The meeting is open to the public. Public input opportunity will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the Committee.

Under the terms of the 1872 Mining Law, a mineral claimant, a k a Vest-O-Land Enterprises, Inc., proposes to exercise his exclusive, mineral extraction rights by conducting surface or “open pit” gold, platinum and rodium withdrawal, from overlapping Mining Claims #146192 and #146193 (DVT #3 and DVT #4). The location of the Steamboat Mountain Mining Operations in NE 1/4 of Section 20, Township 40 South, Range 4 West, Willamette Meridian, Jackson County, Oregon. The proposed 8-acre operations site is located approximately .75 air miles south of Steamboat Mountain peak, between 3,000-3,200 feet above sea level on National Forest System Lands. The claimant plans to facilitate mineral production over the next fifteen years by excavating an open pit area approximately 70-200 feet depth x 840 feet width. The Steamboat Mountain Mining Operations would provide for stages (year-by-year) excavation, resulting in the removal of over 4,400 cubic yards of bedrock annually. Initial clearing would include the incidental cutting of approximately 25-50 commercially valuable trees. Rock would be blasted, crushed, loaded on trucks with an excavator, and hauled off National Forest System Lands (estimate 5 semi-truck loads/day), along Forest Service Road 300 to County Road 777, for gold recovery processing off of national forest.

Under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Rogue River National Forest, Applegate Ranger District, proposes to fulfill all legally mandated environmental analysis and statement requirements, including the establishment of operating terms and conditions. The application of operational terms and conditions are intended to direct mining operation mitigation and reclamation activities to minimize adverse effects on National Forest System surface resources (36 CFR 228.1).

The following preliminary alternatives will be analyzed in the forthcoming draft EIS; No-Action (as required by NEPA), a baseline alternative that assumes mining without any terms and conditions, an alternative that assumes mining with associated terms and conditions as proposed by the claimant, and an alternative that incorporates proposed claimant terms and conditions, as well as additional premium terms and conditions for resource protection.

the Responsible Official, Erin Connelly, Applegate District Ranger, will review the analysis contained in the Steamboat Mountain Mining Operations Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), to decide whether or not terms and conditions shall be required, and if so, specially where, when, and to what extent they shall be employed. The ensuring Record of Decision tied to the final EIS would not directly result in the approval of the claimants' Plan of Operations (POO). Rather, the Record of Decision would fulfill legal requirements and provide rationale for establishing reasonable terms and conditions.

This notice of intent initiates the scoping process under NEPA, which will guide the development of the draft EIS. The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public comment by November 2002. The comment period for the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date EPA publishes the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register .

At the end of this period, comments submitted to the Forest Service, including names and addresses of those who responded, will be considered part of the public record for this proposal, and as such will be available for public review. 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 part 215. 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 requester of the agency's decision regarding the request for confidentiality, and where the request is denied, the agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address within a specified number of days.

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 EISs 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, 533 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft EIS state, but that are not raised until completion of the final EIS, may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City 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 important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so 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 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.

Comments on the draft EIS will be analyzed, considered, and responded to by the Forest Service in preparing the final EIS. The final EIS is scheduled to be completed in January 2003. The responsible official will consider comments, responses, environmental consequences discussed in the final EIS and applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making this decision. The responsible official will document the decision and rationale for the decision in the Record of Decision. It will be subject to Forest Service Appeal Regulations (36 CFR Part 215).

The proposed operations are subject to approval of a Plan of Operations under 36 CFR, part 228, which is intended to ensure that adverse environmental effects on National Forest System lands and resources are minimized. The proposed changes to the project's Plan of Operations include the following:

1. Marine access facilities would be relocated from Comet Beach, on the shore of Lynn Canal, to new facilities located at Slate Creek Cove.

2. An access tunnel would be driven from the existing Kensington Portal to the Jualin claims.

3. The Dry Tailings Facility and related filter plant, approved in the 1997 decision, would not be constructed. Tailings would be transported, as slurry, via a pipeline from the mill site to a subaqueous disposal site in an existing lake at the headwaters of Slate Creek.

4. Process and support facilities for operation of the Kensington Mine would be located at the Jualin claims.

5. Fuel storage and borrow source requirements would reduced.

6. A permanent personnel camp would not be constructed. Mine workers would commute daily by ferry from a facility at Echo Cove to the dock facility at Slate Creek Cove.

The purpose and need for the Proposed Action is to consider certain changes to the 1998 approved Plan of Operations for the Kensington Gold Project regarding access, tailings disposal and support facilities in order to improve efficiency and to reduce the area of surface disturbance and other environmental impacts.

In addition to the Forest Service, the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have jurisdiction and will participate as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the SEIS. The Forest Service has agreed to be the lead agency. EPA will be responsible for assuring that the analysis provides sufficient information for issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit under authority of the Clean Water Act. The Corps will be responsible for ensuring that the analysis provides sufficient information for issuance of permits required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act permit and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 permit, and for compliance with Executive Order 11990 and 11988 related to wetlands and floodplains. Memorandums of Understanding will be initiated with both of the cooperating agencies.

The decision to be made is whether or not to approve the Plan of Operations as amended or require the operator to revise its proposal. The 1997 SEIS analyzed the effects of developing the Kensington Gold Project and the Record of Decision approved the conditions under which the project could proceed. This SEIS will analyze the effects of proposed changes to the Plan of Operations that differ from those approved in the 1997 decision.

Key resources to be analyzed include water quality from the discharge to Slate Creek; impacts to wetlands; impacts to fisheries from the discharge; visual effects to the Berners Bay area; water quality effects to the Berners Bay area and potential for impacts to the recreation resources in Berners Bay.

Fred S. Salinas, Deputy Forest Supervisor, Tongass National Forest, is the responsible official.

The Forest Service is seeking information and comments from Federal, State, and local agencies as well as individuals and organizations who may be interested in, or affected by the proposed action.

Agenda items for the September 20 meeting include: (1) Review and discuss cycle 1 project implementation efforts to date; (2) Review Forest Service plan for recruiting replacement members, (3) Consider and make decision on revised project budget for Cycle 1-Maidu Natural Assets Project; (4) Review and approve Cycle 2 final application form and discuss the recommendation/approval process, discuss fuels reduction issues and efforts to date in Plumas County; (5) Discuss administrative support; and, (6) Future meeting schedule/logistics/agenda.

The agenda for the October 18 meeting will include a review of concept papers submitted in Cycle 2 along with other items to be determined at the September meeting. Similarly, the agenda for the November meeting will include the Cycle 2 concept paper review along with other items to be determined at the October meeting. The meetings are open to the public and individuals may address the Committee after being recognized by the Chair.

The meeting is open to the public. Committee discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. However, persons who wish to bring Pub. L. 106-393 related matters to the attention of the Council may file written statements with the council staff before or after the meeting. Public input sessions will be provided and individuals who made written requests by October 4, 2002, will have the opportunity to address the Council at those sessions.

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

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

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

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

2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product and services to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the product and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited.

Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.

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

On March 29, July 19, and July 26, 2002, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (67 FR 15175, 47508, and 48870) of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

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

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

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

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following products and services are added to the Procurement List:

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

1. The action may not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the product deleted from the Procurement List.

After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the committee has determined that the Product listed below is no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

Accordingly, the following product is deleted from the Procurement List:

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act) are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (2001).

On August 19, 1993, the Department published the antidumping duty order on steel plate from Mexico (58 FR 44165). On August 1, 2001, the Department published the notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” for this order, covering the period August 1, 2000 through July 31, 2001 (66 FR 39729). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), on August 31, 2001, AHMSA requested a review. On October 26, 2001, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review (66 FR 54195). On April 25, 2002, we extended the time limit for the preliminary results of this administrative review to August 31, 2002 (67 FR 20487).

The products covered in this review include hot-rolled carbon steel universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in coil and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat-rolled products in straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) under item numbers 7208.31.0000, 7208.32.0000, 7208.33.1000, 7208.33.5000, 7208.41.0000, 7208.42.0000, 7208.43.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.11.0000, 7211.12.0000, 7211.21.0000, 7211.22.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. Included in this review are flat-rolled products of non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process products which have been “worked after rolling”); for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this review is grade X-70 plate.

These HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes. The written descriptions remain dispositive. The POR is August 1, 2000, through July 31, 2001. This review covers sales of certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate by AHMSA.

The POR is August 1, 2000 through July 31, 2001.

To determine whether AHMSA made sales of steel plate from Mexico in the United States at less than fair value, we compared the export price (EP) to the NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Tariff Act, we calculated EPs and compared these prices to weighted-average NVs or constructed values (CVs).

In accordance with section 772 of the Tariff Act, we calculated an EP for each U.S. sale, because all merchandise was sold by AHMSA outside the United States to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to the importation, and constructed export price was not otherwise indicated. Section 772(a) of the Tariff Act defines EP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold before the date of importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, as adjusted under subsection (c). We calculated EP based on prices charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. We used the date of invoice as the date of sale. We based EP on the packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. AHMSA reported no duty drawback claim. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, including foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, and shipping insurance. See Memorandum from Thomas Killiam to the file, “Analysis of Data Submitted by AHMSA,” dated August 31, 2002 (“analysis memo”).

We determined that AHMSA had a viable home market, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.404(b)(2), because AHMSA's home market sales were greater than 5 percent of its U.S. sales based on aggregate volume by weight.

AHMSA reported that it made sales in the home market to affiliated and unaffiliated end users and distributors/retailers. We excluded from our analysis sales which AHMSA made to affiliated customers in the home market when these sales were not made at arm's length. To test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all billing adjustments, movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts and packing expense. Where prices to the affiliated party were on average 99.5 percent or more of the price to the unrelated party, we determined that sales made to the related party were at arm's length. See 19 CFR 351.403(c).

In our home market NV calculation, we included AHMSA's sales to those of its affiliated resellers who passed the Department's arm's length test criteria.

In the preceding review the Department disregarded sales that failed the cost test. See Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Mexico , 66 FR 7619 (January 24, 2001). See also Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Mexico: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 64 FR 48584 (September 7, 1999). Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act, the Department initiated an investigation to determine whether AHMSA made home market sales of subject merchandise during the POR at prices below its COP.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Tariff Act, we calculated COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like product, plus selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A) and packing. We relied on the COP data submitted by AHMSA except we recalculated net interest expenses to include the current portion of the gain on monetary position and net foreign exchange gains and losses. Additionally, in accordance with section 773(f)(3) of the Act, we increased AHMSA's reported cost of major inputs obtained from affiliates to the highest of transfer price, market price or the affililiate's COP. See Memorandum from Trinette L. Ruffin to Neal Halper, Director Office of Accounting, dated September 3, 2002, Re: Cost Adjustments.

On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-average COP to the home market sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Tariff Act, in order to determine whether the sale prices were below the COPs. The prices were exclusive of any applicable movement charges, rebates, discounts, and direct and indirect selling expenses. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices less than their COP, we examined whether such sales were made (1) within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and (2) at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent's home market sales for a model are at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that model because we determine that the below-cost sales were not made within an extended period of time in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we disregard those sales of that product, because we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales represented “substantial quantities” within the extended period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act. In such cases, we also determine whether such sales were made at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act.

The results of our cost test for AHMSA indicated that for certain comparison market models, less than 20 percent of the sales of the model were at prices below COP. We therefore retained all sales of these comparison market models in our analysis and used them as the basis for determining NV. Our cost test also indicated that within an extended period of time (one year, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act), for certain comparison market models, AHMSA made more than 20 percent of the comparison market sales at prices below COP. Because we compared prices to POR-average costs, we also determined that the below-cost prices would not permit the recovery of costs within a reasonable time. In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act, we therefore excluded these below-cost sales from our analysis and used the remaining above-cost sales as the basis for determining NV.

