Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given that the Department of Agriculture, in consultation with the Department of the Interior, intends to renew the Provincial Advisory Committees (PACs), which will advise the Provincial Interagency Executive Committee (PIEC). The purpose of the PIEC is to facilitate the coordinated implementation of the Record of Decision (ROD) of April 13, 1994, for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. The PIEC consists of representatives of some or all of the following Federal agencies: Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Division, Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Ecosystem management at the province level requires improved coordination among governmental entities responsible for land management decisions and the public those agencies serve. Each PAC will provide advice and recommendations regarding implementation to promote integration and coordination of forest management activities between Federal and non-Federal entities. Each PAC will provide advice regarding implementation of a comprehensive ecosystem management strategy for Federal land within a province (provinces are defined in the ROD at E19).

The chair of each PAC will alternate annually between representatives of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. When the Bureau of Land Management is not represented on the PIEC, the Forest Service representative will serve as chair. The chair, or a designated agency employee, will serve as the Designated Federal Officer under sections 10(e) and (f) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.). Any vacancies on the committee will be filled in the manner in which the original appointment was made.

A meeting notice will be published in the Federal Register within 15 to 45 days before a scheduled meeting date. All meetings are generally open to the public and may include a “public forum” that may offer 5-10 minutes for participants to present comments to the advisory committee. Alternates may choose not to be active during this session on the agenda. The chair of the given committee ultimately makes the decision whether to offer time on the agenda for the public to speak to the general body.

Renewal of the PACs does not require an amendment of Bureau of Land Management or Forest Service planning documents because the renewal does not affect the standards and guidelines or land allocations. The Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service will provide further notice, as needed, for additional actions or adjustments when implementing interagency coordination, public involvement, and other aspects of the ROD.

Equal opportunity practices will be followed in all appointments to the advisory committee. To ensure that the recommendations of the PACs have taken into account the needs of diverse groups served by the Departments, membership will, to the extent practicable, include individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities.

The International Meat and Poultry Food Safety Conference will be an open forum to provide information on challenges faced by the international food safety community and varying approaches to the control of such challenges. Increased international trade in food products presents unique challenges in ensuring food safety. Meeting consumer expectations is a challenge facing food manufacturers and food regulators alike.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service will sponsor the International Meat and Poultry Food Safety Conference. This conference will allow experts and stakeholders to engage in an interactive sharing and learning experience, and to gain information and ideas to support the common goal of enhancing global food safety. The conference will be divided into three main sections: regional perspectives, scientific perspectives, and assistance and outreach. Examples of topics include a global perspective on multi-drug resistant pathogens, experiences with assisting small plants in meeting food safety requirements, and biosecurity. Speakers from various countries and international organizations are being invited.

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

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

Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose of this action is to authorize livestock grazing within the West Fork Blacks Fork Allotment to achieve the desired future conditions identified in the Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan. The action is needed because some areas (alpine benches) within the allotment do not meet ground cover standards. There is scientific debate about why these areas do not have adequate ground cover and how they should be managed. The allotment management plan developed from this analysis will emphasize management for healthy riparian, upland, and alpine ecosystems. Most of this allotment was incorporated into the High Uintas Wilderness under the Utah Wilderness Act of 1984. This Act incorporated Section 108 of the Colorado Wilderness Act which included House Committee Report Language stating: “* * * there shall be no curtailment of grazing permits or privileges in an area simply because it is designated as wilderness”. If approved, the Wasatch-Cache National Forest would authorize grazing through term grazing permits for up to 10 years. The EIS will be designed to satisfy the requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and implementing regulations (43 CFR 2310.1). A number of laws provide direction for grazing on public lands, including the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act (1960), the Wilderness Act (1964), the Utah Wilderness Act (1984), the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (1974), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (1976), and the National Forest Management Act (1976). The Wasatch-Cache National Forest LRMP also contains provisions to implement this direction.

The Forest Service proposes to authorize continued grazing on National Forest Systems lands on the West Fork Blacks Fork sheep allotment within the West Fork Blacks Fork watershed. Sheep grazing would continue during the period of 7/6 to 9/15 each year under a four pasture deferred grazing system meeting the direction in the Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan. Following an agreement with the grazing permittee in 1999, half of the highest unit has been rested each year with an accompanying reduction in sheep months to compensate for the sheep months of forage not available for grazing in the rested portion. This change allows 1075 sheep to graze 7/6-9/15 under deferred rotation system with planned rest for the alpine area. Half of the alpine unit is rested each year and each half receives rest for two consecutive years. This agreement resulted in a reduction of 175 sheep * from what was allowed under the current West Fork Blacks Fork Allotment Management Plan.

The updated direction will be incorporated into the allotment management plan and the term grazing permit to guide grazing management within the allotment during the coming decade, or until amendments are warranted based on changed conditions or monitoring.

In addition to the proposed action we have tentatively identified two alternatives:

—No Grazing Alternative: Eliminate permitted grazing on the West Fork-Blacks Fork Allotment except for one trail herd that uses the allotment as an access route to the Ashley National Forest.

—Eliminate Grazing on Unit 4 of the Grazing Allotment: Continue to graze sheep under a three pasture deferred grazing system meeting Forest Plan direction. This charge allows 900 sheep to graze 7/6-9/15, a reduction of 300 sheep from the numbers allowed under the current West Fork Blacks Fork Allotment Management Plan

Thomas L. Tidwell, Forest Supervisor, Wasatch-Cache National Forest, USDA Forest Service, 8236 Federal Building, 125 South State Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84138, is the Responsible Official for any decision to authorize grazing and manage rangelands on the allotment within the West Fork Blacks Fork watershed on National Forest system lands. He will document his decisions and rationale in a Record of Decision.

Based upon the environmental analysis in the EIS the Forest Supervisor will decide whether or not to authorize sheep grazing on the West Fork Blacks Fork Allotment, and if so under what conditions.

