 28 events to support between October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2004. The Commercial Service will select those events that, in its judgment, most clearly meet the Commercial Service's statutory mandate to promote U.S. exports, especially those of small and medium size enterprises and that best meet selection criteria articulated below.

Successful show organizer applicants will be required to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the DOC. The MOU constitutes an agreement between the DOC and the show organizer specifying which responsibilities are to be undertaken by DOC as part of the IBP and, in turn, which responsibilities are to be undertaken by the show organizer. Anyone who requests information regarding applying will be sent a copy of the MOU along with the application package. The responsibilities to be undertaken by DOC will be carried out by the Commercial Service.

The Department selects trade shows to be IBP partners that it determines to be leading international trade shows appropriate for participation by U.S. exporting firms and for promotion in overseas markets by U.S. Embassies and Consulates. Selection as an IBP partner does not constitute a guarantee by the U.S. Government of the show's success. IBP partnership status is not an endorsement of the show organizer except as to its international buyer activities. Non-selection should not be viewed as a finding that the event will not be successful in the promotion of U.S. exports.

Exclusions: Trade shows that are either first-time or horizontal (non-industry specific) events will not be considered. Annual trade shows will not be selected for this program more than three times in any four-year period (e.g., shows selected for fiscal years 2001, 2002 and 2003 are not eligible for inclusion in this program in fiscal year 2004, but can be considered in subsequent years).

General Selection Criteria: The Department will select shows to be IBP partners that, in the judgment of the Department, best meet the following criteria:

(a) Export Potential: The trade show promotes products and services from U.S. industries that have high export potential, as determined by DOC sources, e.g., Commercial Service best prospects lists and U.S. export statistics (certain industries are rated as priorities by our domestic and international commercial officers in their Country Commercial Guides).

(b) International Interest: The trade show meets the needs of a significant number of overseas markets and corresponds to marketing opportunities as identified by the posts in their Country Commercial Guides (e.g. best prospect lists). Previous international attendance at the show may be used as an indicator.

(c) U.S. Content of Show Exhibitors: Trade shows with exhibitors featuring a high percentage of U.S. products or products with a high degree of U.S. content will be preferred. To be considered “U.S.”, products and services to be exhibited must be produced or manufactured in the U.S., or if produced or manufactured outside of the U.S., the products or services must contain more than 50% U.S. content and must be marketed under the name of a U.S. firm.

(d) Stature of the show: The trade show is clearly recognized by the industry it covers as a leading event for the promotion of that industry's products and services, both domestically and internationally, and as a showplace for the latest technology or services in that industry or sector.

(e) Exhibitor Interest: There is demonstrated interest on the part of U.S. exhibitors in receiving international business visitors during the trade show. A significant number of U.S. exhibitors should be new-to-export or seeking to expand sales into additional international markets.

(f) Overseas Marketing: There has been a demonstrated effort to market prior shows overseas. In addition, the applicant should describe in detail the international marketing program to be conducted for the event, explaining how efforts should increase individual and group international attendance. [Planned cooperation with Visit USA Committees overseas is desirable.]

(g) Logistics: The trade show site, facilities, transportation services, and availability of accommodations are in the stature of an international-class trade show.

(h) Cooperation: The applicant demonstrates a willingness to cooperate with the Commercial Service to fulfill the program's goals and to adhere to target dates set out in the MOU and the event timetable, both of which are available from the program office ( see “For Further Information” section above on when, where, and how to apply). Past experience in the IBP will be taken into account in evaluating current applications to the program.

Legal Authority: The Commercial Service has the legal authority to enter into MOUs with for-profit show organizers and other groups (partners) under the provisions of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 ((MECEA), as amended (22 U.S.C. Section 2455(f)) MECEA allows the Commercial Service to accept contribution of funds and services from firms for the purposes of furthering its mission. The statutory program authority for the Commercial Service to conduct the International Buyer Program is 15 U.S.C. 4724.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection requirements of the application to this program under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3512 et seq. ) (OMB Control No. 0625-0151). Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

In 67 FR Doc. 02-15885 of June 24, 2002, on page 42547, in the second column, add the following information under the last entry for July 12, 2002, “Other Business” to read as follows:

11:45-12 noon —Other Business.

The Council will consider a request from the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) to the Secretary of Commerce that the SAFMC be allowed to have their own Dolphin/Wahoo Fishery Management Plan.

The subject amendment to Permit No. 662-1345-00, originally issued on May 30, 1997 (62 FR 13368), has been granted under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), and the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216).

The permit holder requested authorization to extend Permit No. 662-1345-00 for an additional 12 months and change the annual report due date to December 31. The new expiration date for the permit is May 31, 2003, and the new annual report due date is December 31 of each year the permit is valid. The permit number has been changed to No. 662-1345-01 to reflect that the permit has been amended.

The subject permits and amendments are requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226), and the Fur Seal Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq. ).

A notice of receipt for a major amendment to Permit No. 358-1564-00, issued to Alaska Department of Fish and Game on June 28, 2000 (65 FR 39878) was published on July 5, 2001 (66 FR 35412). Permit No. 358-1564-00 authorizes the permit holder to take Steller sea lions of all ages and both sexes over a 5-year period in Alaska and British Columbia by aerial/boat surveys, capturing, handling, tagging, blood/biopsy sampling, and branding. The permit holder requested authorization to: administer Evans blue dye, collect additional blood and tissue samples from, and attach scientific instruments to Steller sea lions already authorized to be captured and handled, and increase the frequency of aerial surveys and recaptures for purposes of scientific research. Subsequent to publication of the Notice of Receipt to amend this permit, the Permit Holder submitted supplementary information and requests for additional modifications to the permit, including an increase in the number of accidental mortalities.