We compared AHMSA's U.S. sales with contemporaneous sales of the foreign like product in the home market. In matching merchandise we considered the following physical and manufacturing attributes: overrun or normal production lot, steel quality (structural or pressure vessel), steel specification, heat treatment used, if appropriate, plate thickness, width, surface finish (checkering, paint), and whether or not descaled. We used a 20 percent difference-in-merchandise (DIFMER) cost deviation cap as the maximum difference in cost allowable for similar merchandise, which we calculated as the absolute value of the difference between the U.S. and comparison market variable costs of manufacturing divided by the total cost of manufacturing of the U.S. product.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations are to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (2001).

On February 1, 2002, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on natural bristle paint brushes and brush heads from the People's Republic of China (PRC) (67 FR 4945). On February 28, 2002, the Department received a timely request from petitioner for administrative reviews of Hunan Provincial Native Produce and Animal By-Products Import and Export Corporation (Hunan) and Hebei Founder Import and Export Company (Hebei). On March 27, 2002, the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on natural bristle paintbrushes and brush heads, for the period from February 1, 2001 through January 31, 2002, in order to determine whether merchandise imported into the United States is being sold at less than fair value. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocations in Part (67 FR 14696). On May 1, 2002 the Department issued antidumping questionnaires to Hebei and Hunan. In its reply to Section A of the questionnaire, Hebei reiterated that it had made no sales or shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.

The Department also performed a U.S. Customs Service (Customs) query for entries of natural bristle paintbrushes and brush heads, classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item number 9603.40.40.40, from the PRC during the POR. We found no entries or shipments from Hebei during the POR.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department may rescind an administrative review, in whole or only with respect to a particular exporter or producer, if the Secretary concludes that, during the period covered by the review, there were no entries, exports, or sales of subject merchandise. On August 14, 2002, the Department issued a memorandum stating our intent to rescind the review, in part, with regard to Hebei in light of the information on the record that Hebei did not sell, ship or enter the subject merchandise during the POR. The Department circulated this memorandum among the parties and received no comments. See Memorandum For the File From Douglas Kirby Through Barbara E. Tillman: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (August 14, 2002) (public document, on file in the Department's Central Records Unit in Room B-099). Therefore, the Department has determined that it is reasonable to rescind, in part, the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on natural bristle paintbrushes and paintbrush heads with respect to Hebei for the period February 1, 2001 through January 31, 2002. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions to Customs.

The Department is not rescinding its review of the antidumping duty order on natural bristle paintbrushes and brush heads with respect to Hunan, for the period February 1, 2001 through January 31, 2002, because there is evidence on the record of sales made by Hunan to the United States market during the POR.

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

This determination and notice are issued and published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and sections 751(a) and 777(i)(l) of the Act.

On June 26, 2000, the Department published in the Federal Register the notice of final determination of sales at less than fair value on certain tin mill products from Japan. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Tin Mill Products From Japan , 65 FR 39364 (June 26, 2002). On August 28, 2000, following the Commission's final affirmative injury determination, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on certain tin mill products from Japan. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Tin Mill Products from Japan , 65 FR 52067 (August 28, 2000).

Nippon Steel Corporation, NKK Corporation, Kawasaki Steel Corporation, and Toyo Kohan Co., Ltd., respondents in the underlying investigation, filed a lawsuit with the CIT contesting the ITC's affirmative injury determination. The Court issued an Order and Opinion dated December 31, 2000, in Nippon Steel Corporation, et al. v. United States , 182 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (CIT 2000) (“ Nippon I ”), remanding the ITC's affirmative injury determination. On March 4, 2002, the ITC filed its affirmative injury remand determination. USITC Pub. 3493 (March 2002). On August 9, 2002, the CIT issued an opinion and judgement vacating the Commission's affirmative injury remand determination and directing the Commission to enter a negative determination. See Nippon II .

In its decision in Timken , the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1516a(c), an agency must publish notice of a decision of the CIT or Federal Circuit which is “not in harmony” with the agency's determination. The CIT's decision in Nippon II is not in harmony with the Commission's final affirmative injury determination. Therefore, publication of this notice fulfills the obligation imposed by the decision in Timken . If this decision is not appealed, or if appealed, if it is upheld, the Commission will publish notice of a negative injury determination on tin and chromium-coated steel sheet from Japan.

This notice is relevant to the Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon ( Oncorhynchus keta ) ESU.

The NWIFC submitted a Tribal Plan in cooperation with the Puget Sound Indian Tribes for scientific research and assessment activities within the range of the Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon ESU in the state of Washington. The activities are intended to provide the technical basis for fisheries management and for the conservation and restoration of salmon stocks and their habitat. The Tribal Plan also includes implementation, monitoring, evaluation, enforcement, and reporting procedures designed to ensure the research is consistent with these objectives. The research activities described in the Tribal Plan span a 5 year period beginning on January 1, 2002.

On May 16, 2002, at 67 FR 34907, NMFS published a notice of availability for public review and comment on its Evaluation of how the Tribal Plan addressed the factors in 50 CFR 223.209 (65 FR 42481, July 10, 2000) of the ESA Tribal Plan Limit.

As required by section 223.209 of the ESA Tribal Plan Limit, NMFS must determine whether the Tribal Plan would appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon and other affected threatened ESUs. NMFS must take comments on how the Tribal Plan addresses the factors in section 223.209 in making that determination.

The Tribal Plan describes tribal research and assessment activities that provide the technical basis for fisheries management and for the conservation and restoration of salmon stocks and their habitat in the Puget Sound area. The need for improved and more quantitative understanding of salmonid freshwater and marine survival motivates much of the current research. Many of the activities are also intended to provide information for the planning, implementation, and monitoring of habitat protection and restoration efforts. Tribal resource management entities cooperate with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and other state and local agencies in many research activities. The Tribal Plan describes only those activities that are principally funded through, and managed by, tribal agencies.

The Tribal Plan is organized into four sections: (1) Spawning escapement surveys, (2) smolt production studies, (3) life history studies, and (4) habitat assessment and monitoring studies. Each section further describes the significance of the research and assessment activities and the sampling methods proposed.

It is NMFS' determination that the research and assessment activities included in the Tribal Plan will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the ESU in the wild based on the current status of this ESU. This research-related take is not expected to reach a level that will significantly affect any single chum population in the ESU.

The Tribal Plan contains a section describing a protocol for assuring that the level and extent of take associated with the activities do not reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of this ESU. The Tribal Plan states that monitoring of take during the course of each activity will determine whether take and mortality are occurring at a level greater than the expected level. The Tribal Plan contains procedures whereby the overall impact of research and assessment activities can be regularly evaluated. Sampling methods and schedules will be altered as necessary to minimize take. Annual reports will include the actual take associated with each activity. NMFS will be informed when take exceeds the projected level for any activity and will be consulted regarding subsequent changes in methodology.

NMFS' Evaluation contains reporting requirements, a modification process should the tribes propose new or modified research, and a reevaluation process the tribes will follow to have the Tribal Plan Limit apply. This information will be used by NMFS and the tribes at least annually or as needed to assess whether impacts to listed fish are as expected, and to revise the Tribal Plan as necessary.

NMFS published notification of its evaluation and pending determination on the Tribal Plan for public review and comment on May 16, 2002 (67 FR 34907). The public comment period closed on June 17, 2002. NMFS received no comments concerning this document.

Based on its Evaluation and the fact that no public comments were received, NMFS issued its final determination on the Tribal Plan on July 31, 2002.

Under section 4(d) of the ESA, NMFS, by delegated authority from the Secretary of Commerce, is required to adopt such regulations as it deems necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species listed as threatened. The ESA Tribal Plan Limit (65 FR 42481, July 10, 2000) states that the ESA section 9 take prohibitions will not apply to Tribal Plans provided NMFS determines that implementation of such Tribal Plans will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the listed salmonids.

As required by section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1982), notice is hereby given of the meeting of ACCRES. ACCRES was established by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) on May 21, 2002, to advise the Secretary through the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere on long- and short-range strategies for the licensing of commercial remote sensing satellite systems.

This will be the inaugural meeting of ACCRES. While not reviewing any specific licensing actions, the committee will receive briefings on the licensing and enforcement program and procedures of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the interagency process for issuing licenses. The Committee will also consider key issues such as industry internationalization, industry risks and investment disincentives, foreign availability and competition, and determine its advisory role and process.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for special accommodations may be directed to ACCRES, NESDIS International and Interagency Affairs Office, 1335 East-West Highway, Room 7311, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.

Any member of the public wishing further information concerning the meeting or who wishes to submit oral or written comments should contact Timothy Stryker, Designated Federal Officer for ACCRES, NOAA/NESDIS International and Interagency Affairs Office, 1335 East-West Highway, Room 7311, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. Copies of the draft meeting agenda can be obtained from Tahara Moreno at (301) 713-2024 x.202, fax (301) 713-2032, or e-mail Tahara.Moreno@noaa.gov .

The ACCRES expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously-submitted oral or written statements. In general, each individual or group making an oral presentation will be limited to a total time of five minutes. Written comments (please provide at least 13 copies) received in the NOAA/NESDIS International and Interagency Affairs Office on or before September 25 will be provided to Committee members in advance of the meeting. Comments received too close to the meeting date will normally be provided to the Committee at the meeting.

The following species and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) are covered in this notice:

Spring Chinook Salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ): endangered Upper Columbia River (UCR), and

Steelhead ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ): endangered UCR.

Permit 1196 was issued to WDFW on August 16, 2002, and permit 1300 was issued to USFWS on August 16, 2002. Permits 1196 and 1300 authorize WDFW and USFWS take of naturally produced and artificially propagated ESA-listed anadromous fish associated with the operation of hatchery programs for endangered UCR spring chinook salmon. Permits 1196 and 1300 expire December 31, 2007.

Permit 1196 authorizes WDFW artificial propagation programs designed to supplement natural spawning populations in the Wenatchee River and Methow River basins. WDFW's program includes the collection of ESA-listed adults for broodstock, the use of artificial propagation in a hatchery environment, the rearing of artificially spawned progeny in the hatcheries, and the release of artificially propagated juveniles in their respective streams of origin. Incremental changes in production levels in response to adult escapement levels, predetermined means to manage stray fish, and two approaches for population separation are some strategies that will be employed to minimize risks to listed populations. All aspects of the program will be monitored in a manner that allows comparison of the effectiveness of alternative strategies.

WDFW operates two hatchery complexes within the mid- and upper Columbia River Basin for the propagation of spring chinook salmon: The Methow Fish Hatchery Complex and the Rock Island Fish Hatchery Complex. These complexes are funded by the local Public Utility Districts in the upper Columbia River region to mitigate the impacts of the hydropower dams on the mainstem Columbia River. The Methow Complex uses returning spring chinook salmon adults collected at the Methow State Fish Hatchery, and/or weirs on the Methow River tributaries, the Twisp and Chewuch Rivers. Adult spring chinook salmon used for broodstock may also be collected at Wells Dam. The Rock Island Complex uses spring chinook salmon broodstock collected at weirs on the Chiwawa River and Nason Creek, tributaries to the Wenatchee River, and at Tumwater Dam on the mainstem Wenatchee River. WDFW's Eastbank Hatchery is part of the Rock Island Complex. WDFW-managed satellite facilities included within the two complexes are the Twisp Pond, Chiwawa Ponds, Chewuch Pond and the aforementioned adult collection weirs on the Methow, Chiwawa, Twisp, Chewuch rivers and Nason Creek. Permit 1196 will also authorize the annual incidental take of ESA-listed UCR steelhead associated with broodstock collection activities, hatchery operations, and juvenile fish releases from the program.