The public is encouraged to take part in the scoping process and is encouraged to visit with Forest Service officials at any time during the analysis and prior to the decision. The Forest Service will be seeking information, comments and assistance from Federal, State and local agencies and other individuals or organizations that may be interested in, or affected by, the proposed action. While public participation in this analysis is welcome at any time, comments received within 30 days of the publication of this notice will be especially useful in the preparation of the Draft EIS. An informational meeting is scheduled for 1 pm on March 26, 2003 at the Unita County Library, 701 Main, Evanston, Wyoming. Information from the informational meeting will be used in the preparation of the draft and final EIS.

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

A draft environmental impact statement which be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environment impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of a availability in the Federal Register.

The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement.

Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection.

The meeting is open to the public. Committee discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. However, persons who wish to bring matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. Public input sessions will be provided and individuals who made written requests by April 8, 2003 will have the opportunity to address the committee at those sessions.

Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Welcome and announcements; (2) Status of previously approved projects; and (3) Review of and decisions on new projects proposals for current year. The meeting is open to the public and the public will have an opportunity to comment at the meeting.

The joint project proposed by Hoosier and Wabash will consist of six (6) simple-cycle electric combustion turbines. The primary purpose of the LCGP is to meet the increasing power consumption requirements in their respective territories. Hoosier will own four (4) of the proposed turbines and Wabash will own the remaining two (2). The proposed combustion turbines will receive water from a well field that will be drilled near the project site. The project will utilize the existing gas pipeline and electric transmission line located near the proposed site for operating the facility. The LCGP will be fired on natural gas, #2 diesel fuel may be used as backup fuel. Hoosier and Wabash propose to construct the LCGP in Lawrence County, Indiana. The site is located in a rural portion of Lawrence County, approximately 3.5 miles southeast of Bedford, Indiana. The site consists of about 49 acres of pastureland; approximately 25 acres of this site will be dedicated to the turbine generating units and associated facilities.

Alternatives to the proposed project, including the purchase of power, alternative methods of power generation, and alternative site locations, etc., were evaluated by Hoosier and Wabash. RUS, in accordance with its environmental policies and procedures, required that Hoosier and Wabash prepare an environmental report reflecting the potential impacts of the proposed project. The environmental report, which includes input from Federal, State, and local agencies, has been reviewed and accepted as RUS’ environmental assessment (EA) for the project in accordance with RUS’ Environmental Policies and Procures, § 1794.41. The EA is available for public review at RUS, at the address provided in this notice, or the headquarters of Hoosier and Wabash, and also at the following public libraries:

Questions and comments should be sent to RUS at the address provided in this notice. RUS will accept questions and comments on the EA for 30 days from the date of publication of this notice.

Any final action by RUS related to the proposed project will be subject to, and contingent upon, compliance with all relevant Federal environmental laws and regulations and completion of environmental review procedures as prescribed by the 7 CFR part 1794, Environmental Policies and Procedures.

The Department of Commerce (the Department) received a timely request on August 30, 2002, from the National Candle Association (petitioners) for an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from the PRC, with respect to 104 companies. The Department also received timely administrative review requests from Dongguan Fay Candle Co. (Dongguan), Walmart Stores (Walmart), and Qingdao Kingking Applied Chemistry Co., Ltd. (Kingking) on August 30, 2002. On September 25, 2002, the Department published a notice of initiation of this administrative review, covering 108 companies, for the period of August 1, 2001, through July 31, 2002 (67 FR 60210). 1 On November 18, 2002, the Department received a timely withdrawal from Walmart of its request for an administrative review. On January 29, 2003, the Department selected the following top five exporters, by value, of petroleum wax candles to the United States during the period of review as mandatory respondents: Dongguan, Smartcord Int'l Co., Ltd/Rich Talent Trading, Kingking, Amstar Business Co., Ltd., and Jiangsu Holly Corporation. See Memorandum from Jessica Burdick through Sally C. Gannon to Barbara E. Tillman Regarding Respondent Selection in the 2001-02 Administrative Review of Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China (January 29, 2003) (public version on file in the Department's Central Records Unit, in Room B-099).

Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department shall issue preliminary results in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. The Act further provides, however, that the Department may extend that 245-day period to 365 days if it determines it is not practicable to complete the review within the foregoing time period.

In light of the complexity of the respondent selection process and of analyzing the numerous questionnaire responses which will be submitted by respondents in this administrative review, it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of this review by the current deadline of May 3, 2003.

Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time limit for the preliminary results by 120 days, until no later than August 31, 2003. However, as this date falls on a weekend, the due date will fall on the next business day. Since September 1 is a national holiday, the next business day is September 2, 2003. The final results continue to be due 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results.

This notice is issued and published in accordance to sections 751(a)(1) and 777(I)(1) of the Act.

On March 1, 2002, the Department initiated, and the Commission instituted, a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on certain concrete reinforcing bars from Turkey pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. 3 As a result of its review, the Department found that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and notified the Commission of the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail were the order to be revoked. 4

On March 3, 2003, the Commission determined, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the antidumping duty order on certain concrete reinforcing bars from Turkey would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. 5

The product covered by this antidumping duty order is all stock deformed steel concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths and coils. This includes all hot-rolled deformed rebar rolled from billet steel, rail steel, axle steel, or low-alloy steel. It excludes (i) plain round rebar, (ii) rebar that a processor has further worked or fabricated, and (iii) all coated rebar. Deformed rebar is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers 7213.10.000 and 7214.20.000. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope remains dispositive.

As a result of the determinations by the Department and the Commission that revocation of this antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the antidumping duty order on certain concrete reinforcing bars from Turkey. The Department will instruct Customs Service to continue to collect antidumping duty deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of continuation of this order will be the date of publication in the Federal Register of this Notice of Continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) and 751(c)(6) of the Act, the Department intends to initiate the next five-year review of this order not later than thirty (30) days before the fifth anniversary of the effective date of this notice.

On October 31, 2002, the Department received a letter from the CPC and a letter from Cal Pure requesting an administrative review of the countervailing order on roasted pistachios from Iran. On November 18, 2002, the Department initiated an administrative review of this order for the period January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2001. On March 5, 2003, and March 10, 2003, the CPC and Cal Pure, respectively, submitted letters requesting to withdraw their request for the above-referenced administrative review.

Background

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulations prohibit the “taking” of a species listed as endangered or threatened. The term take is defined under the Act to mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm is defined by the FWS to include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, and sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). The NMFS's definition of harm includes significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, spawning, rearing, feeding, and sheltering (50 CFR 222.102).