A notice of receipt for a major amendment to Permit No. 782-1532, issued to NMFS, National Marine Mammal Laboratory on January 14, 2000 (65 FR 2383) was published on June 8, 2001 (66 FR 30885). Permit No. 782-1532-01 authorizes the permit holder to take Steller sea lions of all ages and both sexes over a 5-year period in Alaska, California, Washington, and Oregon by aerial/boat surveys, capturing, handling, tagging, blood/biopsy sampling, and branding. The permit holder requested authorization to: increase the frequency of takes by aerial surveys; include Southeast Alaska in monthly surveys; increase the number of animals to be incidentally harassed during scat collection; and allow additional procedures for animals already authorized for capture, including using gas anesthesia, branding of any animal captured, injecting Evan's blue dye and deuterated water, collecting additional blood and tissue samples, and using bioelectric impedance analysis. Subsequent to publication of the Notice of Receipt to amend this permit, the Permit Holder submitted supplementary information and requests for additional modifications to the permit, including an increase in the number of accidental mortalities.

Subsequent to publication of the Notice of Receipt to amend these permits, the NMFS determined that preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) was warranted and deferred a decision on these amendment requests pending its completion.

Dr. Randall Davis (File No. 800-1664) proposes to take threatened and endangered Steller sea lions in Alaska by capture, anesthesia, hot-branding, tissue sampling (including blood, skin, and blubber), attachment of scientific instruments (video system/data logger and satellite transmitters), and accidental mortality to compare hunting behavior and three-dimensional movements of free-ranging adult females (including pregnant animals) and juveniles of both sexes at various rookeries, as it relates to prey preferences and predator-prey relationships.

Dr. Glenn VanBlaricom (File No. 1016-1641) proposes to take threatened and endangered Steller sea lions in the Aleutian Islands, Gulf of Alaska, and southeast Alaska by remote biopsy darting, incidental harassment, and accidental mortality, to collect blubber samples for analysis to assess prey selection. Some samples will be exported to Canada for analysis. Northern fur seals ( Callorhinus ursinus ) and harbor seals ( Phoca vitulina richardsi ) may be incidentally harassed during biopsy sampling.

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (File No. 434-1669) proposes to take threatened Steller sea lions in California, Washington, and Oregon by capture, hot-branding, flipper tagging, collection of blood and tissue samples from, attachment external scientific instruments to, harassment incidental to these activities and remote monitoring, and accidental mortality. The purpose of the research is to continue monitoring the status of the Alaskan Steller sea lion population and to identify causes of the population decline so as to provide for the population’s recovery.

The Alaska SeaLife Center (File No. 881-1668) proposes to take threatened and endangered Steller sea lions in Alaska by capture, hot-branding, flipper tagging, collection of blood and tissue samples from, attachment of external scientific instruments to, implanting scientific instruments in, holding in captivity for up to 3 months, conducting controlled feeding and endocrinology experiments on, accidental mortality, and harassment incidental to these activities and remote monitoring. The overall purpose of the research is to collect information on the health status, physiology, life history, foraging behavior and habitat use of Steller sea lions.

NOAA environmental review procedure provide that scientific research permits are generally categorically excluded from the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) requirements to prepare an EA or environmental impact statement (EIS). However, because of the magnitude and intensity of proposed research, which is largely related to the recent funding opportunities, and the intense public interest in this species, NMFS determined that an EA was warranted. For additional information on recent funding, see the notice of availability of funds for the Steller Sea Lion Research Initiative (66 FR 15842). An EA was prepared on the issuance of the proposed permits, resulting in a finding of no significant impact, and is available for review as a companion document to the scientific research permit applications. The EA also considered proposed takes of Steller sea lions by aerial/vessel survey, harassment during scat collection and behavioral observations, as requested in an application for a scientific research permit submitted by the Aleutians East Borough, File No. 1010-1641. A notice of receipt of this application was published on August 22, 2001 (66 FR 44120) and a decision was deferred pending preparation of the EA.

Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register , NMFS is forwarding copies of these applications to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

On April 25, 2002, notice was published in the Federal Register (67 FR 20491) that an amendment of Permit No. 782-1645, issued September 4, 2001 (66 FR 47016), had been requested by the above-named organization. The requested amendment has been granted under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), and the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216).

The Permit was amended to allow capture, tagging and sampling of Dall’s porpoise in Washington, Oregon and California waters.

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

With respect tot he following collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:

• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;

• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g. , permitting electronic submission of responses.

The rules require futures commission merchants and introducing brokers: (1) To provide their customers with standard risk disclosure statements concerning the risk of trading commodity interests; and (2) to retain all promotional material and the source of authority for information contained therein. The purpose of these rules is to ensure that customers are advised of the risks of trading commodity interests and to avoid fraud and misrepresentation. This information collection contains the recordkeeping and reporting requirements needed to ensure regulatory compliance with Commission rules relating to this issue.

The Commission estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.

Afixed-price contract with economic price adjustment provides for upward and downward revision of the stated contract price upon occurrence of specified contingencies. In order for the contracting officer to be aware of price changes, the firm must provide pertinent information to the Government. The information is used to determine the proper amount of price adjustments required under the contract.

Respondents: 5,346.

Responses Per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 5,346.

Hours Per Response: .25.

Total Burden Hours: 1,337.

Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVP), Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0068, Economic Price Adjustment, in all correspondence.

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

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

The complete inventory of Defense Finance and Accounting Service records system notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on June 19, 2002, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, ‘Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,’ dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

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

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

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g., new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) title; (3) summary of the collection; (4) description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) reporting and/or recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Title: Application for Approval to Participate in Federal Student Financial Aid Programs.

Frequency: On Occasion Other: Prior to expiration of eligibility.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

  Responses: 2970.