Permit 1300 authorizes USFWS' artificial propagation program designed to supplement the natural spawning populations in the Methow River Basin. The USFWS' program includes the collection of ESA-listed adults for broodstock, the use of artificial propagation in a hatchery environment, the rearing of artificially spawned progeny in the hatcheries, and the release of artificially propagated juveniles in their respective stream of origin. This program is operated in coordination with the WDFW program in the Methow River Basin (Permit #1196). Incremental changes in production levels in response to adult escapement levels, predetermined means to manage stray fish, and two approaches for population separation are some strategies that will be employed to minimize risks to listed populations. All aspects of the program will be monitored in a manner that allows comparison of the effectiveness of alternative strategies.

USFWS operates three Federal hatcheries within the Upper Columbia River Basin: Leavenworth, Entiat and Winthrop National Fish Hatcheries (NFH). These facilities rear non-listed spring chinook salmon to mitigate for impacts from the construction of the Grand Coulee Dam and Basin Project. Mitigation was authorized by the Grand Coulee Fish Maintenance Project, April 3, 1937. These facilities are currently operated by the USFWS and funded by the Bureau of Reclamation. The Winthrop NFH is located on the Methow River 1 mile downstream of the Methow Fish Hatchery. The Winthrop NFH is shifting production from non-listed Carson stock spring chinook salmon to listed Methow River composite stock spring chinook salmon. A proportion of the Methow composite stock broodstock collected by WDFW at Wells Dam, the Methow Fish Hatchery and/or at weirs on the Methow River tributaries, the Twisp and Chewuch Rivers (Permit 1196), may be transferred to Winthrop NFH. Additional broodstock will be collected from volunteers to the Winthrop NFH, and/or collected from Methow Fish Hatchery outfall. Hatchery spring chinook salmon produced at Winthrop NFH may be released on-station or transferred to WDFW satellite facilities: Twisp Pond, and Chewuch Pond. Permit 1300 also authorizes the annual incidental take of ESA-listed UCR steelhead associated with broodstock collection activities, hatchery operations, and juvenile fish releases from the program.

While the hatchery programs have the potential to cause deleterious direct and indirect effects on the ESA-listed species, such as maladaptive genetic, physiological, or behavioral changes in donor or target populations, the programs will continue to be necessary to prevent the extinction of the UCR spring chinook salmon ESU until habitat conditions that limit the productivity of naturally-produced spring chinook salmon in the region can be improved. Measures are described in the permits to minimize such deleterious effects to the extent possible.

NMFS' conditions in the permits will ensure that the takes of ESA-listed anadromous fish will not jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species. In issuing the permits, NMFS determined that WDFW's and USFWS' Conservation Plans provide adequate mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, and/or compensate for the anticipated takes of ESA-listed anadromous fish.

Issuance of these permits, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permits: (1) were applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species which are the subject of the permits; and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. These permits were issued in accordance with, and are subject to, 50 CFR part 222, the NMFS regulations governing listed species permits.

Section 204(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1824(d)) provides, among other things, that the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) may issue a transshipment permit which authorizes a vessel other than a vessel of the United States to engage in fishing consisting solely of transporting fish or fish products at sea from a point within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) or, with the concurrence of a state, within the boundaries of that state to a point outside the United States. NMFS has received an application requesting authorization for a Mexican vessel to receive, within the Pacific waters of the U.S. EEZ south of 38° N. lat., transfers of live tuna from a U.S. purse seiner for the purpose of transporting the tuna alive to the Mexican EEZ.

Section 204(d)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides, among other things, that an application may not be approved until the Secretary determines that “no owner or operator of a vessel of the United States which has adequate capacity to perform the transportation for which the application is submitted has indicated ... an interest in performing the transportation at fair and reasonable rates.” NMFS is publishing this notice as part of its effort to make this determination.

Interested U.S. vessel owners and operators may obtain a copy of the complete application from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ).

On July 22, 2002, notice was published in the Federal Register (67 FR 47775) that a request for a scientific research permit to take bottlenose dolphins had been submitted by the above-named organization. The requested permit has been issued 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 authorizes a maximum of 500 individual dolphins to be captured, examined, sampled, marked, and released during the 5 year period of the permit. Captures will take place in inshore and nearshore waters from New York to the Texas/Mexico border. As part of the research, the captured bottlenose dolphins will be sampled for genetic and isotope analyses, photographed for photo-identification and will have transmitters attached. The impetus for the research is the need to define the stock structure of western North Atlantic bottlenose dolphins. The project is a continuation of research begun in 1997 to elucidate stock structure using multiple methods and to test the hypothesis of one coastal migratory stock of bottlenose dolphins along the Atlantic coast of the U.S.

The current limits for certain categories are being adjusted for carryforward.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 66 FR 65178, published on December 18, 2001). Also see 66 FR 59577, published on November 29, 2001.

The current limits for certain categories are being increased for carryforward.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 66 FR 65178, published on December 18, 2001). Also see 66 FR 63028, published on December 4, 2001.

The priorities contained in this notice reflect issues discussed in the New Freedom Initiative (NFI) and NIDRR's Long-Range Plan (the Plan). The NFI can be accessed on the Internet at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/freedominitiative/freedominiative.html.

The Plan can be accessed on the Internet at: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/NIDRR/Products.

The selection criteria to be used to carry out research or development FI projects will be provided in the application package.

The selection criteria to be used for the ARRT Projects will be provided in the application package.

Field-Initiated Projects: (CFDA Number 84.133G).

Purpose of Program: FI projects must further one or both of the following purposes: (a) Develop methods, procedures, and rehabilitation technology that maximize the full inclusion and integration into society, employment, independent living, family support, and economic and social self-sufficiency of individuals with disabilities, especially individuals with the most severe disabilities; or (b) improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (the Act). FI projects carry out either research activities or development activities.

In carrying out a research activity, a grantee must identify one or more hypotheses and, based on the hypotheses identified, perform an intensive, systematic study directed toward new scientific knowledge or contribute to better understanding of the subject, problem studied or body of knowledge.

In carrying out a development activity, a grantee must use knowledge and understanding gained from research to create materials, devices, systems, or methods beneficial to the target population, including design and development of prototypes and processes. Target population means the group of individuals, organizations, or other entities expected to be affected by the project. More than one group may be involved since a project may affect those who receive services, provide services, or administer services.

There are two different sets of selection criteria for FI projects: one set to evaluate applications proposing to carry out research activities, and a second set to evaluate applications proposing to carry out development activities. The set of FI selection criteria that will be used to evaluate an application will be based on the applicant's designation of the type of activity that the application proposes to carry out.

The applicant should: (a) Clearly identify on the cover page of the application, block 4, whether the proposal is for a research or a development project; (b) identify if the application is a resubmittal from a previous competition, within the past two years, by putting the word resubmittal on the cover page of the application in block 13 along with the descriptive title; (c) if the application is a resubmittal from a previous competition, within the past two years, include the assigned application number ( i.e. , H133G01, H133G02) in the abstract, the introduction, and in a cover letter; and (d) if applicable, identify their qualifying minority entity status in the abstract and transmittal letter.

The Secretary is particularly interested in applications that address one of the following invitational priorities. However, under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1), an application that meets an invitational priority does not receive competitive or absolute preference over other applications. The invitational priorities are: (a) Projects that improve the exit of individuals with disabilities from buildings, vehicles, and other settings in emergencies; (b) projects that study use of the new “International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health” (ICIDH-2) systems in promoting the independence and quality of life of persons with disabilities; (c) projects that collaborate with international assistive technology and rehabilitation engineering projects including, but not limited to, those that could be carried out under Science and Technology Agreements between the U.S. and other countries; (d) projects that enhance functioning of people with newly recognized disabilities, such as multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), chronic fatigue immune deficiency syndrome (CFIDS), and fibromyalgia; and (e) projects that study mental health interventions related to traumatic stress of individuals with disabilities.

Eligible Applicants: Parties eligible to apply for grants under this program are States; public or private agencies, including for-profit agencies; public or private organizations, including for-profit organizations; institutions of higher education; and Indian tribes and tribal organizations.

Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 764.

Advanced Rehabilitation Research Training Projects: (CFDA Number 84.133P).

Purpose of Program: ARRT projects must provide research training and experience at an advanced level to individuals with doctorates or similar advanced degrees who have clinical or other relevant experience. ARRT projects train rehabilitation researchers, including individuals with disabilities, with particular attention to research areas that support the implementation and objectives of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (the Act) and that improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the Act.

ARRT projects must carry out all of the following activities: (1) Recruit and select candidates for advanced research training; (2) provide a training program that includes didactic and classroom instruction, is multidisciplinary, and emphasizes scientific methodology, and may involve collaboration among institutions; (3) provide research experience, laboratory experience, or its equivalent in a community-based research setting, and a practicum that involves each individual in clinical research and in practical activities with organizations representing individuals with disabilities; (4) provide academic mentorship or guidance, and opportunities for scientific collaboration with qualified researchers at the host university and other appropriate institutions; and (5) provide opportunities for participation in the development of professional presentations and publications, and for attendance at professional conferences and meetings as appropriate for the individual's field of study and level of experience.

Eligible Applicants: Institutions of higher education are eligible to receive awards under this program.

Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 762(k).

Instructions for Transmittal of Applications:

Instructions for transmitting applications will be provided in the application package.

In Fiscal Year 2003, the U.S. Department of Education is continuing to expand its pilot project of electronic submission of applications to include additional formula grant programs and additional discretionary grant competitions. The Field-Initiated Projects program—CFDA 84.133G and the Advanced Rehabilitation Research Training Projects program—CFDA 84.133P are two of the programs included in the pilot project. If you are an applicant under these programs, you may submit your application to us in either electronic or paper format.

The pilot project involves the use of the Electronic Grant Application System (e-APPLICATION, formerly e-GAPS) portion of the Grant Administration and Payment System (GAPS). We request your participation in this pilot project. We shall continue to evaluate its success and solicit suggestions for improvement.

If you participate in this e-APPLICATION pilot, please note the following:

• Your participation is voluntary.

• You will not receive any additional point value or penalty because you submit a grant application in electronic or paper format.

• You can submit all documents electronically, including the Application for Federal Assistance (ED 424), Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.

• Within three working days of submitting your electronic application fax a signed copy of the Application for Federal Assistance (ED 424) to the Application Control Center after following these steps:

(1) Print ED 424 from the e-APPLICATION system.

(2) Make sure that the institution's Authorizing Representative signs this form.

(3) Before faxing this form, submit your electronic application via the e-APPLICATION system. You will receive an automatic acknowledgement, which will include a PR/Award number (an identifying number unique to your application).

(4) Place the PR/Award number in the upper right hand corner of ED 424.

(5) Fax ED 424 to the Application Control Center at (202) 260-1349.

• We may request that you give us original signatures on all other forms at a later date.

You may access the electronic grant application for the (Field-Initiated Projects program (CFDA 84.133G-1, Research or 84.133G-2, Development and Advanced Rehabilitation Research Training Projects program (CFDA 84.133P-1) at: http://e-grants.ed.gov.

We have included additional information about the e-APPLICATION pilot project (see Parity Guidelines between Paper and Electronic Applications) in the application package.

Please note that due to the Department's end of the fiscal year close out activities, the e-APPLICATION system will be unavailable from October 1 through October 5. It will become available for users again on Monday, October 7.

For Applications Contact: Education Publications Center (ED Pubs), P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398. Telephone (toll free): 1-877-433-7827. FAX: (301) 470-1244. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call (toll free): 1-877-576-7734.

You may also contact ED Pubs via its Web site: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html or its E-mail address ( edpubs@inet.ed.gov ). If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.133G or 84.133P.