The Services may issue two types of permits under section 10(a) of the Act to non-Federal landowners to take listed species, under certain terms and conditions. FWS's regulations governing permits for threatened and endangered species are promulgated in 50 CFR 17.32 and 50 CFR 17.22; NMFS regulations governing permits for threatened and endangered species are promulgated at 50 CFR 222.307.

The first of these two types of permits is the Enhancement of Survival Permit, which is authorized under section 10 (a)(1)(A) of the Act. Enhancement of Survival Permits may be issued for activities that enhance the propagation or survival of the affected species that would otherwise be prohibited by section 9 of the Act. To implement this provision of the Act, the Services issued a joint policy for developing SHAs for listed species and CCAAs for unlisted species on June 17, 1999 (64 FR 32726). The FWS simultaneously issued regulations for implementing SHAs and CCAAs on June 17, 1999 (64 FR 32706). A correction to the FWS final rule was announced on September 30, 1999 (64 FR 52676). On September 13, 2002, NMFS issued regulations to allow transfers of certain incidental take permits and enhancement of survival permits associated with SHAs, and CCAAs.

SHAs provide private landowners that undertake voluntary conservation actions on their land assurances that their future land-use activities will not be restricted further as a result of these proactive conservation efforts. If a landowner voluntarily enters into a SHA to manage his or her lands in a manner that attracts endangered or threatened species or otherwise increases their presence, the Safe Harbor assurances guarantee that no additional regulatory requirements for those lands will be imposed on the landowners as a result of the proactive conservation measures. The purpose of the Safe Harbor approach is to reduce the disincentives (e.g., fear of regulatory restrictions) that often cause landowners to avoid or prevent land use practices that would otherwise benefit endangered species.

CCAAs are intended to help conserve proposed, candidate species, and species likely to become candidates by giving non-Federal landowners incentives to implement conservation measures for declining species. The primary incentive for CCAAs is an assurance that no further land, water, or resource use restrictions would be imposed should the species later become listed under the Act.

The second of these two types of permits is the Incidental Take Permit, which is authorized under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. A proposed Incidental Take Permit must be accompanied by a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) that shows: (1) The taking will be incidental; (2) the applicants will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impacts of such taking; (3) the applicants will ensure that adequate funding for the conservation plan will be provided; (4) the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species in the wild; and (5) such other measures the Services may require as necessary or appropriate for the purposes of the HCP. HCPs can address both listed and currently unlisted species.

Though the names of these three permitting tools are different, the goals are similar, and the strategies for achieving those goals can overlap. Conservation strategies can, therefore, be developed to fulfill SHA, CCAA, and HCP requirements in a single conservation plan.

Tom and Sherry Fox, Gary Davis, and Jim and Tricia Murphy, have applied to the Services for Enhancement of Survival Permits and an Incidental Take Permit under sections 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B), respectively, of the Act. Currently listed species under FWS jurisdiction are addressed in the SHA portion of the Plan for an Enhancement of Survival Permit and include the threatened northern spotted owl ( Strix occidentalis caurina ), marbled murrelet ( Brachyramphus marmaratus ), and bald eagle ( Haliaeetus leucocephalus ).

Currently unlisted species under FWS jurisdiction are addressed in the CCAA portion of the Plan for an Enhancement of Survival Permit and include one species that is a candidate for Federal listing, the Oregon spotted frog ( Rana pretiosa ). Other CCAA species include the coastal cutthroat trout ( Oncorhynchus clarki clarki ), northern goshawk ( Accipiter gentilis ), olive-sided flycatcher ( Contoupus borealis ), long-eared myotis ( Myotis evotis ), long-legged myotis ( Myotis volans ) the Pacific Townsend's big-eared bat ( Corynorthinus townsendii ), Van Dyke's salamander ( Plethodon vandykei ), the northwestern pond turtle ( Clemmys marmorata ), great blue heron ( Ardea herodias ), pileated woodpecker ( Dryocopus pileatus ), and osprey ( Pandion haliaetus ).

Both currently listed and unlisted species under NMFS jurisdiction are addressed in the HCP portion of the plan for an incidental take permit and include the threatened Lower Columbia River steelhead ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ), and a Federal candidate species, the Lower Columbia coho salmon ( Oncorhynchus kisutch ).

The Applicants are proposing to manage their timberlands in Lewis County, WA for a period of 80 years under the Plan. The forest management actions proposed by the applicants will maintain long-term economic viability of the forest management operations. This proposal will also provide better habitat conditions for the covered species than managing under current State Forest Practices Regulations. The conservation provided in this 80-year Plan is intended to improve habitat conditions by maintaining and enhancing habitat, minimize the impacts of forest management activities to species addressed in the plan, contribute to the recovery of the species in the wild and, if undertaken by other property owners similarly situated on the landscape, preclude the need to list the unlisted species in the future. Forest management activities are planned to enhance the health and vigor of the forest, reduce incidence of insect and disease in the forest, and enhance the structural characteristics of the forests to provide functional fish and wildlife habitat for the species addressed in the Plan, and other wildlife species found on the applicants' parcels.

This action would occur in an environment where the lands surrounding the Tagshinney Tree Farm are increasingly being utilized for non-forest management activities. For example, chicken farms, dairy farms and associated pastureland, and housing developments are located within one-half mile of the applicants' parcels. Landowners in Lewis County near the major highways are often solicited to sell their lands for use in developing housing projects. If issued, the Permits would remove the regulatory disincentives associated with providing habitat for listed and declining species. Thus, the Applicants are more likely to keep their property in a forested condition that functions as fish and wildlife habitat, and would be less likely to convert their forest lands to another use such as a housing development.

This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the Act, and National Environmental Policy Act regulations. The Services will evaluate the application, associated documents, and comments submitted thereon to determine whether the application meets the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act. The criteria by which our decisions will be made are listed and discussed in the draft Plan at sections II(B) Regulatory Planning Environment, and II(E) Proposed Action and Decisions Needed. We ask that commenters focus their comments on the merits of the Plan, the permit issuance requirements, and the Environmental Action Statement which will assist us in our decision of whether to issue the permits or not. Comments on issues other than the these will be considered to be beyond the scope of the decision associated with the Plan.