  Burden Hours: 20830.

Abstract: The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended requires postsecondary institutions to complete and submit this application as a condition of eligibility for any of the Title IV student financial assistance programs and for the other postsecondary programs authorized by the HEA. The institution must submit the form (1) initially when it first seeks to become eligible for the Title IV programs; (2) when its program participation agreement expires (recertification); (3) when it changes ownership, merges, or changes from structure; (4) to be reinstated in the Title IV programs; (5) to notify the Department when it makes certain changes, e.g., name or address; and (5) if it wishes to have a new program (outside its current scope) or new location approved for Title IV purposes.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2048. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail address vivian_reese@ed.gov. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

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

Type of Review: New Collection.

Title: Federal Family Education Loan, Direct Loan and Perkins Loan Total Permanent Disability Discharge Form (JS).

Frequency: Other: One time.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit (primary); Individuals or household.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

  Responses: 15000.

  Burden Hours: 7500.

Abstract: This form will serve as the means of collecting the information to determine whether a FFEL, Direct Loan, or Perkins Loan borrower qualifies for a conditional discharge of their loan due to total and permanent disability.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and clicking on link number 2043. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail address vivian_reese@ed.gov. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Joe Schubart at (202) 708-9266. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-9339.

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

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

Title: 2004 National Survey of Postsectondary Faculty (NSOPF:04): List Collection Procedures and Institution Questionnaire (KA).

Frequency: Other: One time.

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

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Response: 100.

 Burden Hours: 446.

Abstract: The fourth cycle of the NSOPF is being conducted in response to a continuing need for data on faculty and instructors. The study will provide information about faculty in postsecondary institutions, which is key to learning about the quality of education and research in these institutions. This study will expand the information about faculty and instructional staff in two ways: allowing comparisons to be made over time and examining critical issues surrounding faculty that have developed since the first three studies. This clearance request covers field test and full scale activities for the first phase of the study—collection of lists of current faculty an instructors from sampled postsecondary institutions and a questionnaire to be completed by institution administrative officials to provide information about the context of the institution, such as hiring and promotion practices, policies on benefits, tenure, workload, etc. A second clearance request will be submitted shortly covering the faculty survey materials.

Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from http://ediscweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2001. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail address vivan.reese.@ed.gov. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of this information collection when making your request.

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

Type of Review: Reinstatement.

Title: 2002 Elementary and Secondary School Survey (also referred to as the Elementary and Secondary School Civil Rights Compliance Report).

Frequency: Biennially.

Affected Public: State, local, or tribal gov't; SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Responses: 33,000.

Burden Hours: 337,500.

Abstract: The Elementary and Secondary School Survey (E&S Survey) is a biennial survey which collects data from schools and school districts on issues of interest to the Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education. The E&S Survey is the instrument used by OCR to obtain trend data regarding the nation's public elementary and secondary schools. Data from the survey is used by social scientists conducting research on discrimination, and by civil rights and other groups monitoring issues related to their programs. The survey collects data related to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (which prohibits discrimination on the basis of handicap).

On January 17, 2002 a Notice of Proposed Information Collection and request for public comment for the Fall 2002 Elementary and Secondary Civil Rights Compliance Report was published in the Federal Register . That proposed data collection included three new tables regarding the collection of student performance assessment data. The Department is no longer proposing to collect this data as part of the 2002 Elementary and Secondary Civil Rights Compliance Report which has been revised accordingly.

Requests for copies of the submissions for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 1902. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail address vivan.reese@ed.gov. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

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

NNSA constructed several permanent flood and sediment retention structures within various canyons across LANL during the four months immediately following the devastating Cerro Grande Fire that occurred in mid-2000. These structures and their locations are as follows:

• A substantial concrete flood retention structure and a steel flood diversion wall were built within Pajarito Canyon;

• A low-head rock gabion weir together with a sediment detention basin were built in Los Alamos Canyon;

• Four concrete road reinforcement areas were built along State Road 501 and Anchor Ranch Road at their crossings of Two-Mile, Pajarito and Water Canyons; and

• Reinforcements were made to the Los Alamos Canyon Reservoir near the head of Los Alamos Canyon [note: the Reservoir is located on property administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Santa Fe National Forest and is not subject to DOE's current proposal].

These structures, along with other various actions and activities taken to extinguish the fire and as recovery actions in the wake of the fire were subject to the emergency provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); a Special Environmental Analysis (DOE/SEA-03) was prepared to analyze the impacts of the actions taken by NNSA rather than normal NEPA documents. However, the ultimate disposition of these permanent structures was not identified and analyzed in the Special Environmental Analysis issued in September 2000. The disposition of the seven permanent structures located within the boundaries of LANL is the subject of a separate NEPA Environmental Assessment (EA). NNSA's proposed disposition action for these seven structures is to partially breach the above ground portions of the flood retention structure in Pajarito Canyon, remove the above ground portions of the steel flood diversion wall in Pajarito Canyon, and retain the remaining five structures intact and continue to routinely maintain these structures into the foreseeable future (which is defined for the purposes of this proposal as being the next ten years). Routine maintenance of these structures may include accumulated sediment removal. Other alternatives considered are the No Action Alternative (consisting of the retention of all the structures intact with on-going continuation of routine maintenance) and the Disassembly of All Structures Alternative (consisting of the demolition of all above ground portions of all the subject structures).