Individuals with disabilities may obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format by contacting the Grants and Contracts Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3317, Switzer Building, Washington, DC 20202-2550. Telephone: (202) 205-8351. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Information Relay Services (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339. However, the Department is not able to reproduce in an alternative format the standard forms included in the application package.

For Applications Contact: The Grants and Contracts Service Team (GCST), Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3317, Switzer Building, Washington, DC 20202, or call (202) 205-8207. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the TDD number at (202) 205-9860. The preferred method for requesting information is to FAX your request to (202) 205-8717.

Individuals with disabilities may obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format by contacting GCST. Telephone: (202) 205-8351. If you use a TDD, you may call the Federal Information Relay Services (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339. However, the Department is not able to reproduce in an alternative format the standard forms included in the application package.

The General Provisions to the NSPS in 40 CFR part 60 and the NESHAP in 40 CFR part 61 provide that a source owner or operator may request a determination of whether certain intended actions constitute the commencement of construction, reconstruction, or modification. EPA's written responses to these inquiries are broadly termed applicability determinations. See 40 CFR 60.5 and 61.06. Although the part 63 NESHAP and Clean Air Act section 111(d) regulations contain no specific regulatory provision that sources may request applicability determinations, EPA does respond to written inquiries regarding applicability for the part 63 and section 111(d) programs. The NSPS and NESHAP also allow sources to seek permission to use monitoring or recordkeeping which is different from the promulgated requirements. See 40 CFR 60.13(i), 61.14(g), 63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f), and 63.10(f). EPA's written responses to these inquiries are broadly termed alternative monitoring decisions. Furthermore, EPA responds to written inquiries about the broad range of NSPS and NESHAP regulatory requirements as they pertain to a whole source category. These inquiries may pertain, for example, to the type of sources to which the regulation applies, or to the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping or reporting requirements contained in the regulation. EPA's written responses to these inquiries are broadly termed regulatory interpretations.

EPA currently compiles EPA-issued NSPS and NESHAP applicability determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory interpretations, and posts them on the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) on a quarterly basis. In addition, the ADI contains EPA-issued responses to requests pursuant to the stratospheric ozone regulations, contained in 40 CFR part 82. The ADI is an electronic index on the Internet with over one thousand EPA letters and memoranda pertaining to the applicability, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the NSPS and NESHAP. The letters and memoranda may be searched by date, office of issuance, subpart, citation, control number or by string word searches.

Today's notice comprises a summary of 55 such documents added to the ADI between May 2002 and July 2002. The subject, author, recipient, date and header of each letter and memorandum are listed in this notice, as well as a brief abstract of the letter or memorandum. Complete copies of these documents may be obtained from the ADI through the OECA Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/assistance/applicability.

The following table identifies the database control number for each document posted on the ADI database system between May 2002 and July 2002; the applicable category; the subpart(s) of 40 CFR part 60, 61, or 63 (as applicable) covered by the document; and the title of the document which provides a brief description of the subject matter. We have also included an abstract of each document identified with its control number after the table. These abstracts are provided solely to alert the public to possible items of interest and are not intended as substitutes for the full text of the documents.

Q1: Is the monitoring that Gulf Coast Metals has proposed as an alternative to installation of an opacity monitor or a broken bag detector on two rotary furnaces at its secondary aluminum plant in Hillsborough County, Florida acceptable?

A1: No. Because the company did not address several of the submittal requirements in 40 CFR 63.1510(w), an alternative monitoring approach cannot be approved at this time.

Q2: Can the initial performance test required for the rotary furnaces be waived?

A2: Although the authority to approve performance test waivers under 40 CFR part 63 has been delegated to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Region 4 recommends that the request be denied since low opacity alone will not ensure compliance with the applicable particulate mass emission standard.

Q: May a Portland Cement facility use an alternative initial performance testing and monitoring for inaccessible, totally enclosed, and partially enclosed conveyor system transfer points (CSTPs) and storage bins under NESHAP subpart LLL? This request includes alternative initial performance testing and monitoring for sources inside buildings.

A: A Portland Cement facility may use alternative initial performance testing and monitoring for inaccessible, totally enclosed, and partially enclosed CSTPs and storage bins. However, for alternative initial performance testing inside buildings, the EPA Regional Office has not been delegated the authority to approve the request.

Q1: Will EPA approve a request for an alternative monitoring plan to be used during bypasses of the sulfur recovery units to unmonitored stacks?

A1: No. EPA will not approve this request because the alternative monitoring plan would not make representative measurements of the sulfur dioxide emissions during bypasses of the sulfur recovery units to unmonitored stacks.

Q2: Will EPA approve a request for an alternative monitoring plan to be used during bypasses of the tail gas treating units to unmonitored stacks?

A2: No. EPA will not approve this request because the alternative monitoring plan would not make representative measurements of the sulfur dioxide emissions during bypasses of the tail gas treating units on sulfur recovery units to unmonitored stacks.

Q: Will EPA grant a waiver from the operating temperature of 55.0 degrees Celsius in 40 CFR 60.753(c)?

A: EPA will grant a waiver to 65.6 degrees Celsius for certain wells that show high methane production, low oxygen, carbon monoxide levels below 100 ppm, and no charred debris in the gas collection system.

Q: Is a duct burner (along with the associated heat recovery steam generator) that is too small to be covered under NSPS subpart Da covered by NSPS subpart Db?

A: Yes, if it meets the definition of an affected facility under NSPS subpart Db. NSPS subpart Db was intentionally written to be very broad in nature as to what constitutes an affected facility.

Q1: What is the definition of excess emissions for reporting and compliance purposes under NSPS subpart G?

A1: Excess emissions under NSPS Subpart G are defined as any three-hour period during which the average nitrogen oxides emission rate exceeds the 1.5 kilograms per metric ton (3.0 pounds per ton) emission limit in 40 CFR 60.72(a)(1).

Q2: Do excess emissions constitute a violation of the standard in NSPS subpart G?

A2: Under the “any credible evidence” provisions in 40 CFR 60.11(g), the continuous emission monitoring (CEMS) data used for excess emission reporting can be used to cite violations for any three-hour period(s) during which the CEMS data indicate that emissions would have been in excess of the applicable standard had a performance test been conducted.

Q3: If excess emissions do constitute a violation of the standard in NSPS Subpart G, how are the averaging time and the duration of the violation determined?

A3: Since the emission limit has an averaging time of three hours, CEMS data must be averaged over a three-hour period in order to determine whether the nitrogen oxides emission rate has exceeded the applicable limit. A single three-hour period during which the average emission rate exceeds the limit would be reported as three hours of excess emissions. If there are consecutive, overlapping three hour periods during which the average nitrogen oxides emission rate exceeds the applicable limit, the duration of the excess emission period should be determined based upon the number of hours between the beginning and the end of the exceedance period.

Q4: Does 40 CFR 60.8(c) allow violations during nitric acid plant startups, and, if so, are facilities exempt from enforcement for violations of the standard during startup?

A4: Since NSPS subpart G does not include language specifically indicating that the nitrogen oxides limit applies at all times, facilities would be exempt from the limit during startup under the provisions in 40 CFR 60.8(a). Although facilities are exempt from the emission limit during startup, facility owners and operators could be cited for a violation of 40 CFR 60.11(d) if steps to minimize emissions are not taken during startup, shutdown, and malfunction.

Q5: If 40 CFR 60.8(c) does provide an exemption from enforcement during startups, is there any time limit associated with the exemption?

A5: Although NSPS subpart G does not specify a limit on the amount of time that a facility is exempt from the nitrogen oxides emission limit during startup, enforcement under the provisions in 40 CFR 60.11(d) can be pursued if steps are not taken to minimize emissions during startup regardless of the duration of the excess emission period.

Q1: Are proposals to reduce the frequency for fuel usage recordkeeping at National Linen Services and the University of West Florida acceptable?

A1: Yes. The proposed alternative recordkeeping and reporting frequencies are consistent with those that EPA has previously approved for other facilities. If the University of West Florida does not have a separate gas meter for its NSPS subpart Dc boiler, it will be necessary to obtain approval for a way of apportioning the University's total gas usage in order to determine the amount of fuel burned in the NSPS subpart Dc unit.

Q2: Can future proposals for alternative fuel usage recordkeeping frequencies be approved by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection without being submitted to EPA Region 4 for case-by-case reviews?

A2: Yes. Based upon the history of previous EPA approvals, there is no environmental benefit associated with submitting future proposals to EPA for case-by-case reviews if records will be kept on at least monthly basis, reports will be submitted on at least an annual basis, and an appropriate apportionment approach will be used when the total amount of fuel burned in multiple gas-fired units is measured with a common gas meter.

Q: Is the ASTM Test Method D5504-98 method an acceptable alternative method for determining the sulfur content of the natural gas burned in stationary gas turbines at four compressor stations located in Florida?

A: Yes. The proposed alternative method is acceptable. Also, the results of sampling conducted at one compressor station can be used for turbines at multiple compressor stations provided that no new gas enters the pipeline between the stations in question.

Q: Is ASTM Test Method D5504-98 method an acceptable alternative method for determining the sulfur content of the natural gas burned in stationary gas turbines at four compressor stations located in Florida?

A: Yes. The proposed alternative method is acceptable. Also, the results of sampling conducted at a compressor station in Florida can be used for the turbines at a compressor station in Mount Vernon, Alabama, provided that no new gas enters the system between these stations.

Q: Is an alternative monitoring approach proposed by General Electric Plastics (GEP) for a phosgene monitoring system on a distillation operation at its plant in Burkville, Alabama acceptable under NSPS subpart NNN?

A: Yes. GEP must obtain approval for an alternative monitoring approach because NSPS subpart NNN does not specify monitoring procedures for the type of control system used by the company. Issues addressed in the approval letter include the measurement range of the phosgene monitoring system, the basis for waiving the requirement to correct analyzer results to three percent oxygen, acceptable procedures for calculating three-hour average emission rates, and the analyzer calibration frequency.

Q1: Is the Georgia Pacific Corporation (GPC) proposal to monitor scrubber liquid flow rate more acceptable than monitoring the pressure drop for the scrubber installed on a lime kiln at a kraft pulp mill in New Augusta, Mississippi to comply with NSPS Subpart BB?

A1: Yes. Based upon the design of the scrubber installed on the lime kiln, the proposed alternative monitoring parameter will be a better indicator of control device performance than pressure drop will be.

Q2: Will EPA waive the requirement to monitor the combustion temperature of the power boiler used to destroy the total reduced sulfur compounds contained in non-condensable gas streams at a kraft pulp mill?

A2: Yes. Because the non-condensable gas streams generated at the mill are burned in a power boiler, rather than an incinerator, combustion temperature monitoring is not required under NSPS subpart BB.

Q1: Will EPA grant an initial performance testing extension requested by the Gainesville Regional Utilities for Combined Cycle Unit No. 1 at the J.R. Kelly Generating Station to comply with NSPS subparts A and GG?

A1: Yes. Unit No. 1 will not be capable of operating until the reinstallation of parts that were returned to the manufacturer for repairs. Therefore, the deadline for completing an initial performance can be extended for up to 720 operating hours following the restart of the unit.

Q2: Can certification testing for the continuous emission monitoring systems installed on Unit No. 1 be delayed for up to 30 days beyond the completion date of the initial performance test on the unit?

A2: Yes. The proposed schedule for monitor certification is consistent with the provisions in 40 CFR 60.13(c).

Q3: Can the requirement to provide notification at least 30 days prior to conducting the initial performance test be waived?

A3: Conditional. Providing less than 30 days prior notification is acceptable provided that it does not prevent the Florida Department of Environmental Protection from observing the testing.

Q: Will EPA grant an initial performance testing extension requested by Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU) for Combined Cycle Unit No. 1 at the J.R. Kelly Generating Station to comply with NSPS subparts A and GG?