If the Services ultimately determine that the requirements are met, the requested Enhancement of Survival Permits and Incidental Take Permit will be issued. The final permit decisions will be made no sooner than 30 days from the date of this notice.

In 1979, the National Sea Grant Office, NOAA, in fulfilling its broad educational responsibilities, initiated a program to provide a unique educational experience in the policies and processes of the Legislative and Executive Branches of the Federal Government to graduate students who have an interest in ocean, coastal and Great Lakes resources and in the national policy decisions affecting these resources. The U.S. Congress recognized the value of this program and, in 1987, Public Law 100-220 stipulated the Sea Grant Federal Fellows Program was to be a formal part of the National Sea Grant College Program Act. The recipients are designated Dean John A. Knauss Marine Policy Fellows pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1127(b). The National Sea Grant program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under number 11.417: Sea Grant Support.

Following receipt of notice from the NSGO, the local Sea Grant program will send an announcement to all participating Sea Grant institutions and campuses.

Any student who, on April 1, 2003, is in a graduate or professional program in a marine or aquatic-related field at a United States accredited institution of higher education in the United States may apply.

Interested students should discuss this fellowship with their local Sea Grant Program Director. Applicants from states not served by a Sea Grant program should contact the Knauss Fellows Program Manager at the NSGO; subsequently, the applicant will be referred to the appropriate Sea Grant program. Applications must be submitted with signature to the local Sea Grant program by the deadline set in the local Sea Grant announcement (usually early to mid-April). Each Sea Grant program may select and forward to the NSGO no more than five (5) applicants based on the evaluation criteria used by the NSGO in the national competition.

Selected applications (one original and two copies) are to be received in the NSGO from the sponsoring Sea Grant program, no later than 5 p.m. EDT on May 14, 2003. Note that applications arriving after the closing dates given above will be accepted for review only if the applicant can document that the application was provided to a delivery service that guaranteed delivery to the appropriate address ( see ADDRESSES ) prior to the specified closing date and time; in any event, applications received by the NSGO later than two business days following the closing date will not be accepted. The competitive selection process and subsequent notification to the Sea Grant programs will be completed by June 25, 2003.

The local Sea Grant program receives and administers the overall grant of $38,000 per student on behalf of each Fellow selected from their program. Of this amount, the local Sea Grant program provides $32,000 to each Follow for stipend and living expenses (per diem). The additional $6,000 will be used to cover mandatory health insurance for the Fellow and moving expenses. In addition, any remaining funds shall be used during the Fellowship year, first to satisfy academic degree-related activities, and second for Fellowship-related activities. Indirect costs are not allowable for either the Fellowships or for any costs associated with the Fellowships, including placement week. No matching funds are required. During the Fellowship, the host may provide supplemental funds for work-related travel by the Fellow.

An application must include:

(1) Personal and academic curriculum vitae (not to exceed two pages using 12 pt. font, 1 inch margins).

(2) A personal education and career goal statement emphasizing the applicant's abilities and the applicant's expectations from the experience in the way of career development (1000 words or less, 12 pt. font). Placement preference in the Legislative or Executive Branches of the Government may be stated; this preference will be honored to the extent possible.

(3) Two letters of recommendation, including one from the student's major professor; if no major professor exists, the faculty person academically knowing the applicant best may be substituted.

(4) A letter of endorsement from the sponsoring Sea Grant Program Director.

(5) Official copy of all undergraduate and graduate student transcripts.

Applications that are bound or contain staples will not be accepted. However, paperclips are acceptable. All applicants will be evaluated solely on their application package according to the criteria listed below. Therefore, letters of endorsement from members of Congress, friends, relatives and others will not be accepted. Prior contacts/arrangements made with possible host offices will be cause for immediate disqualification from the process.

The evaluation criteria will include:

(1) Quality of the applicant's personal education and career goal statement.

(2) Endorsement/content of the letter from the applicant's Sea Grant Program Director, the applicant's major professor and second letter of recommendation.

(3) Strength of academic performance and diversity of educational background including extracurricular activities, awards and honors (from the curriculum vitae and transcripts).

(4) Experience in marine or aquatic-related fields, oral and written communication skills, and interpersonal abilities. The four evaluation criteria will be given equal weight.

Each step in the selection process is based on the evaluation criteria listed. A panel is appointed by the Director of the NSGO with input from the Sea Grant Association and the National Sea Grant Review Panel. The panel will include representation from the Sea Grant Association and the current, and possibly past, class of Fellows. Each panel member is assigned applications to review before the panel meeting. During the panel meeting each application will be individually discussed. Following this discussion, an individual score will be provided by each panel member. Once all applications have been discussed and scored, a numerical ranking will be created by the Knauss program manager or designee. The successful applicants will be in general selected based on the numerical ranking, however, the Knauss program manager may select lower ranking applicants based on the following factors: academic discipline and geographic representation. The successful applicants will then be placed into either the legislative or executive group by the Knauss Program Manger based upon the applicant's stated preference, the application materials submitted, and the individual comments of the panel members. The number of fellows assigned to the Congress will be limited to 10.

Fellows receive funds directly from their sponsoring Sea Grant program and are considered to be subrecipients of Federal assistance. Hence, the Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the Federal Register notice of October 1, 2000 (66 FR 49917), as amended by the Federal Register notice published on October 30, 2002 (67 FR 66109), are applicable to this solicitation.

Pursuant to Executive Orders 12876, 12900, and 13021, DOC/NOAA is strongly committed to broadening the participation of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI), and Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCU) in its educational and research programs. The DOC/NOAA vision, mission, and goals are to achieve full participation by Minority Serving Institutions (MSI) in order to advance the development of human potential, to strengthen the Nation's capacity to provide high-quality education, and to increase opportunities for MSIs to participate in and benefit from Federal Financial Assistance programs. DOC/NOAA encourages applicants from MSIs to participate. Institutions eligible to be considered HBCU/MSIs are listed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.ed.gov/offices.OCR/minorityinst.html.

Prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law for this notice concerning grants, benefits, and contracts according to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This action has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866. This document contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. Application requirements have been approved by OMB under Control Number 0648-0362. Public reporting burden for an application is estimated to average 2 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Ms. Nikola Garber ( see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above). The use of SF-LLL has been separately approved by OMB under Control Number 0348-0046.

Nothwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

The panels will develop one habitat closed area alternative that will be analyzed and incorporated into both Amendment 10 to the Scallop Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and Amendment 13 to the Multispecies FMP.

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

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 days prior to the meeting dates.

The subject amendment, to Permit No. 763-1534 issued on March 10, 2000 (65 FR 14947), is requested 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).

Permit No. 763-1534 authorizes the National Zoological Park to import and export up to 252 Atlantic grey seal ( Halichoerus grypus ) samples from Nova Scotia, Canada. The Permit also authorizes opportunistic collection, import/export of specimen materials from non-endangered pinnipeds and cetaceans. The samples are used for DNA analysis to determine if grey seal alternative mating strategies exist across all ages and provide comaprable rates of reproductive success to the primary strategy.

On March 13, 2003, the Governments of the United States and Pakistan signed an agreement amending the existing Visa Arrangement for cotton, man-made fiber, silk blend and other vegetable fiber textiles and textile products in Categories 200-239, 300-361, 363-369 (excluding 369-O), 600-670, and 800-899, including part categories and merged categories, but not category 369-O, produced or manufactured in Pakistan. The amended Arrangement consolidates existing provisions and establishes new provisions for the Electronic Visa Information System (ELVIS). The Governments of the United States and Pakistan will implement a 6-month test phase in which, in addition to the ELVIS requirements, shipments must continue to be accompanied by a paper visa. This notice amends, but does not cancel, the notice and letter to the Commissioner of Customs, as amended, published in the Federal Register on June 6, 1983 (see 48 FR 25257).

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 68 FR 1599, published on January 13, 2003).

Goods integrated into GATT 1994 in Stages II and III by the United States will not require a visa or ELVIS transmission (see Federal Register notices 63 FR 53881, published on October 7, 1998 and 66 FR 63225, published on December 5, 2001.

Interested persons are advised to take all necessary steps to ensure that textile products entered into the United States for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, will meet the visa requirements set forth in the letter published below to the Commissioner, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection.

Summary of Information Collection

The purpose of the study is designed to systematically collect population-based demographic and health data to evaluate the health of service personnel throughout their military careers and after leaving military service. The principal objective of the study is to evaluate the impact of military deployments on various measures of health over time, including medically unexplained symptoms and chronic diseases, such as cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. The Millennium Cohort Study will serve as a foundation upon which other routinely captured medical and deployment data may be added to answer future questions regarding the health risks of military deployment, military occupations, and general military service.

Eligible respondents of this survey are individuals who were members of the Armed Forces during the initial study enrollment period conducted in 2000, completed the baseline survey and volunteered to participate in the prospective study and follow-up surveys.

The meeting is open to the public; however, because of space limitations, allocation of seating will be made on a first-come, first-served basis. Persons desiring to attend the meeting should call Ms. Diane Reid at 703-805-5133.

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

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

Title: Talent Search and EOC Programs Annual Performance Report Form.

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions (primary), State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden: Responses: 1. Burden Hours: 3690.

Abstract: Talent Search and EOC grantees must submit the report annually. The report provides the Department of Education with information needed to evaluate a grantee's performance and compliance with program requirements and to award prior experience points in accordance with the program regulations. The data collected is also aggregated to provide national information on project participants and program outcomes.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2244. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments “ to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail address Vivian.reese@ed.gov. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Joe Schubart at his e-mail address joe.schubart@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16U.S.C. § 824a(e)).

On March 17, 2003, the Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) received an application from AIG Energy to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada. AIG Energy does not own or control any electric power generation or transmission facilities and does not have a franchised electric power service area.

AIG Energy will purchase the power to be exported from electric utilities and power marketing agencies within the United States. The exported electricity will be delivered to Canada over the existing international transmission facilities currently owned by Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Bonneville Power Administration, Citizens Utilities Co., International Transmission Company, Eastern Maine Electric Cooperative, Joint Owners of the Highgate Project, Long Sault, Inc., Maine Electric Power Company, Maine Public Service Company, Minnesota Power and Light Inc., Minnkota Power Cooperative, New York Power Authority, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Northern States Power, and Vermont Electric Transmission Company. The construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of each of the international transmission facilities to be utilized by AIG Energy, as more fully described in the application, has previously been authorized by a Presidential permit issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended.

Any person desiring to become a party to this proceeding or to be heard by filing comments or protests to this application should file a petition to intervene, comment or protest at the address provided above in accordance with §§ 385.211 or 385.214 of the FERC's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Fifteen copies of each petition and protest should be filed with the DOE on or before the date listed above.

Comments on the NorthPoint application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with Docket EA-277. Additional copies are to be filed directly with Carl Peterson, Vice President, AIG Energy Inc., One Greenwich Plaza, Greenwich, CT 06830 AND Andrew Kaplan, Executive Vice President & General Counsel, AIG Energy Inc., One Greenwich Plaza, Greenwich, CT 06830.

A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and a determination is made by the DOE that the proposed action will not adversely impact on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.

Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above or by accessing the Fossil Energy Home Page at http://www.fe.doe.gov. Upon reaching the Fossil Energy Home page, select “Regulatory Programs,” then “Electricity Regulation,” and then “Pending Proceedings” from the options menus.

Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. § 824a(e)).

On March 17, 2003, the Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) received an application from USGenNE to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada. USGenNE proposes to export electric energy from its own generation resources to Canada over the existing international transmission facilities currently owned by Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Bonneville Power Administration, Citizens Utilities Co., International Transmission Company, Eastern Maine Electric Cooperative, Joint Owners of the Highgate Project, Long Sault, Inc., Maine Electric Power Company, Maine Public Service Company, Minnesota Power and Light Inc., Minnkota Power Cooperative, New York Power Authority, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Northern States Power, and Vermont Electric Transmission Company. The construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of each of the international transmission facilities to be utilized by USGenNE, as more fully described in the application, has previously been authorized by a Presidential permit issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended.