In accordance with DOE regulations for compliance with floodplain and wetlands environmental review requirements (10 CFR part 1022), NNSA has also prepared a floodplain/wetland assessment for this action, which is part of the NEPA draft EA. The draft EA (containing the floodplain/wetland assessment) is available by contacting Elizabeth Withers at the previously identified addresses, phone and facsimile numbers. The draft EA (containing the floodplain/wetland assessment) is also available for review at the DOE Reading Room at the Los Alamos Outreach Center, 1619 Central Avenue, Los Alamos, NM 878544; and the DOE Reading Room at the Zimmerman Library, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131. The NNSA will publish a floodplain statement of findings for this project in the Federal Register no sooner than July 12, 2002.

In August 2001, NNSA considered a proposal for constructing a new 12-inch natural gas pipeline to provide additional natural gas capacity to Los Alamos County and LANL. A 50-foot right-of-way would be cleared along the length of the easement to facilitate construction and operation of the gas line. The proposed project would be located at the bottom of Los Alamos Canyon parallel to an intermittent stream and along an existing electric power line. Stream crossings would be accomplished by tunneling under the streambed to avoid wetland areas. Portions of the gas line construction would occur in the 100-year floodplain. The floodplain/wetlands assessment will discuss engineering best management practices that will be implemented to control erosion and sedimentation from the construction activities. Construction of the gas pipeline would begin in the spring of 2003 and be completed in approximately six months.

In accordance with DOE regulations for compliance with floodplain and wetlands environmental review requirements (10 CFR part 1022), NNSA has prepared a floodplain/wetland assessment for this action, which is available by contacting Elizabeth Withers at the previously identified addresses, phone and facsimile numbers. The floodplain/wetland assessment is available for review at the DOE Reading Room at the Los Alamos Outreach Center, 1619 Central Avenue, Los Alamos, NM 87544; and the DOE Reading Room at the Zimmerman Library, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131. The NNSA will publish a floodplain statement of findings for this project in the Federal Register no sooner than July 12, 2002.

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to the Department of Energy and its regulators in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

Tentative Agenda:

1. A presentation on the Oak Ridge Reservation Land Use Planning Process will be provided by Ms. Pat Parr, Project Manager, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

2. Comments from the Deputy Designated Federal Official and Ex-officio

3. Motions and recommendations for consideration for Board approval.

4. Public comment period

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Committee either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Pat Halsey at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Each individual wishing to make public comment will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments at the end of the meeting.

Minutes: Minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the Department of Energy's Information Resource Center at 105 Broadway, Oak Ridge, TN between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, or by writing to Pat Halsey, Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM-922, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, or by calling her at (865) 576-4025.

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/. A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 is available at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml_00/Title_40/40cfr180_00.html, a beta site currently under development.

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPP-2002-0115. 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 ID number OPP-2002-0115 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 ID number OPP-2002-0115. 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 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.

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 Sygenta Crop Protection Inc. and represents the view of Sygenta. EPA is publishing the petition summary verbatim without editing it in any way. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.

EPA has received a pesticide petition (0F6142) from Syngenta Crop Protection Inc., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180, by establishing a tolerance for residues of thiamethoxam and its metabolite in or on the raw agricultural commodity corn forage at 0.10 parts per million (ppm); corn stover at 0.05 ppm; and popcorn, corn grain and sweet corn (kernal and cob with husk removed) at 0.02 ppm. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

1. Plant metabolism. The primary metabolic pathways of thiamethoxam in plants (corn, rice, pears, and cucumbers) were similar to those described for animals, with certain extensions of the pathway in plants. Parent compound and CGA-322704 were the major residues in all crops. The metabolism of thiamethoxam in plants and animals is understood for the purposes of the proposed tolerances. Parent thiamethoxam and the metabolite, CGA-322704, are the residues of concern for tolerance setting purposes.

2. Analytical method. Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. has submitted practical analytical methodology for detecting and measuring levels of thiamethoxam in or on raw agricultural commodities. The method is based on crop specific cleanup procedures and determination by liquid chromatography with either ultraviolet (UV) or mass spectroscopy (MS) detection. The limit of detection (LOD) for each analyte of this method is 1.25 nanogram (ng) injected for samples analyzed by UV and 0.25 ng injected for samples analyzed by MS, and the limit of quantitation (LOQ) is 0.005 ppm for milk and juices and 0.01 ppm for all other substrates.

3. Magnitude of residues. A residue program was performed for thiamethoxam used as a seed treatment for corn. Seed was treated at label rates of 100 to 450 (maximum) grams of thiamethoxam per 100 kilograms of seed. A 3X exaggerated rate trial was also conducted to determine the magnitude of the residue in processed field corn commodities.

Thirty-six field trials were conducted in 19 states representing typical corn growing areas of the United States, including 21 field corn, 12 sweet corn, and 3 popcorn field trials. There were no detectable residues ( < 0.01 ppm) of either thiamethoxam or the major metabolite in any grain, ear or field corn processed fraction. The maximum residues in animal feed commodities were 0.09 ppm in forage and 0.03 ppm in stover (total thiamethoxam equivalents).

1. Acute toxicity. The acute oral LD 50 for thiamethoxam in the rat is 1,563 milligrams/kilogram body weight (mg/kg bwt). The acute dermal LD 50 of thiamethoxam is > 2,000 mg/kg bwt. Thiamethoxam is non-toxic at atmospheric concentrations of 3.72 mg/L. Thiamethoxam is minimally irritating to the eye, non-irritating to skin and is not a dermal sensitizer.

In an acute neurotoxicity screening study in rats (OPPTS 870.6200), the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) was 100 mg/kg/day with a NOAEL of 500 mg/kg/day based on drooped palpebral closure, decrease in rectal temperature and locomotor activity and increase in forelimb grip strength (males only). At higher dose levels, mortality, abnormal body tone, ptosis, impaired respiration, tremors, longer latency to first step in the open field, crouched over posture, gait impairment, hypo-arousal, decreased number of rears, uncoordinated landing during the righting reflex test, slight lacrimation (females only) and higher mean average input stimulus value in the auditory startle response test (males only).