A: No. Because 40 CFR part 60 does not contain provisions for extending the initial performance testing deadlines in 40 CFR 60.8(a), GRU is technically in violation of the requirement to complete an initial performance test within 60 days after reaching the maximum firing rate on Unit No. 1. Because the turbine operating problems that have delayed the performance testing are largely out of GRU's control, it is recommended that a decision regarding whether to pursue enforcement for missing the testing deadline be deferred until after the testing is actually completed.

Q: Must NSPS Subpart OOO sources in Kentucky submit notifications and reports to U.S. EPA Region 4?

A: No. Because NSPS subpart OOO has been delegated to the Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection and to the Air Pollution Control District of Jefferson County, submitting notifications and reports to these agencies will be sufficient.

Q: Is an alternative sulfur dioxide monitoring proposal for Units 1 and 2 at the Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA) Northside Generating Station acceptable to comply with NSPS subpart Da?

A: No. In order for the alternative monitoring approach to be approved, it must contain a provision for initiating daily as-fired coal sampling in the event that the 30-day average sulfur dioxide removal efficiency calculated ever drops below 80 percent. In addition, it will be necessary for JEA to measure the pre-control sulfur dioxide emission rate for at least 30 consecutive boiling operating days in order to collect the data needed to satisfy the requirements for an initial performance test.

Q: Is an initial performance testing extension requested by the Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA) for a combustion turbine at its Brandy Branch installation acceptable to comply with NSPS subparts A and GG?

A: No. Because 40 CFR part 60 does not contain provisions for extending the initial performance testing deadlines in 40 CFR 60.8(a), JEA is technically in violation of the requirement to complete an initial performance test within 60 days after reaching the maximum firing rate on Unit 1. Because the turbine operating problems that have delayed the performance testing are largely out of JEA's control, a decision regarding whether to pursue enforcement for missing the testing deadline should be deferred until after the testing is actually completed.

Q: Is an initial performance testing extension requested by the City of Tallahassee for Unit No. 8 at its Purdom Generating Station acceptable to comply with NSPS subparts A and GG?

A: Yes. Unit Number 8 will not be capable of sustained operation until the cause of vibrations during oil firing is identified and corrected. Therefore, the deadline for completing an initial performance can be extended for up to 720 operating hours following the restart of the unit on oil.

Q: Does a gas vent flare, which is sometimes referred to as a “candle flare” because it has a constant sparking device at the flare tip, meet the requirements of 40 CFR 60.18(f)(2)?

A: No. EPA does not consider open (or candle) flares with constant sparking devices to be equivalent to the thermocouple, ultraviolet beam sensor requirements for flares found at 40 CFR 60.18(f)(2).

Q: Is a process printing machine subject to the NSPS subpart RR regulations for pressure sensitive tape and label materials coating?

A: Yes. The printing machine meets the definition of “precoat” under 40 CFR 60.441(a).

Q: Will EPA approve ASTM Test Method D5762-01 to monitor nitrogen content for turbines?

A: Yes. This test method has the necessary reproducibility and repeatability and accuracy to be used in lieu of ASTM Test Method D3228 for the monitoring requirement under NSPS subpart GG.

Q: Will EPA grant a waiver from the initial performance test required in NSPS subpart WWW, for landfill gas used in a large process heater (more than 44 megawatts)? The landfill gas is to be compressed, filtered, and refrigerated before being sent to the process heater.

A: Yes. EPA considers compressing, filtering, and refrigerating landfill gas for use in an energy recovery project to be “treatment” under NSPS subpart WWW. Therefore, no initial performance test is required.

Q: Will EPA approve a 7-day drift test at less than 50% capacity boiler operation to comply with NSPS subpart A?

A: If the normal operation of the boilers is to operate at less than 50% capacity, EPA can approve a lower boiler operation in accordance with statements made in the Agency's Emission Measurement Center Guideline Document covering Appendix B, Performance Specification 2, under the definition of “normal” load.

Q1: Will EPA allow a company with combined-cycle natural gas-fired turbines to sample fuel sulfur content on a quarterly basis during the next 12 months of operation with semiannual monitoring for all subsequent years to comply with NSPS subpart GG?

A1: Yes, but only if pipeline natural gas, as defined in 40 CFR 72.2, is the only fuel being burned. The company must substantiate its request with sulfur monitoring data below the sulfur standard, with little variability. This data must be collected with a test method approved under 40 CFR 60.335(d). The custom fuel monitoring schedule is based on the schedule provided in a 1987 policy memorandum from the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS).

Q2: Will EPA waive the nitrogen fuel monitoring requirement for a facility with combined-cycle natural gas-fired turbines proposes?

A2: Yes. EPA will not require monitoring of fuel nitrogen content while pipeline natural gas, as defined in 40 CFR 72.2, is the only fuel fired in the gas turbine. This is based on a 1987 policy memorandum from OAQPS.

Q1: Will EPA allow a company with combined-cycle natural gas-fired turbines to waive the water-to-fuel monitoring requirement in 40 CFR 60.334(a)?

A1: No. EPA will not waive the water-to-fuel monitoring requirement in 40 CFR 60.334(a). However, EPA will allow the facility to use certified CEMs to monitor NO X emissions as an alternative to monitoring the water-to-fuel ratio to demonstrate compliance with 60.334(a).

Q2: Is it acceptable for a company with combined-cycle natural gas-fired turbines to use ASTM Test Method D 5504-94 to measure the fuel sulfur content?

A2: No. The ASTM test methods that are accepted in 40 CFR 60.335(d) have experimental results for repeatability or reproducibility which ASTM Test Method D 5504-94 and ASTM Test Method D 5504-98 do not.

Q3: Is it acceptable for a company with combined-cycle natural gas-fired turbines to use a custom fuel monitoring schedule?

A3: Yes, but only if pipeline natural gas, as defined in 40 CFR 72.2, is the only fuel being burned. The company must substantiate its request with sulfur monitoring data below the sulfur standard and showing little variability. This data must be collected with a test method approved under 40 CFR 60.335(d). The custom fuel monitoring schedule is based on the schedule provided in a 1987 policy memorandum from the Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards.

Q: May the GPA Test Method 2377-86 be used in lieu of approved ASTM test methods for analyzing the sulfur content of natural gas?

A: Yes. The GPA test method entitled “Test for Hydrogen Sulfide and Carbon Dioxide in Natural Gas Using Length of Stain Tubes” (GPA Standard 2377-86) is an alternative method that EPA has approved for other facilities that combust pipeline quality natural gas.

Q1: May the quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) requirements of part 75 be used to satisfy NSPS QA/QC requirements for CEMs at a boiler unit that operates as a peaker?

A1: Yes. NSPS subpart A requires Relative Accuracy Test Audits (RATA) once every four consecutive calendar quarters for CEMs at a continuously operated boiler unit. For an infrequently operated unit, EPA's Acid Rain Program rules at part 75 may be used in lieu of NSPS requirements, subject to certain conditions.

Q2: May low emission rate criteria adopted under part 75 rules be used during the RATA?

A2: No. In this case, a problem with past RATA testing had been addressed, so it is no longer necessary to rely on the low emission rate provisions.

Q3: May we use diluent capping procedures of part 75?

A3: No. It is better to provide regulatory agencies with the actual data, even when the F-factor used creates an inaccuracy in the emission calculations. Moreover, during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, the source is not subject to the nitrogen oxide emissions standards as set forth at § 60.46a(c). The regulatory agencies will review the data to determine whether the numbers, in fact, represent excess emissions.

Q: How is a landfill that is a Superfund site affected by the Federal Plan for landfills, when it would otherwise be considered subject to the Plan?

A: The site is governed by a Federal consent decree. Through the incorporation of the Record of Decision (ROD), the consent decree establishes the applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) for the landfill in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). The ROD remedy included the installation of a landfill gas collection and control system at the JDF. During future 5-year reviews of the remedy, it may be appropriate to consider some aspect of Federal Plan requirements to ensure that the selected remedy remains protective of human health and the environment.

Q1: Is it acceptable for a company with simple-cycle natural gas-fired turbines to use an on-site sulfur gas chromatograph that uses ASTM Test Method D 5504-94 to measure the fuel sulfur content?

A1: No. The ASTM test methods that are accepted in 60.335(d) have experimental results for repeatability or reproducibility which ASTM D 5504-94 and ASTM D 5504-98 do not.

Q2: Is it acceptable for a company to use the Gas Processors Association (GPA) test method entitled “Test for Hydrogen Sulfide and Carbon Dioxide in Natural Gas Using Length of Stain Tubes” (GPA Standard Test Method 2377-86) as a backup to using the on-site sulfur gas chromatograph and ASTM Test Method D 5504-94 to demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR 60.333(b)?

A2: No. Based on the answer to the first question, EPA will not allow the facility to use GPA Standard Test Method 2377-86 as a backup test method.

Q: How late will EPA accept the Tier 2 and Tier 3 testing options contained in NSPS subpart WWW for municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills?

A: EPA cannot consider Tier 2 or Tier 3 testing after the NSPS final compliance deadline.

Q: Are landfill gases treated by the Krysol gas treatment process subject to the NSPS subpart WWW for municipal solid waste landfills?

A: No. Gases that have been treated by the Krysol gas treatment process, which includes compression, drying, and removal of CO2 and other contaminants, are not subject. Nevertheless, any waste gases that would be vented from the treatment process to the atmosphere, whether vented to the on-site internal combustion engine, the thermal oxidizer, or the open flare, must meet the appropriate control requirements.

Q: Is the proposal to shorten the sampling time for dioxin testing on the medical waste incinerators at the Children's Hospital and at American 3CI from fours hours to one hour acceptable to comply with NSPS subpart Ce?

A: Conditionally acceptable. Based upon the magnitude of the applicable dioxin standard for the facilities in question, the detection limit for a one-hour sample should be low enough for verifying compliance. In order to reduce the possibility that a retest will be needed, however, the testing contractor should verify this using the actual detection limit for the laboratory that will be analyzing the samples from these facilities.

Q1: Do an existing and a new brown stock washer operating in parallel constitute a single affected facility or two separate affected facilities under NSPS subpart BB?

A1: Based upon the definitions in NSPS subpart BB, the parallel brown stock washers constitute a single affected facility.

Q2: If the parallel brown stock washers constitute a single facility, how would modification and reconstruction issues be addressed when the new brown stock washer is installed?

A2: For reconstruction, if the existing brown stock washer is permanently taken out of service, the cost of the new brown stock washer must be considered when determining whether reconstruction has occurred. For modification, an increase in the brown stock washer system throughput or the total reduced sulfur emission rate following the installation of the new brown stock washer would constitute a modification which would trigger the applicability of NSPS subpart BB.

Q: The Berkshire Power, LLC's Agawam, Massachusetts facility is subject to NSPS subpart GG and to the federal Acid Rain requirements in part 75. How should the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MDP) resolve some 40 CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 75 CEM requirement inconsistencies?

A: EPA Region 1 recognizes that for facilities with very low NO X emission limits in their New Source Performance (NSR) /Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permits, some of the relative accuracy limits and ranges in parts 60 and 75 may not be appropriate. After consultation with OAQPS, EPA Region 1 has tried to provide reasonable alternatives in this letter.

Q: Will EPA approve a custom fuel monitoring schedule under NSPS Subpart GG for a facility?

A: Yes. EPA will approve the custom fuel monitoring schedule according to an August 14, 1987, national policy which allows the EPA Regional Offices to approve NSPS subpart GG custom fuel monitoring schedules on a case-by-case basis. In this case, approval is based on the understanding that there is no fuel-bound nitrogen and that the available free nitrogen does not appreciably contribute to NO X emissions.