Any person desiring to become a party to this proceeding or to be heard by filing comments or protests to this application should file a petition to intervene, comment or protest at the address provided above in accordance with §§ 385.211 or 385.214 of the FERC's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Fifteen copies of each petition and protest should be filed with the DOE on or before the date listed above.

Comments on the USGenNE application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with Docket EA-276. Additional copies are to be filed directly with Sanford L. Hartman, Chief Counsel, USGen New England, Inc., 7600 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814-6161 AND James Utt, USGen New England, Inc., 7600 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814-6161.

A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and a determination is made by the DOE that the proposed action will not adversely impact on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.

Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above or by accessing the Fossil Energy Home Page at http://www.fe.doe.gov. Upon reaching the Fossil Energy Home page, select “Regulatory Programs,” then “Electricity Regulation,” and then “Pending Proceedings” from the options menus.

Eligibility is restricted to colleges and universities with a primary campus located in the Denver, Colorado, metropolitan area. The metropolitan area includes only the following Colorado counties: Denver, Jefferson, Arapahoe, Douglas, Adams, and Boulder. Institutions located outside of these Colorado counties are not eligible to apply under this Solicitation.

A limit is imposed for the maximum percentage of DOE funding that can be devoted to Applicant expenses. The proposed Applicant expenses to conduct the complete project must be 15% or less of the total DOE funds obligated in order to be considered for an award under this Solicitation ( i.e. , 85% or greater of the DOE funding is to be provided by the Applicant to students/teachers participating in the program). The Applicant expenses include all direct and indirect charges incurred to conduct the Statement of Objectives. This 15% Applicant expense limit also applies to any future increments of DOE funding that may be obligated to the award during the five-year project period. An Application will not be evaluated if the proposed total Applicant expenses exceed 15% of the DOE funding.

DOE anticipates obligating $180,000 for the first year of the project. The proposed Applicant expenses must be $27,000 or less for this initial period, with $153,000 or more available for direct support of the participants. The total estimated funds anticipated to be available for the five-year project is approximately $950,000, depending on the availability of congressional appropriations.

On February 13, 2003, the Allegheny County, Pennsylvania Health Department submitted a letter requesting full delegation of authority for the implementation and enforcement of the Federal prevention of significant deterioration of air quality (PSD) permit program regulations as codified at 40 CFR 52.21. The PSD program covers any new construction or any major modification of a major stationary air emission source in an area which has air quality better than the national ambient air quality standards. The program requires the issuance of permits prior to construction or modification of certain sources. Allegheny County's letter requests delegation of the Federal PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21. Allegheny County's delegation request does not reference a specific edition of 40 CFR part 52, and expressly requests delegation of the current version of the PSD regulations and any and all future changes to part 52 with regard to the Federal PSD program.

Since 1983, the Allegheny County Health Department has been delegated the authority to implement and enforce the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 on behalf of EPA. ( See 48 FR 55625, December 14, 1983). When EPA granted delegation to Allegheny County in 1983, it specifically delegated to the County the authority to implement and enforce the PSD provisions at 40 CFR part 52, as amended August 7, 1980. The purpose of Allegheny County's February 13, 2003, letter is to request renewal of its existing delegation of authority to include more recent revisions to the PSD regulations at 40 CFR part 52, and to include any and all future revisions of those regulations.

After a thorough review of the request for full PSD program delegation, EPA has determined that such delegation is appropriate subject to the conditions set forth in the following letter to Allegheny County. Therefore, pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21(u), EPA formally notified Allegheny County on March 18, 2003, that the Agency delegates full PSD regulatory authority to Allegheny County, Pennsylvania as of the publication of date of this information notice.

Effective immediately, Allegheny County is the delegated permitting authority to implement and enforce the Federal PSD program and all applications and other information required pursuant to the PSD permit program at 40 CFR 52.21 from sources located or locating in Allegheny County shall continue to be submitted to the Allegheny County, Pennsylvania Health Department at the following address: Allegheny County Health Department, Air Quality Program, 301 Thirty-Ninth Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15201-1891.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this information notice is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this information notice is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This information notice imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this information notice will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this information notice delegates pre-existing requirements under Federal law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by Federal law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This information notice also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This information notice also does not have federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This information notice merely delegates the implementation of a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This information notice also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing delegation requests, EPA's role is to approve state capabilities, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a delegation request for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a delegation request, to use VCS in place of a delegation request that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). This information notice granting delegation of the Federal PSD program to Allegheny County issued under the authority of sections 101, 110, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, 7410, 7601).

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

•  Crop production (NAICS 111)

•  Animal production (NAICS 112)

•  Food manufacturing (NAICS 311)

•  Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532)

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

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number OPP-2003-0070. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

2. Electronic access . You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.

For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.

Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.

1. Electronically . If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

i. EPA Dockets . Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPP-2003-0070. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail . Comments may be sent by e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov, Attention: Docket ID number OPP-2003-0070. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

iii. Disk or CD ROM . You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I.C.2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.

2. By mail . Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, Attention: Docket ID number OPP-2003-0070.

3. By hand delivery or courier . Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID number OPP-2003-0070. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.1.

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

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

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

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

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

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

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

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

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

The petitioner summary of the pesticide petitions is printed below as required by FFDCA section 408(d)(3). The summary of the petitions was prepared by the petitioner and represent the views of the petitioner. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.

EPA has received pesticide petitions (2E6369, 2E6455, and 2E6493) from the Interregional Research Project Number (IR-4), 681 U.S. Highway #1 South, North Brunswick, NJ 08902, proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR 180.511 by establishing tolerances for residues of buprofezin in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: Lychee, logan, spanish lime, rambutan, and pulasan at 0.3 parts per million (ppm) (2E6369); bean, snap, succulent at 0.02 ppm (2E6455); and pistachio at 0.05 ppm (2E6493). EPA has determined that the petitions contain data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petitions. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petitions. This summary has been prepared by Nichino American, Inc., Wilmington, DE 19808, the registrant.