2. Genotoxicty. In gene mutation studies with S. typhimurium and E. coli (OPPTS 870.5100 and 870.5265, there was no evidence of gene mutation when tested up to 5,000 μg/plate and there was no evidence of cytotoxicity.

In a gene mutation study with chinese hampster V79 cells at hypoxanthine guanine phophoribosyl transferase (HGPRT) focus (OPPTS 870.5300), there was no evidence of of gene mutation when tested up to the solubility limit.

In a chinese hampster ovary (CHO) cell cytogenetics study (OPPTS 870.5375), there was no evidence of chromosomal aberrations when tested up to cytotoxic or solubility limit concentrations.

An in vivo mouse bone marrow micronucleus study (OPPTS 870.5395) was negative when tested up to levels of toxicity in whole animals; however, no evidence of target cell cytotoxicity.

An unscheduled DNA synthesis (UDS) assay (OPPTS 870.5550) was negative when tested up to precipitating concentrations.

3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. A prenatal developmental study in the rat (OPPTS 870.3700) resulted in maternal and developmental NOAELs of 30 mg/kg/day and 200 mg/kg/day, respectively. The maternal lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) is 200 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight, body weight gain and food consumption. The developmental LOAEL was 750 mg/kg/day based on decreased fetal body weight and an increased incidence of skeletal anomalies.

A prenatal developmental study in the rabbit (OPPTS 870.3700) resulted in maternal and developmental NOAELs of 50 mg/kg/day. The maternal and developmental LOAEL is 150 mg/kg/day. The maternal LOAEL is based on maternal deaths, hemorrhagic discharge, decreased body weight and food intake during the dosing period. The developmental LOAEL is based on decreased fetal body weights, increased incidence of post-implantation loss and a slight increase in the incidence of a few skeletal anomolies/variations.

In a reproduction and fertility effects study in rats (OPPTS 870.3800) the parental/systemic NOAEL is 1.84 (males), 202.06 (females) mg/kg/day; the reproductive NOAEL is 0.61 (males), 202.06 (females) mg/kg/day; and the offspring NOAEL is 61.25 (males), 79.20 (females) mg/kg/day. The parental/systemic LOAEL is 61.25 (males), not determined (females) mg/kg/day based on increased incidence of hyaline change in renal tubules in F0 and F1 males. The reproductive LOAEL is 1.84 (males), not determined (females) mg/kg/day based on increased incidence and severity of tubular atrophy observed in testes of the F1 generation males. The offspring LOAEL is 158.32 (males), 202.06 (females) mg/kg/day based on reduced body weight gain during the lactation period in all litters.

4. Subchronic toxicity. A 90-day oral toxicity study in rats (OPPTS 870.3100) resulted in a NOAEL of 1.74 (males), 92.5 (females) mg/kg/day. The LOAEL is 17.64 (male), 182.1 (female) mg/kg/day based on increased incidence of hyaline change of renal tubules epithelium (males), fatty change in adrenal-gland of females, liver changes in females, all at the LOAEL. A 90-day oral toxicity study in mice (OPPTS 870.3100) resulted in an NOAEL of 1.41 (males), 19.2 (females) mg/kg/day. The LOAEL was 14.3 (male) 231 (female) mg/kg/day based on increased incidence of hepatocellular hypertrophy. At higher dose levels: Decrease in body weight and body weight gain, necrosis of individual hepatocytes, pigmentation of Kupffer cells, and lymphocytic infiltration of the liver in both sexes; slight hematologic effects and decreased absolute and relative kidney weights in males; and ovarian atrophy, decreased ovary and spleen weights and increased liver weights in females.

In a 90-day oral toxicity study in dogs (OPPTS 870.3150), the NOAEL is 8.23 (males), 9.27 (females) mg/kg/day. The LOAEL is 32.0 (male), 33.9 (female) mg/kg/day based on slightly prolonged prothrombin times and decreased plasma albumin and A/G ration (both sexes); decreased calcium levels and ovary weights and delayed maturation in the ovaries (female); decreased cholesterol and phospholipid levels, testis weights, spermatogenesis, and spermatic giant cells in testes (male).

In a 28-day dermal study in rats (OPPTS 870.3200), the NOAEL was 250 (male), 60 (female) mg/kg/day. The LOAEL was 1,000 (male), 250 (female) mg/kg/day based on increased plasma glucose, triglyceride levels, and alkaline phosphatase activity and inflammatory cell infiltration in the liver and necrosis if single hepatocytes in females and hyaline change in renal tubules and a very slight reduction in body weight in males. At higher dose levels in females, chronic tubular lesions in the kidneys and inflammatory cell infiltration in the adrenal cortex were observed.

In a subchronic neurotoxicity screening study in rats (OPPTS 870.6200), the NOAEL was 95.4 (male), 216.4 (female) mg/kg/day, both at highest dose tested. The LOAEL was not determined. No treatment related observations at any dose level. LOAEL was not achieved. May not have been tested at sufficiently high dose levels; however, a new study is not required because the weight of the evidence from other toxicity studies indicates no evidence of concern.

5. Chronic toxicity. In a chronic toxicity study in dogs (OPPTS 870.4100), the NOAEL was 4.05 (male), 4.49 (female) mg/kg/day. The LOAEL was 21.0 (male), 24.6 (female) mg/kg/day based on increase of creatinine in both sexes, transient decrease in food consumption in females, and occasional increase in urea levels, decrease in ALT, and atrophy of seminiferous tubules in males.