Q: Will EPA allow the use of an alternate performance test method for stationary gas turbines subject to NSPS Subpart GG?

A: Yes, but only if the probe is designed and conforms to the tests specified in EPA Guideline Document GD-031.

Q: Will EPA allow the use of an alternate performance test method for stationary gas turbines subject to NSPS subpart GG?

A: Yes, but only if the probe is designed and conforms to the tests specified in EPA Guideline Document GD-031.

Q1: Will EPA allow the use of an alternate performance test method for stationary gas turbines subject to NSPS Subpart GG?

A1: Yes. However, EPA must approve modifications to test methods prior to their use. In this case, EPA approves the modification because it believes that this is a minor modification that will generate acceptably accurate data.

Q: Will EPA allow an alternative fuel analysis method for testing nitrogen content in distillate fuel to comply with NSPS subpart GG?

A: Yes. EPA will allow an alternative fuel analysis method, but only if the method can be shown to determine the nitrogen content with an accuracy of within 5 percent. In this case, information the facility submitted to EPA from its laboratory failed to demonstrate that the alternative method could meet the precision criteria.

Q1: At what point in the final disposal process is a final disposal facility violating 40 CFR 82.156(f) if a charged small appliance is found by an EPA inspector during a compliance inspection?

A1: EPA believes that a violation of 40 CFR 82.156(f) occurs if a charged appliance is found after the last reasonable inspection point in the disposal process. EPA also believes that the “final step” in the disposal process may occur even though the disposal facility has not staged an appliance for destruction or placed an appliance in a staging area for destruction.

Q2: Under what circumstance is a statement of evacuation the only verification required under 40 CFR 82.156(f) by a final disposal facility before the final step in the disposal process can occur without violating 40 CFR 82.156(f)? According to the final rule preamble (58 FR 28704) a certification accepted “in good faith” relieves the disposal facility of its liability. If however, the entity “knows or should know that refrigerant remains in the appliance,” it will still be held liable.

A2: The Agency believes that verification statements of evacuation accepted in good faith by a disposal facility satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 82.156(f)(2).

Q3: Is a verification statement required for each and every appliance accepted by the final disposal facility if the facility has a contract with a supplier stipulating that all refrigerant will be removed from appliances prior to delivery? Is a long term (more than 1 shipment) contract all that is required under 40 CFR 82.156(f) as verification of refrigerant evacuation?

A3: If the final disposal facility chooses not to recover remaining refrigerant from appliances, verification must include a signed statement of evacuation from the person from whom the appliance is received. Final disposal facilities may also accept statements of evacuation for shipments of appliances. Regular suppliers to a final disposal facility, with whom long-standing business relationships are maintained, may sign a contract that stipulates that one party has the responsibility to remove refrigerant from equipment before delivery to the facility.

Q4: Is a statement of evacuation accepted under 40 CFR 82.156(f)(2), which is missing any information listed as required in 40 CFR 82.156(f), a violation of 40 CFR 82.156(f)(2)? Does a violation of 40 CFR 82.156(f) occur if a company has or may have the missing information in other company records?

A4: The Safe Disposal Program regulations require that certain specific information must be included as part of any statement of evacuation. 40 CFR 82.156(f)(2) is very clear concerning the information that must be part of any statement of evacuation. Any information required by the regulation that is missing from a statement of evacuation is a violation of 40 CFR 82.156(f)(2).

Q5: Are there any circumstances under which a final disposal facility would be violating the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of 40 CFR 82.156(f) if an empty small appliance is found by an EPA inspector in a staging area during a compliance inspection?

A5: For empty appliances, as for all appliances, the disposal facility must recover the refrigerant or obtain a signed statement which meets the requirements of 40 CFR 82.156(f)(2) from the person delivering the appliance. This statement must be obtained prior to placing the appliance in the final staging area for disposal.

Q: Would EPA classify the John Zink Gasoline Vapor Combustion Unit as a thermal oxidization system or a flare?

A: In previous applicability determinations for similar units, EPA has determined that these types of units should be classified as thermal oxidation systems. Therefore, these units are subject to the temperature monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 63.427(a)(3). EPA had only intended for the flare monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 63.427(a)(4) to apply to open flame flares.

Q: If a facility purchases fibers (wood pulp, cotton, fiber glass, burlap, and hemp) and additives to produce a variety of paper products, but the paper mill neither produces virgin pulp nor operates a bleach system, is it subject to NESHAP subpart S?

A. No. If the paper mill does not contain a pulping or bleaching system as defined 40 CFR 63.441, then the mill does not contain an affected source as defined under NESHAP subpart S, and the facility is not subject to NESHAP subpart S.

Q: Does NESHAP subpart RRR apply to stand-alone aluminum shredding devices where no further processing or charging is done on-site or at another facility?

A: No. The stand-alone aluminum shredding device would not meet the definition of “aluminum scrap shredder” at 40 CFR 63.1503 and would not be subject to NESHAP subpart RRR.

Q: Are tar pitch traps in metallurgical coke plants subject to 40 CFR part 61, subparts L and V?

A: Based on the information submitted in this case, the tar decanter pitch traps are not subject to either NESHAP subpart L or NESHAP subpart V as the amount of benzene in the stream is not high enough to qualify as “in benzene service” under NESHAP subpart V and the equipment is not a tar decanter, tar intercepting sump or tar storage tank as understood by NESHAP subpart L.

Q: Will EPA approve alternative monitoring procedures under subpart GG for stationary gas turbines used for peaking purposes?

A: Yes. EPA will approve alternative monitoring procedures consistent with its 1987 Policy on custom fuel monitoring plans. Approval in this case is contingent on the fact that only clean fuels will be combusted (as specified in State permits) and that a certified Continuous Emission Monitoring system will be used.

Q: Will EPA allow QVC, Inc. to do monthly rather than daily fuel usage monitoring under NSPS subpart Dc?

A: Yes. Under circumstances such as those in this case, EPA has allowed the use of monthly rather than daily fuel usage monitoring for very small boilers combusting natural gas as the primary fuel.

Q: Does EPA consider an air curtain incinerator located at a residential construction site a commercial or industrial facility under NSPS subpart CCCC?

A: No. EPA has determined that an air curtain incinerator located at a residential construction site is not considered an industrial or commercial “facility” since the incinerator is not permanently located at the site. Neither is the residential construction site itself a permanent industrial or commercial “facility”. Therefore, NSPS subpart CCCC, the commercial and industrial solid waste incineration regulations, do not apply to the air curtain incinerator at the residential construction site.

Q: Will EPA allow a source to conduct the initial NO X performance testing at base load only instead of at all four loads under NSPS subpart GG?

A: Yes. EPA will allow the testing to be conducted at base load only under the following conditions: the turbine burns pipeline natural gas, the NO X CEM system provides a continuous record of emissions, and the base load is the peak load.

Q1: Will EPA allow a source to conduct the initial NO X performance testing at base load only instead of at all four loads under NSPS subpart GG?

A1: Yes. EPA will allow the testing to be conducted at base load only under the following conditions: the turbine burns pipeline natural gas, the NO X CEM system provides a continuous record of emissions, and the base load is the peak load.

Q2: Will EPA approve the use of a CEM to monitor NO X emissions on a source which uses water injection to control NO X and be required to continuously correct the data to ISO standard ambient conditions?

A2: Yes. EPA approves the use of a CEM, and the source does not have to correct the CEM data to ISO standards because it has demonstrated that the emissions are well below the standard.

Q3: Will EPA allow semiannual monitoring frequency for sulfur content under a custom fuel monitoring plan?

A3: Yes. If the source has demonstrated low data variability and sulfur content results which are below the standard and follows a schedule.

Q: Is a sulfuric acid plant that is installed as a control device for sulfur dioxide emissions from a molybdenum ore roasting operation subject to NSPS subpart H?

A: No. The definition for “sulfuric acid production unit” in NSPS subpart H does not include facilities where a sulfuric acid plant is used “primarily” to control sulfur dioxide emissions. However, this determination is subject to reevaluation if a significant change occurs at the facility in question. In addition, EPA Region 7 clarifies and corrects a previous determination for this facility made with input from the Office of Enforcement and Compliance (OECA). In a letter to Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) dated June 3, 1996, EPA stated that the exemption in the definition of “sulfuric acid production unit” in NSPS subpart H applied to acid plants used only as an emission control device and that the introduction of any elemental sulfur would change the acid plant from an emission control device to a sulfuric acid production process. The guidance provided by OECA at that time was derived from a narrow application of the regulation, without any research into the background documents or the process chemistry involved in acid production plants, both for production and process control. Therefore, this interpretation supercedes and corrects the previous one.

Q1. Does a change in liquid service of a storage vessel at a facility from a low vapor pressure material (stormwater or diesel fuel) to a high vapor pressure material (crude oil or gasoline) constitute a modification under 40 CFR 60.14?

A1. In recent determinations, EPA found the activity of a petroleum vessel storage facility changing the type of petroleum product stored ( i.e. , diesel fuel to gasoline) was equivalent to the use of an alternative fuel and exempted from the definition of modification as provided in 40 CFR 60.14(e)(4). These determinations were based on the assumption that petroleum products were essentially equivalent and, therefore, any petroleum storage vessel could reasonably accommodate an alternative petroleum product. Please note that EPA's determinations only pertained to petroleum storage vessels. A storage vessel converting from water or other non-petroleum liquid storage over to petroleum storage would not be exempted from the NSPS modification definition. With regard to the example, EPA would find the activity of a vessel changing from diesel fuel storage to gasoline storage was not a modification as defined in 40 CFR 60.14 and, therefore, the vessel would not be subject to the NSPS subpart Kb.

Q2. What are the specific criteria for determining whether a vessel was designed to accommodate an alternative use? If the original construction specifications are not available, how is such a determination made?

A2. EPA did not develop any specific criteria for determining if a fuel storage vessel could accommodate an alternative petroleum material in these determinations. As described previously, EPA's determinations centered on assuming that petroleum products are similar and that a petroleum storage vessel could reasonably accommodate different types of petroleum products. However, if EPA did receive a request for a determination on a specific storage vessel significantly altering its design to accommodate an alternative petroleum product, EPA may adjust its determination considering the specific facts of the case.

Q. Is the electrode process line of a facility that produces medical EKG electrodes subject to the requirements of the NSPS subpart RR?

A. Yes. Upon review, EPA finds that the electrode process line would be subject to the requirements of NSPS subpart RR. The subpart's applicability provision states the provisions of this subpart apply to an affected facility whose coating line is used in the manufacture of pressure sensitive tape and label materials. Pressure sensitive tape includes “any” adhesive that coats a web substrate including adhesive gels with pressure sensitive properties. Our understanding is that the medical EKG electrode uses an adhesive gel and is applied to the skin through pressure. Consequently, the Region has determined that NSPS subpart RR is applicable to the process line producing these electrodes.

Q. A facility has modified two 13.9 MMBtu/hr wood-fired boilers. Would the boiler modifications constitute a modification as defined in NSPS subpart A, and thereby, make the facility subject to NSPS subpart Dc?

A. No. The physical changes do not constitute a modification as specified in 40 CFR 60.14. Thus, the boilers at issue are not subject to the requirements of NSPS subpart Dc. The physical modifications of the boilers increased their heat input capacity and likewise their potential to emit for all pollutants; however, pollution prevention controls were simultaneously instituted that in fact caused a reduction of particulate matter emission rate. Sulfur dioxide emission rates were increased by increasing the heat input capacity of the wood-fired boilers; however, sulfur dioxide emissions from wood-fired boilers are relatively small (.02 lb/MMBtu) and in fact are not covered by the sulfur dioxide standard of NSPS subpart Dc that pertains only to units using coal or oil fuel. Thus, the sulfur dioxide emission rates are not applicable to these wood-fired boilers and the physical changes do not constitute a modification.