1. Plant metabolism . The metabolic profile of buprofezin has been elucidated in a wide range of crops, including tomatoes, lettuce, cotton, and citrus. In tomatoes, lettuce, and cotton unchanged buprofezin was the only significant residue. In citrus, besides buprofezin, the principal polar residue is a hexose conjugate of BF4 (buprofezin hydroxylated in the t-butyl group), which was resistant to enzyme hydrolysis. With acid hydrolysis of the polar fraction, BF26 was released, with minor amounts of BF9 and BF12. The same compounds were observed following acid hydrolysis of a standard of BF4, which clearly indicates that BF4 is the conjugated metabolite existing in citrus. Although only limited metabolism was observed in lettuce and cotton, trace levels of BF4/BF26, BF9, and BF12 were observed indicating that the metabolic pathway does not differ with plant species.

2. Analytical method . Metabolism studies on lettuce and tomatoes have shown that the only significant residue in these crops is buprofezin. Development of the analytical method took place in parallel with the metabolism studies and the method was designed to quantify two metabolites (BF9 and BF12) in addition to the parent compound. This method was used for analysis of samples from the field trials on all crops except citrus, but for tolerance enforcement only the parent compound is considered.

3. Magnitude of residues . The magnitude of residues is adequately understood and supports the proposed tolerances.

1. Acute toxicity . An assessment of toxic effects caused by buprofezin is discussed in Unit III.A. and Unit III.B. of the Federal Register dated September 5, 2001 (66 FR 46382) (FRL-6796-6).

2. Animal metabolism . The metabolism of buprofezin has been extensively studied in various species of animals and fish. Buprofezin has several groups that can metabolize in a variety of ways thus potentially producing a very large number of metabolites. Indeed extensive metabolism to many minor metabolites was observed in all the animal species. Metabolism in fish was, however, much more limited and clearly defined. Although not all metabolic intermediates have been detected in all the species, the major routes of metabolism have been identified in animals and fish and a consistent pattern is observed throughout these species. The proposed metabolic pathway was provided in the tolerance petition, PP 0F6087. For convenience, degradates are referred to by an internal code: BF 1 through 13. Corresponding chemical structures were provided in the tolerance petition, PP 0F6087.

3. Endocrine disruption . No special studies have been conducted to investigate the potential of buprofezin to induce estrogenic or other endocrine effects. The standard battery of required toxicity studies has been completed. These studies include an evaluation of the potential effects on reproduction and development and an evaluation of the pathology of the endocrine organs following repeated or long-term exposure. These studies are generally considered to be sufficient to detect any endocrine effects. The only effect noted on endocrine organs was an increased incidence of follicular cell hypertrophy and C-cell hyperplasia of the thyroid gland in rats administered buprofezin at dietary concentrations of 2,000 ppm for 24 months. Buprofezin also caused mild to moderate hepatotoxic effects at this dietary concentration. Nichino America, Inc. believes that the effect on the thyroid most likely resulted from increased turnover of T3/T4 in the liver with a resultant rise in TSH secretion (due to the hepatotoxicity). The rat is known to be much more susceptible than humans to these effects due to the very rapid turnover of thyroxine in the blood in rats (12 hours versus about 5 to 9 days in humans). Therefore, the thyroid pathological changes which have been noted following administration of high doses of buprofezin are considered to be of minimal relevance to human risk assessment, particularly considering the low levels of buprofezin to which humans are likely to be exposed.

1. Dietary exposure —i. Food . Chronic dietary exposure was estimated using Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM TM ) tolerance levels, and 100% crop treated, except for tomatoes with 40% of the crop treated. The chronic dietary exposure to the U.S. population (total) was estimated as 0.001229 milligrams/kilogram/body weight/day (mg/kg bwt/day), and was 37% of the estimated reference dose (RfD). Exposure to children ages 1 to 6, the highest exposed population subgroup, was 0.002393 mg/kg bwt/day (73% of the estimated RfD).

ii. Drinking water . The residue of concern in drinking water was determined to be buprofezin. The potential exposure of buprofezin in drinking water abstracted from surface water was assessed using a Tier 2, modeling approach. EPA's Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM) was used to generate potential runoff loads from a standardized agricultural field (10-hectare (ha)) to a standardized aquatic system (1-ha 2-meters (m) deep pond) following application of buprofezin to citrus (the maximum proposed use rate for all crops). Exposure Analysis Modeling Systems (EXAMS) was used to estimate the exposure concentration in surface water. The “once-in-10-year” exceedance probability corresponded to a concentration at 0.52 part per billion (ppb). This value refers to the 56-day average estimated concentration in a farm pond draining agricultural land and must be considered a gross over-estimate of concentrations of buprofezin at the point of drinking water abstraction.

2. Non-dietary exposure . Food uses described in these petitions are strictly agricultural and will not add to any residential non-dietary exposure that may exist.

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that the Agency must consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residue and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” Available information in this context include not only toxicity, chemistry, and exposure data, but also scientific policies and methodologies for understanding common mechanisms of toxicity and conducting cumulative risk assessments. For most pesticides, although the Agency has some information in its files that may turn out to be helpful in eventually determining whether a pesticide shares a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, EPA does not at this time have the methodologies to resolve the complex scientific issues concerning common mechanism of toxicity in a meaningful way. At the present time, there are insufficient data available to allow Nichino America, Inc. to properly evaluate the potential for cumulative effects with other pesticides to which an individual may be exposed. For the purposes of this assessment, therefore, Nichino America, Inc. has assumed that buprofezin does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with any other registered pesticides. Therefore, only exposure from buprofezin is being addressed at this time.

1. U.S. population —i. Acute risk . To estimate acute aggregate exposure risk, the Agency combined the high-end value from food and water and compared it to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD). Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food to buprofezin will occupy 4% of the aPAD for females 13 years and older (no endpoint was identified for the general population including infants and children). In addition, there is potential for acute dietary exposure to buprofezin in drinking water. After calculating drinking water levels of concern (DWLOCs) and comparing them to the estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) for surface water and ground water, EPA does not expect the aggregate exposure to exceed 100% of the aPAD.

ii. Chronic risk . Based on the toxicology data base and available information on anticipated residues, chronic dietary exposure to the U.S. population (total) was 37% of the RfD. Exposure to potential residues in drinking water is expected to be negligible, as DWLOCs are substantially higher than modeled acute and long-term EECs. The margin of exposure (MOE) from the limited potential for short-term exposure from residential uses was > 1,000. Based on these assessments, it can be concluded that there is reasonable certainty of no harm to the U.S. population or any population subgroup from exposure to buprofezin.

iii. Aggregate cancer risk for the U.S. population . In accordance with EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (proposed July 1999), the Agency's Cancer Assessment Review Committee has classified buprofezin as having suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity, but not sufficient to assess human carcinogenic potential, and further recommended that no quantification of cancer risk is required.