In a mouse carcinogenicity study (OPPTS 870.4200), the NOAEL was 2.63 (male), 3.68 (female) mg/kg/day. The LOAEL was 63.8 (male), 87.6 (female) mg/kg/day based on hepatocyte hypertrophy, single cell necrosis, inflammatory cell infiltration, pigment deposition, foci of cellular alteration, hyperplasia of kupffer cells and increased mitotic activity, also an increase in the incidence of hepatocellular adenoma (both sexes). At higher doses, there was an increase in the incidence of hepatocelluar adenocarcinoma (both sexes) and the number of animals with multiple tumors, evidence of carcinogenicity.

In a combined chronic caricinogenicity study in rats (OPPTS 870.4300), the NOAEL was 21.0 (male), 50.3 (female) mg/kg/day. The LOAEL was 63.0 (male), 255 (female) mg/kg/day based on increased incidence of lymphocytic infiltration of the renal pelvis and chronic nephropathy in males and decreased body weight gain, slight increase in the severity of hemosiderosis of the spleen, foci of cellular alteration in liver and chronic tubular lesions in kidney in females. No evidence of carcinogenicity.

In a hepatic cell proliferation study in mice, the NOAEL was 16 (male), 20 (female)mg/kg/day. The LOAEL was 72 (male), 87 (female) mg/kg/day based on proliferative activity of hepatocytes. At higher dose levels, increases in absolute and relative liver weights, speckled liver, heptocellular glycogenesis/fatty change, heptocellular necrosis, apoptosis and pigmentation were observed.

In a 28-day feeding study to assess replicative DNA synthesis in the male rat, the NOAEL was 711 mg/kg/day. The LOAEL was not established. Immunohistochemical staining of liver sections from control and high dose animals for proliferating cell nuclear antigen gave no indication for a treatment related increase in the fraction of DNA syntesizing hepatocytes in S-phase. CGA293343 did not stimulate hepatocyte cell proliferation in male rats.

In a special study to assess liver biochemistry in the mouse, the NOAEL was 17 (male), 92 (female)mg/kg/day. The LOAEL was 74 (male), 92 (female) mg/kg/day based on marginal to slight increases in absolute and relative liver weights, a slight increase in the microsomal protein content of the livers, moderate increases in the cytochrome P450 content, slight to moderate increases in the activity of several microsomal enzymes, slight to moderate induction of cytosolic glutathionw S-transfersase activity. Treatment did not affect peroxisomal fatty acid B-oxidation.

6. Animal metabolism. The metabolism of thiamethoxam in rats and livestock animals is adequately understood. The residues of concern have been determined to be parent thiamethoxam and its metabolite (N-(2-chloro-thiazol-5-ylmethyl)-N′ methyl-N′-nitro-guanidine.

7. Metabolite toxicology. For risk assessment purposes, residues of the metabolite corrected for molecular weight are considered to be toxicologically equivalent to parent thiamethoxam.

1. Dietary exposure. Permanent tolerances have been established (40 CFR 180.565) for the combined residues of the insecticide thiamethoxam, 3-[(2-chloro-5-thiazolyl) methyl] tetrahydro-5-methyl-N-nitro-4H-1,3,5-oxadiazin-4-imine and its metabolite (N-(2-chloro-thiazol-5-ylmethyl)-N′-methyl-N′-nitro-guanidine), in or on a variety of RACs at levels ranging from 0.02 ppm to 1.5 ppm (including barley, canola, cotton, sorghum, wheat, cucurbit vegetables, fruiting vegetables, pome fruits and livestock commodities). Pending tolerances include coffee, grapes, raisins, grape juice, pecans, peanut nutmeats, peanut hay, corn grain, sweet corn (kernal with husk removed), pop corn, corn forage and stover, head and stem brassica, leafy brassica greens and leafy vegetables.

i. Food—a. Acute risk . The acute dietary exposure evaluation (food only) for thiamethoxam (CGA-293343) was based on a point residue (highest average field trial residue value) DEEM acute analysis. This assessment was based on a Monte Carlo analysis (1,000 iterations) and utilized an acute endpoint of 100 mg/kg-bw/day (acute neurotoxicity study). Residue values for thiamethoxam (CGA-293343) and its corresponding acid metabolite (CGA-322704) were compiled using data from field trial studies. For those field trial samples which had non-detectable residues, a value of ½ the statistically derived limit of detection ( ½ sLOD) was used. Non-nursing infants ( < 1 year old) were the most sensitive subpopulation with a total exposure of 0.42% of the acute reference dose (aRfD). The next most sensitive subpopulation was all infants < 1 year old) with an exposure of 0.37% of the aRfD. Acute exposure for the U.S. population was 0.12% of the aRfD at the 99.9 th percentile of exposure. Therefore, it is expected that the proposed tolerances for corn commodities will have minimal impact on acute dietary risk and that the aggregate exposure will not exceed 100% of the acute RfD.

b. Chronic and lifetime risk. For the chronic and lifetime exposure assessments, all of the DEEM TM inputs including residue and percent of crop treated (%CT) for currently registered uses were from EPA's August 28, 2000 dietary exposure assessment on thiamethoxam (DP Barcode D268606, PC Code 060109). For these assessments, the 1996-1998 CSFII was used and %CT value for apples was 2%. All residue data were from field trials where thiamethoxam was applied at the maximum intended use rate and the samples were harvested at the minimum pre-harvest interval (PHI) to obtain maximum expected residues. All values from the EPA “baseline” assessment assumed one-half limit of quantitation ( ½ LOQ) for all non-detects in the field trial samples.

c. Chronic risk. The chronic dietary exposure from food use indicated that chronic dietary exposure from food utilizes 3.5% of the chronic RfD for the U.S. population and 7.9% of the chronic RfD for children 1-6 years old. Addition of corn field trial residues to the assessment caused a negligible increase in chronic exposure (0.1% for the U.S. population and 0.3% for children 1-6 years old). Therefore, the proposed tolerances for corn commodities will have minimal impact on chronic dietary risk and that the aggregate exposure will not exceed 100% of the chronic RfD.