Q. A facility submitted an amendment application to its air emissions license for the replacement of the existing tangential overfire air system in Power Boiler No. 1 with an “Opposed Wall” system. Does this replacement constitute an NSPS modification as defined in 40 CFR 60.14?

A. No. This project is not considered a modification and is exempt from additional NSPS requirements. This system does not affect any of the emission limits nor does it increase emissions nor increase the production capacity of the boiler. Replacements such as this are not considered modifications and are exempt from NSPS requirements.

Q1. Do internal costs of engineering and installation constitute “fixed capital costs” even though a company would typically not capitalize them, or are only external contractor and consultant fees counted as fixed capital costs under 40 CFR part 60, subpart A?

A1. In a May 11, 1998 applicability determination pertaining to reconstruction costs, EPA stated that the engineering, purchase and installation costs, and contractor fees should be included in the affected facility reconstruction costs ( i.e. , fixed capital cost) to the extent that they are associated with reconstruction of affected process equipment.

Q2. Do the repair and ultimate replacement of a rear boiler wall constitute “fixed capital costs” even though these costs were expensed?

A2. The failed repair attempts should not be included in fixed capital costs; however, the costs of actual replacement of the rear boiler wall should be included in the fixed capital costs.

Q3. What is meant by “comparable entirely new facility” in the definition of reconstruction under NSPS subpart A? When evaluating the costs associated with a comparable entirely new facility to replace the boiler, should the cost of installing a low NO X burner be included?

A3. The term “comparable entirely new facility” would consist of a new boiler with identical components to the repaired boiler. Reconstruction calculations do not include air pollution control equipment; therefore, the source would not include the cost of installing low NO X burners on the new facility unless they are being added to the existing facility.

Q. Is a Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) facility that produces heavy liquid chemicals only from heavy liquid feed or raw material subject to the NSPS subpart VV?

A. Yes. The SOCMI facility is subject to NSPS subpart VV. However, the facility only needs to comply with the recordkeeping and reporting provisions of NSPS subpart VV since it meets the exemption definition under 40 CFR 60.480(d)(3). In addition, the facility is exempt from the SOCMI facility standard in 40 CFR 60.482 since it produces heavy liquid chemicals only from heavy liquid feed or raw material as defined in 40 CFR 60.480(d)(3).

The purpose of Wetland Development Grants is to assist States, Tribes, and Local Governments with developing new wetland programs or refining existing wetland programs, and NOT for operational support of wetland programs. Reviewers will pay special attention to the project's longevity and self-sustaining ability. Additional points may be given to implementation projects that actually demonstrate protection, restoration or enhancement of wetlands. If a proposal does not meet EPA Headquarters or Region 6 priorities, the proposal will not be ranked. The following types of projects will be considered for funding:

• Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP): Projects relating to meeting wetland goals set forth within the plan, namely a net increase of 100,000 acres per year by the year 2005. Preference will be given to projects that seek to develop self-sustaining, naturally functioning wetland systems.(web page: http://www.cleanwater.gov )

• Watershed Projects:

a. Wetland components of established watershed plans

b. Coastal wetland protection/restoration especially within estuaries areas

• Targeted (but not limited) Wetland Types: projects relating to the protection /restoration of riparian areas, sea grasses, and bottomland hardwoods.

• Stream Management:

a. Alternatives to traditional engineering ( i.e. such as development of natural stream patterned profiles instead of trapezoidal channels; use of vegetated natural materials for bank stabilization instead of harder structures like rip rap or concrete)

b. Utilizing alternative techniques such as applied fluvial geomorphology

c. Stream management education to include such activities as training and planning in urban/suburban areas

d. Formation of stream team (interagency workgroups designed to evaluate stream modification projects during planning phase) to work with local planning officials to protect/restore streams and wetlands by the use of demonstration projects

• Continued Development and Implementation of Wetland Protection Programs: specifically projects that seek to develop and/or implement statewide/tribal-nationwide programs to assess and monitor overall wetland health and for programs that protect or restore wetlands with the active involvement of local communities. Also, State/Tribal development of wetland assessment/monitoring tools to be utilized in a formal program to assess and monitor overall wetland health.

• Protection of “SWANCC” isolated wetlands through the development of State, Tribal or Local government regulations incentives and/or long term conservation measures.

• Development and Implementation of Tribal Wetlands and Stream Corridor Conservation Plans: emphasis on wetlands, riparian and stream resources.

Recognizing the importance of public education in wetland protection and management, Region 6 has sought to help S/T/LG improve the public's access to, and education about wetland information. WPDG projects can be used to develop outreach programs, and can also be used to create innovative educational tools for the public. The production of outreach materials alone is not eligible for funding.

a. Programs which are designed to increase awareness and the importance of wetlands to local governments, general public, landowners, and private sector through the use of partnerships, training and/or seminars.

b. Programs which promote wetland education in schools, universities, and youth organizations.

c. Examples of past outreach/education projects funded through the WPDG include:

a. Projects must involve diverse partnerships of ideally five organizations (private sector government, or non-government), that contribute funding, land, technical assistance workforce support, and/or other in-kind services.

b. Projects may be a discrete part of a larger restoration effort.

c. Preference will be given to projects that are part of a larger watershed or community stewardship effort; include specific provisions for long-term management and projection; and demonstrate the value of innovative, collaborative approaches to restoring the nation's waters.

d. Projects must include a strong on-the-ground wetland or riparian component, and should also include education, outreach and community stewardship.

e. Projects must demonstrate measurable ecological, educational, social and/or economic benefits resulting from the completion of the project.

f. Projects that are part of a mitigation requirement are NOT eligible for funding.

September 16, 2002—Target Date for Region 6 to distribute grant solicitation notice.

August 1, 2002-October 11, 2002—Region 6 staff has set-aside this time to assist applicants in preparing more competitive proposals. Contact Donna Mullins 214-665-7576.

November 1, 2002—Proposals must be POSTMARKED by this date, or they will not be accepted. Certified mail is recommended, and keep documentation.

November 12, 2002-December 31, 2002—Review Committee evaluates proposals.

January 24, 2003—Letters are sent requesting formal applications from selected proposals.

March 14, 2002—Formal applications must be POSTMARKED by this date, or they will not be accepted. Certified mail is recommended and keep documentation.

April-July 2003—Awarding of grants and Congressional notification to recipients.

A proposal is different from a work plan. Region 6 staff has set-aside August 1, 2002 through October 11, 2002 to assist applicants in preparing a more competitive proposal. Please contact Ms. Donna Mullins at 214-665-7576 to arrange for a pre-proposal meeting/review. If you are unsure of any section or criteria, please call Region 6 BEFORE you submit your package. Keep in mind this is a competitive process, and adherence to the proposal guidelines is part of the selection criteria. As a front cover for the proposal, please use the form below. The cover does not count as a page. The proposal should contain the following information, with a maximum of five (5) one sided pages:

1. Title;

2. Introduction with brief background, goals, and objectives;

3. Overview of project, listing each task and deliverable. Give specific information concerning the task, explaining how it will be accomplished, how it relates to the overall project, and how the progress will be monitored;

4. A plan view map (this will not count as one of the five pages);

5. Any use of contractors must be included and explained. Guidance precludes greater than a 50% pass through to contractors, and specifies significant involvement of grant recipient.

6. Proposed costs, broken down by task, including contractor's costs by task;

7. Identify measures of success, including clear milestones with expected dates. Include the number of wetland acres affected by project;

8. Include a public participation element (40 CFR part 25) in the proposal which reflects how public participation will be provided, encouraged, and assisted. Include a full description of its interagency and public participation process. This process should go beyond the input stage and include information and methods of sharing throughout the project period;

9. There should be concrete demonstration of coordination/partnership among various agencies. This can be accomplished in various ways, including a written agreement with agencies outlining responsibilities and commitment to the project; and,

10. Region 6 requires a 25% match of the total project cost. The proposal needs to show the Federal assistance amount you are requesting from EPA, 25% minimum agency match, and the total amount for the project. Use the following formula: requested EPA amount divided by 75% equals the total amount for the project. Subtract the EPA amount from the total, and that is the minimum, required match. Your match may exceed 25%. (EXAMPLE: EPA amount $50,000; project total is $66,667; required 25% match is $16,667)

11. Explain if your agency has a Quality Management Plan (QMP). If you project contains environmental measurements, a QMP must be approved by EPA before any money can be awarded.

12. Identify if there are any known threatened or endangered species and/or cultural resource concerns.

This action is directed to the public in general. Although this action may be of particular interest to persons who are interested in the progress and status of EPA's pesticide reregistration and tolerance reassessment programs, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the information in this notice, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Electronically . You may obtain electronic copies of this document and various support documents from the EPA Internet website, www.epa.gov. On EPA's home page, select “Laws and Regulations,” and then look up the entry for this document under “ Federal Register —Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. To access information about pesticide reregistration, go to the home page for the Office of Pesticide Programs at www.epa.gov/pesticides and select “Reregistration” under “Topics,” at the top of the screen, or go directly to www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/.

2. In person . The official record for this notice, as well as the public version, has been established under docket ID number [OPP-2002-0121] (including comments and data submitted electronically as described below). A public version of this record, including printed, paper versions of any electronic comments, which does not include any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI), is available for inspection in Room 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 Public Information and Records Integrity Branch telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically:

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

2. In person . Deliver written comments to Public Information and Records Integrity Branch, in Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.

3. Electronically . Submit your comments and/or data electronically to opp-docket@epa.gov . Please note that you should not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Comment and data will also be accepted on disks in Wordperfect 6.1/8.0/9.0 or ASCII file format. All comments and data in electronic form must be identified by the docket ID number [OPP-20002-0121]. Electronic comments on this notice may also be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

You may claim information that you submit in response to this document as confidential 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. A copy of the comment that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public docket by EPA without prior notice.

EPA must establish and publish in the Federal Register its annual performance measures and goals for pesticide reregistration, tolerance reassessment, and expedited registration, under section 4(l) of FIFRA, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). Specifically, such measures and goals are to include:

• The status of reregistration.

• The number of products reregistered, canceled, or amended.

• The number and type of data requests or Data Call-In (DCI) notices under section 3(c)(2)(B) issued to support product reregistration by active ingredient.

• Progress in reducing the number of unreviewed, required reregistration studies.

• The aggregate status of tolerances reassessed.

• The number of applications for registration submitted under subsection (k)(3), expedited processing and review of similar applications, that were approved or disapproved.

• The future schedule for reregistrations in the current and succeeding fiscal year.

• The projected year of completion of the reregistrations under section 4.

FIFRA, as amended in 1988, authorizes EPA to conduct a comprehensive pesticide reregistration program--a complete review of the human health and environmental effects of older pesticides originally registered before November 1, 1984. Pesticides meeting today's scientific and regulatory standards may be declared “eligible” for reregistration. To be eligible, an older pesticide must have a substantially complete data base, and must not cause unreasonable adverse effects to human health or the environment when used according to Agency approved label directions and precautions.

In addition, all pesticides with food uses must meet the safety standard of section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) 21 U.S.C. 346a, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. Under FFDCA, EPA must make a determination that pesticide residues remaining in or on food are “safe”; that is, “that there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue” from dietary and other sources. In determining allowable levels of pesticide residues in food, EPA must perform a more comprehensive assessment of each pesticide's risks, considering:

• Aggregate exposure (from food, drinking water, and residential uses).

• Cumulative effects from all pesticides sharing a common mechanism of toxicity.

• Possible increased susceptibility of infants and children; and

• Possible endocrine or estrogenic effects.

As amended by FQPA, FFDCA requires the reassessment of all existing tolerances (pesticide residue limits in food) and tolerance exemptions within 10 years, to ensure that they meet the safety standard of the law. EPA was directed to give priority to the review of those pesticides that appear to pose the greatest risk to public health, and to reassess 33% of the 9,721 existing tolerances and exemptions within 3 years (by August 3, 1999), 66% within 6 years (by August 3, 2002), and 100% in 10 years (by August 3, 2006). (Note: Although the total number of tolerances existing on August 3, 1996, and subject to FQPA reassessment was initially reported as 9,728, that number has been corrected to 9,721, based on the Agency's Tolerance Reassessment Tracking System.)

EPA is meeting the FFDCA's tolerance reassessment requirements through reregistration and several other program activities. In making reregistration eligibility decisions, the Agency also is completing much of tolerance reassessment, within the time frames mandated by the new law. EPA reassessed the first 33% of all food tolerances by August 3, 1999, and the second 33% of all food tolerances by August 3, 2002. EPA is focusing particularly on priority Group 1 pesticides, those identified as posing the greatest potential risks. Over half of the universe of tolerances to be reassessed are included in this category, including tolerances for the organophosphate (OP) pesticides, the Agency's highest priority for review. Carbamate, organochlorine, and B2 (probable human) carcinogen pesticides also are included in priority Group 1. Although EPA is directing most of its resources toward this group, a number of Group 1 pesticides will nevertheless be reassessed in the third 33% owing to the challenging issues they present. EPA's approach to tolerance reassessment under FFDCA, including the three priority Groups, is described fully in the Agency's document, “Raw and Processed Food Schedule for Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment” (62 FR 42020, August 4, 1997) (FRL-5734-6).

One of the hallmarks of the FQPA amendments to the FFDCA is enhanced accountability. Through this summary of performance measures and goals for pesticide reregistration, tolerance reassessment, and expedited registration, EPA describes progress made during each of the past 2 years in each of the program areas included in FIFRA section 4(l).

During fiscal years (FYs) 2000 and 2001 (from October 1, 1999, through September 30, 2001), EPA made significant progress in completing risk assessments and risk management decisions for the OP pesticides, the Agency's highest priority chemicals for reregistration and tolerance reassessment, and for other pesticides. See Table 1.

The Agency's decisions are embodied in Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) documents, Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (IREDs), or Reports on FQPA Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Interim Risk Management Decisions (TREDs).

1. REDs . Through the reregistration program, EPA is reviewing current scientific data for older pesticides (those initially registered before November 1984), reassessing their effects on human health and the environment, and requiring risk mitigation measures as necessary. Pesticides that have sufficient supporting data and whose risks can be successfully mitigated may be declared “eligible” for reregistration. EPA presents these pesticide findings in a RED document.

i. Overall RED progress . EPA's overall progress at the end of FY 2000 and FY 2001 in completing Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (REDs) is summarized in Table 2.

ii. Profile of completed REDs . A profile of the 204 REDs completed by the end of FY 2000 and 207 REDs completed by the end of FY 2001 is presented in Table 3.

iii. Risk reduction in REDs . Reducing pesticide risks is an important aspect of the reregistration program. In developing REDs, EPA works with stakeholders including pesticide registrants, growers, and other pesticide users, environmental and public health interests, the States, USDA and other Federal agencies, and others to develop voluntary measures or regulatory controls needed to effectively reduce risks of concern. Almost every RED includes some measures or modifications to reduce risks. The options for such risk reduction are extensive and include voluntary cancellation of pesticide products or deletion of uses; declaring certain uses ineligible or not yet eligible (and then proceeding with follow-up action to cancel the uses or require additional supporting data); restricting use of products to certified applicators; limiting the amount or frequency of use; improving use directions and precautions; adding more protective clothing and equipment requirements; requiring special packaging or engineering controls; requiring no-treatment buffer zones; employing ground water, surface water, or other environmental and ecological safeguards; and other measures.

2. Interim REDs or IREDs . EPA issues IREDs for pesticides that are undergoing reregistration, require a reregistration eligibility decision, and also must be included in a cumulative assessment under FQPA because they are part of a group of pesticides that share a common mechanism of toxicity. An IRED is issued for each individual pesticide in the cumulative group when EPA completes the pesticide's risk assessment and risk management decision. An IRED may include measures to reduce food, drinking water, residential, occupational, and/or ecological risks, to gain the benefit of these changes before the final RED can be issued following the Agency's consideration of cumulative risks. For example, EPA generally will not consider individual OP or N-methyl carbamate pesticide decisions to be completed REDs or tolerance reassessments, but instead will issue IREDs for these chemicals until the cumulative risks of the OPs or carbamates have been considered.

3. Tolerance reassessment “TREDs.” EPA also issues Reports on FFDCA Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Interim Risk Management Decisions, known as TREDs, for pesticides that require tolerance reassessment decisions under FFDCA, but do not require a reregistration eligibility decision at present because:

• The pesticide was first registered after November 1984 and is considered a “new” active ingredient, not subject to reregistration (e.g., oxadixyl in FY 2001);

• EPA completed a RED for the pesticide before FQPA was enacted (e.g., trichlorfon); or

• The pesticide is not registered for use in the U.S. but tolerances are established that allow crops treated with the pesticide to be imported from other countries (for example, mevinphos).

5. Goals for FY 2002 and FY 2003 . EPA's major pesticide reregistration and tolerance reassessment goals for FY 2002 and FY 2003 are as follows.

i. Complete individual pesticide risk management decisions . EPA's goal in conducting the reregistration and tolerance reassessment program was to complete about 30 Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (REDs) in FY 2002, and about 17 REDs in FY 2003. Candidate pesticides for these and other individual pesticide decisions are listed near the end of this document.

ii. Consider OP and other cumulative risks . EPA began developing methods for cumulative risk assessment several years ago and components of a cumulative risk assessment for the OP pesticides in FY 2001. This effort continued through FY 2002. In addition to completing risk assessments and risk management decisions for most individual OP pesticides, the Agency issued the preliminary OP cumulative risk assessment in December 2001 ( see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/pra-op/ ). After considering public comment, stakeholder input, and the results of additional scientific review, EPA issued a revised OP cumulative risk assessment in June 2002, and expects to consider OP cumulative risks during 2002. The Agency then may issue final reregistration eligibility and tolerance reassessment decisions for individual OP pesticides with IREDs and TREDs. Consideration of the cumulative risks of N-methylcarbamates, chloroacetanilides, and perhaps other common mechanism groups of pesticides will follow. For further information, see EPA's cumulative risk website, http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.htm .

iii. Complete 66% of tolerance reassessment decisions . EPA is continuing to reassess tolerances within time frames set forth in FFDCA as amended by FQPA, building on the reassessment of 33% of existing tolerances by August 3, 1999, and giving priority to those food use pesticides that appear to pose the greatest risk. The Agency successfully reached its next tolerance reassessment milestone by completing 66% of all tolerance reassessment decisions by August 3, 2002. Integration of the reregistration and tolerance reassessment programs has added complexity to the reregistration process for food use pesticides.

At the end of the reregistration process, after EPA has issued a RED and declared a pesticide reregistration case eligible for reregistration, individual end-use products that contain pesticide active ingredients included in the case still must be reregistered. This concluding part of the reregistration process is called “product reregistration.”

In issuing a completed RED document, EPA calls in any product-specific data and revised labeling needed to make final reregistration decisions for each of the individual pesticide products covered by the RED. Based on the results of EPA's review of these data and labeling, products found to meet FIFRA and FFDCA standards may be reregistered.

A variety of outcomes are possible for pesticide products completing this final phase of the reregistration process. Ideally, in response to the DCI notice accompanying the RED document, the pesticide producer, or registrant, will submit the required product-specific data and revised labeling, which EPA will review and find acceptable. At that point, the Agency may reregister the pesticide product. If, however, the product contains multiple active ingredients, the Agency instead issues an amendment to the product's registration, incorporating the labeling changes specified in the RED; a product with multiple active ingredients may not be fully reregistered until the last active ingredient in its formulation is eligible for reregistration. In other situations, the Agency may temporarily suspend a product's registration if the registrant has not submitted required product-specific studies within the time frame specified. The Agency may cancel a product's registration because the registrant did not pay the required registration maintenance fee. Alternatively, the registrant may request a voluntary cancellation of their end-use product registration.

1. Product reregistration actions in FY 2000 and FY 2001 . EPA counts each of the post-RED product outcomes described above as a product reregistration action. A single pesticide product may be the subject of several product reregistration actions within the same year. For example, a product's registration initially may be amended, then the product may be reregistered, and later the product may be voluntarily canceled, all within the same year. During FY 2000 and FY 2001, EPA completed the product reregistration actions detailed in Table 4. The program's goal has been to complete 750 product reregistration actions each fiscal year.

2. Status of the product reregistration universe . The status of the universe of pesticide products subject to reregistration at the end of FY 2000 and FY 2001 is shown in Table 5 below. This overall status information is not “cumulative”--it is not derived from summing up a series of annual actions. Adding annual actions would result in a larger overall number since each individual product is subject to multiple actions--it can be amended, reregistered, and/or canceled, over time. Instead, the “big picture” status information in Table 5 should be considered a snapshot in time. As registrants and EPA make marketing and regulatory decisions in the future, the status of individual products may change, and numbers in this table are expected to fluctuate.

The universe of 7,255 products in product reregistration at the end of FY 2000 represented an increase of 210 products from the FY 1999 universe of 7,045 products. The increase consists of 108 products associated with FY 2000 REDs, and 96 products associated with IREDs, plus 6 products that were added as a result of DCI activities and processing for two previously issued REDs.

The universe of 7,872 products in product reregistration at the end of FY 2001 represents an increase of 617 products from the FY 2000 universe of 7,255 products. The increase consists of 75 products associated with FY 2001 REDs, and 523 products associated with IREDs, plus 19 products that were added as a result of DCI activities and processing for a previously-issued RED (thiobencarb).

At the end of FY 2000, 2,652 products had product reregistration decisions pending. At the end of FY 2001, this number had been reduced to 2,405 products. Some pending products await science reviews, label reviews, or reregistration decisions by EPA. Others are not yet ready for product reregistration actions; they are associated with more recently completed REDs, and their product-specific data are not yet due to be submitted to or reviewed by the Agency. EPA's goal again is to complete 750 product reregistration actions during fiscal year 2002.

3. Pre-RED product-specific actions for chlorpyrifos . During FY 2000 and FY 2001, EPA devoted considerable resources to implementing the June 2000 agreement with registrants to phase out and cancel many uses of the OP pesticide, chlorpyrifos. Although the Agency had not yet completed an IRED or RED for chlorpyrifos when the agreement was signed, approximately 840 individual chlorpyrifos products required cancellation, replacement, and/or amendment within specific time frames. Timely completion of these actions was essential to successfully implementing the chlorpyrifos agreement and achieving the desired risk mitigation measures. Devoting staff time and resources to the chlorpyrifos project reduced the Agency's ability to complete routine product reregistration actions during FY 2000 and FY 2001. EPA succeeded, however, in completing all necessary chlopyrifos product-specific actions and decisions by early in 2002.

1. DCIs for REDs . The number and type of data requests or DCIs that EPA issued under FIFRA section 3(c)(2)(B) to support product reregistration for pesticide active ingredients included in FY 2000 and FY 2001 REDs are shown in Table 6. For the first time, OMB clearance was required and obtained in issuing the FY 2001 REDs and IREDs. Since the Ethyl Parathion, Benomyl, and Ethion REDs consisted of voluntary cancellations, products containing these pesticides will not be reregistered and therefore do not require DCIs.

2. DCIs for IREDs . The number and type of data requests or DCIs issued by EPA to support product reregistration for pesticide active ingredients included in FY 2000 and FY 2001 Interim REDs (IREDs) are shown in Table 7.