d. Lifetime risk. Results from the lifetime dietary exposure analysis (food only) show that there are acceptable safety margins with respect to chronic exposures incurred by the dietary consumption of thiamethoxam-treated commodities, including corn. Lifetime exposures to the U.S. population (48 states, all seasons) resulted in a value of 8.13 x 10 -7 which represents 81.3% of the lifetime risk limit of 1 x 10 -6 This represents a slight increase (2.1%) in the lifetime risk of 7.92 x 10 -7 (79.2%) associated with currently registered uses of thiamethoxam.

ii. Drinking water. EPA used the Pesticide Root Zone/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) to estimate pesticide concentrations in surface water and SCI-GROW, which predicts pesticide concentrations in ground water. None of these models include consideration of the impact processing (mixing, dilution, or treatment) of raw water for distribution as drinking water would likely have on the removal of pesticides from the source water. The primary use of these models by the Agency at this stage is to provide a coarse screen for sorting out pesticides for which it is highly unlikely that drinking water concentrations would ever exceed human health levels of concern. Based on the SCI-GROW and PRZM/EXAMS models, EPA calculated that estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) of thiamethoxam at the highest use rate of 0.125 pound active ingredient per acre (lb a.i./acre) are 1.94 parts per billion (ppb) for acute and chronic exposure to ground water and 8 ppb and 0.6 ppb for acute and chronic exposure, respectively, to surface water. Based on both field and laboratory data, Syngenta predicts that the potential exposure to ground water is much lower than that predicted by the conservative SCI-GROW model. EPA determined EECs are used for comparison to drinking water levels of comparison (DWLOC).

a. Acute risk. Acute drinking water levels of comparison were calculated based on an acute populated adjusted dose (aPAD) of 0.1 mg/kg/day. For the acute assessment, the non-nursing infants ( < 1 year old) subpopulation generated the lowest acute DWLOC of approximately 996 ppb. EPA has determined that the surface water acute EEC is 8 ppb and the ground water EEC is 1.94 ppb. Since the surface water value is greater than the ground water value, the surface water value will be used for comparison purposes and will protect for any concerns for ground water concentrations. Since the acute DWLOC of 996 ppb is considerably higher than the acute EEC of 8 ppb, EPA should not have a concern for acute risk to either surface or ground water.

b. Chronic risk. Chronic drinking water levels of comparison were calculated based on a chronic populated adjusted dose (cPAD) of 0.0006 mg/kg/day. For the chronic assessment, the non-nursing infants subpopulation generated the lowest chronic DWLOC of approximately 5.5 ppb. EPA has determined that the surface water chronic EEC is 0.6 ppb and the ground water EEC is 1.94 ppb. Since the ground water value is greater than the surface water value, the ground water value will be used for comparison purposes and will protect for any concerns for surface water concentrations. Since the chronic DWLOC of 5.5 ppb is higher than the chronic EEC of 1.94 ppb, EPA should not have a concern for chronic risk to either surface or ground water.

c. Cancer risk. Based on currently registered uses for thiamethoxam, EPA has determined a drinking water level of comparison for cancer (cancer DWLOC) of 2.14 ppb based upon a 2% market share for apples. Based on the addition of the proposed corn seed treatment use, the cancer DWLOC would be 2.12 ppb, representing only a minimal change. At the currently registered maximum use rate of 0.125 lb. a.i./acre per growing season, EPA has used the SCI-GROW model to predict a ground water EEC of 1.94 ppb; therefore, the cancer DWLOC (2.12 ppb) is not exceeded. For the proposed corn seed treatment uses, the maximum use rate on a per acre basis is 0.123 lb active ingredient. This maximum rate (0.123 lb) would be applicable only to field corn and would represent only 0.18% of all corn acres grown. Ninety-seven percent of thiamethoxam treated corn (5.4% of all corn acres grown) will be planted with a maximum rate on a per acre basis of 0.070 lbs a.i. per acre. Using EPA determined input values, the SCI-GROW model predicts an EEC of 1.90 ppb for the 0.123 lb rate and an EEC of 1.08 ppb for the 0.070 lb rate. Neither of these EECs (1.90 or 1.08 ppb) exceeds the cancer DWLOC (2.12 ppb).

The SCI-GROW model uses extremely conservative assumptions. However, even when using the conservative SCI-GROW model, it can be concluded that the proposed corn seed treatment use of thiamethoxam presents a negligible risk concern for exposure through drinking water.

2. Non-dietary exposure. Thiamethoxam is not currently registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure.

The potential for cumulative effects of thiamethoxam and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity has also been considered. Thiamethoxam belongs to a new pesticide chemical class known as the neonicotinoids. There is no reliable information to indicate that toxic effects produced by thiamethoxam would be cumulative with those of any other chemical including another pesticide. Therefore, Syngenta believes it is appropriate to consider only the potential risks of thiamethoxam in an aggregate risk assessment.

1. U.S. population. Syngenta concludes, as described above, that there is reasonable certainty that no harm to the U.S. population will result from aggregate acute or chronic dietary exposure to thiamethoxam residues including the proposed tolerances for corn commodities.

2. Infants and children. Syngenta concludes, as described above, that there is reasonable certainty that no harm to infants and children will result from aggregate acute or chronic exposure to thiamethoxam residues including the proposed tolerances for corn commodities.

There are no codex MRLs established for residues of thiamethoxam on corn commodities.

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 in Unit II. 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-2002-0124. 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-2002-0124 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 Unit I.C.3. 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-2002-0124. 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. Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry has requested the Administrator to issue a specific exemption for the use of carbofuran on rice to control the rice weevil. Information in accordance with 40 CFR part 166 was submitted as part of this request.

In the emergency exemption application, the Applicant asserts that rice producers in Louisiana do not have adequate alternatives to control the rice weevil and that carbofuran is the only material that can be applied at this point in the growing season that will control this pest. The rice weevil has historically been an important pest for rice producers. The Applicant estimates that yield losses of 20 to 40% will be experienced if this pest is not controlled by the requested emergency program. The Applicant asserts that there are weaknesses and limitations for the alternative control measures that require use of carbofuran this growing season. In the past, granular carbofuran was commonly applied to control this pest in water-seeded rice. However, it is no longer registered for this use. The use of granular carbofuran, generally, was canceled following an agreement between FMC Corporation, the chemical's manufacturer, and EPA in 1991. For rice, use was permitted to continue until August 1999, after which distribution, sale, and use of existing stocks labeled for rice were not permitted.

Since the cancellation of granular carbofuran, EPA has registered alternative chemicals for insect control on rice. Notably, an alternative rice weevil product called fipronil (trade name, Icon) was approved by EPA in 1998. Fipronil is a contact and ingestion insecticide that can be applied early in the growing season to control rice weevils.

The main reason that the Applicant believes this exemption is warranted is the unexpected and novel efficacy failure of fipronil in many fields that were treated this year with that chemical. The efficacy issues connected to fipronil's performance this year in rice are believed to be connected with high levels of hydrogen sulfide gas which are building up in fields due to the presence of straw and stubble from the previous year's rice crop. The breakdown of this organic material under anaerobic conditions (this involves water-seeded rice) is believed to interfere with the performance of fipronil. The high level of organic material in the fields is connected to reduced or no-till soil management practices.

The Applicant also indicated that weather and equipment issues have prevented growers from using other alternative controls this year. Total yield loss estimates projected by the Applicant range from $6.6 to $13.2 million.

The Applicant proposed to make no more than one application of a granular carbofuran product that contains 3% active ingredient to 100,000 acres of rice in Louisiana. The proposed application rate called for 15 to 20 pounds of product per acre (or 0.45 to 0.60 pound active ingredient per acre). Treatments may occur following permanent flood of the rice fields, but, at minimum, 60 days prior to harvest.

Because EPA received additional information from the Applicant in the days following the receipt of this request which heightened the urgency of this emergency exemption application from the standpoint of the growers, the Agency has already authorized a limited number of rice producers who are currently experiencing a high level of pest infestation as a result of efficacy failure following treatments of Icon (fipronil) to make treatments under this exemption. Specifically, on June 19, 2002, EPA issued a section 18 authorization which permits 6,000 pounds of carbofuran active ingredient to be applied to 10,000 acres of rice. The authorization limits treatments to those fields which were first treated with fipronil, but where, nonetheless, high levels of pest problems now exist. Information on this exemption request, including the June 19 authorization, is available at the Docket. Since granular carbofuran is generally cancelled at this time, another important factor that impacts the scope of this exemption is the level of available product. At this time, existing stocks of granular carbofuran could permit treatment to 2,500 acres of rice. New product would have to be manufactured for treatment of the additional 7,500 acres. Carbofuran is believed to be the only alternative chemical means of control at this point in the growing season.

EPA's decision to permit treatments of carbofuran for this use relates only to growers able to certify that they experienced performance failure connected to the use of fipronil. In addition, EPA anticipates that soil management practices will be adopted that diminish the likelihood of hydrogen sulfide build up in future growing seasons. Therefore, EPA does not anticipate that this emergency will be repeated.

EPA has decided to open a shortened comment period and solicit input and comments from the public for a 5 day period. In general, the length of a comment period on an emergency exemption application is 15 days. However, EPA is shortening this comment period to five days due to the limited time available to consider this request in light of the typical harvest period for rice in Louisiana and also a label provision for this use that requires a 60 day pre-harvest interval. Because of these factors, EPA determined that a 15 day comment period was not possible for this request.

The Agency is specifically seeking input from the public and stakeholders on the scope and use terms of this exemption connected to the acres that might be treated but for which there is currently no available product. In particular, due to the product availability issues mentioned above, a further determination related to the remaining 7,500 acres is needed. The public comments will help EPA determine whether the exemption should be revised to limit it to the 2,500 acres or maintained up to the 10,000 acre limit.

In order to obtain the greatest amount of input from this shortened comment period, EPA is directly contacting several key affected stakeholders in advance of this Federal Register publication. In addition, EPA is preparing a general notification plan to ensure that stakeholders are informed about this solicitation for comments.

The Agency will review and consider all comments received during the comment period in determining whether to maintain the exemption as granted on June 19, 2002 or modify the specific exemption such that use is limited to the 2,500 acres currently being treated with available product.

The Board is amending its system of records for the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF), to reflect the change in the independent contractor used to conduct the survey and to update the description of the records maintained in the system. This system of records contains statistical information regarding a periodic (every three years) survey that the Board has sponsored since 1983 to obtain information on the current state of U.S. households' finances. Approximately 5000 households voluntarily agree to respond to a survey questionnaire, which is administered through a detailed interview, conducted either in person or by telephone at the convenience of the participant. The names and addresses of each participant are confidential, and extraordinary steps are taken to uncouple the identities of the participants from the information they provide. The data collected provide a representative picture of what Americans own—from houses and cars to stocks and bonds—how and how much they borrow and how they bank.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), a report of this amended system of records is being filed with the Chair of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the Chair of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget. This new system of records will become effective on August 1, 2002, without further notice, unless the Board publishes a notice to the contrary in the Federal Register .