2. Infants and children . The chronic dietary exposure was 29% of the RfD for infants and 72% of the RfD for children ages 1 to 6. Exposure to potential residues in drinking water is expected to be negligible, as DWLOCs are substantially higher than modeled acute and long-term EECs. The MOE from the limited potential for short-term exposure from residential uses was > 1,000. Based on these assessments, it can be concluded that there is reasonable certainty of no harm to infants and children from exposure to buprofezin. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population and to infants and children from aggregate exposure to buprofezin residues.

Permanent CODEX maximum residue levels have been established for residues of buprofezin in cucumbers at 1.0 ppm, tomatoes at 1.0 ppm, and citrus at 0.5 ppm.

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

• Crop production (NAICS 111)

• Animal production (NAICS 112)

• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311)

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532)

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

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number OPP-2003-0106. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

2. Electronic access . You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electonic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.

For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.

Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.

1. Electronically . If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also, include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

i. EPA Dockets . Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPP-2003-0106. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail . Comments may be sent by e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2003-0106. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

iii. Disk or CD ROM . You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I.C.2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.

2. By mail . Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2003-0106.

3. By hand delivery or courier . Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2003-0106. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.1.

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

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

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

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

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

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

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

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

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

The petitioner's summary of the pesticide petition is printed below as required by FFDCA section 408(d)(3). The summary of the petition was prepared by the petitioner and represents the view of the petitioner. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.

EPA has received pesticide petitions (2E6375, 2E6488, 2E6489, and 2E6495) from the Interregional Research Project Number (IR-4), 681 U.S. Highway #1 South, North Brunswick, NJ 08902 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR 180.507 by establishing tolerances for residues of azoxystrobin, methyl( E )-2-(2-(6-(2-cyanophenoxy) pyrimidin-4-yloxy)phenyl)-3-methoxyacrylate and the Z-isomer of azoxystrobin, methyl( Z )-2-(2-(6-(2-cyanophenoxy)pyrimidin-4-yloxy)phenyl)-3 methoxyacrylate in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: asparagus at 0.02 parts per million (ppm) (2E6375); brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5a at 3.0 ppm (2E6488); artichoke, globe at 4.0 ppm (2E6489); herb subgroup 19A, fresh, except chive at 50 ppm (2E6495); and herb subgroup 19A, dried, except chive at 260 ppm (2E6495). EPA has determined that the petitions contain data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petitions. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on these petitions. This summary has been prepared by Syngenta, the registrant.

1. Plant metabolism . The metabolism of azoxystrobin as well as the nature of the residues is adequately understood for purposes of the tolerances.

2. Analytical method . An adequate analytical method, gas chromatography with nitrogen-phosphorus detection (GC-NPD) or in mobile phase by high performance liquid chromatography with ultra-violet detection (HPLC-UV), is available for enforcement purposes with a limit of detection that allows monitoring of food with residues at or above the levels set in these tolerances. The Analytical Chemistry section of the EPA concluded that the method(s) are adequate for enforcement. Analytical methods are also available for analyzing meat, milk, poultry and eggs which also underwent successful independent laboratory validations.

3. Magnitude of residues . Complete residue data for azoxystrobin on artichoke, globe; asparagus, head and stem brassica and herb subgroup 19A have been submitted. The requested tolerances are adequately supported.

2. Metabolite toxicology . There are no metabolites of concern based on a differential metabolism between plants and animals.

3. Endocrine disruption . There is no evidence that azoxystrobin is an endocrine disrupter.

1. Dietary exposure . Tolerance values have been established (40 CFR 180.507(a)) for the combined residues of both azoxystrobin and its Z isomer, in or on a variety of raw agricultural commodities including meat, milk and eggs. These established tolerances range from 0.02 ppm on tree nuts to 55 ppm on soybean hay.

i. Food . Tier I acute and chronic dietary exposure evaluations were made using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM®), version 7.76 from Exponent. All processing factors used DEEM® defaults values. All consumption data for these assessments were taken from the USDA's Continuing Survey of Food Intake by individuals (CSFII) with the 1994-1996 consumption data base and the Supplemental CSFII children's survey (1998) consumption data base. These dietary exposure assessments included all registered uses and proposed uses on asparagus (0.02 ppm), brassica, head and stem subgroup 5A (3 ppm), herb subgroup 19A (250 ppm) and artichoke globe (4 ppm).

ii. Drinking water . There is no established maximum concentration level (MCL) for residues of azoxystrobin in drinking water. No health advisory levels for azoxystrobin in drinking water have been established. The concentration of azoxystrobin in surface water is based on generic estimated environmental concentration (GENEEC) modeling and in ground water based on screening concentration in ground water (SCI-GROW) modeling.

2. Non-dietary exposure . Azoxystrobin is registered for residential use on ornamentals and turf. The Agency evaluated the existing toxicological data base for azoxystrobin and assessed both the appropriate toxicological endpoints and the dose levels of concern. Dermal absorption data indicate that absorption is less than or equal to 4%.

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” Azoxystrobin is related to the naturally occurring strobilurins. Syngenta concluded that further consideration of a common mechanism of toxicity is not appropriate at this time since there are no data to establish whether a common mechanism exists with any other substances.

1. Infants and Children . The chronic dietary exposure (food only) resulting from all established and proposed azoxystrobin uses was 27.6% of the reference dose (RfD) for the most sensitive subpopulation, children 1 and 2 years old. Additionally, for this same subpopulation, the acute dietary exposure (food only) resulting from all established and proposed azoxystrobin uses was 22.3% of the acute reference dose (aRfD). The EPA has determined that there is reliable data support using the standard MOE and uncertainty factor (100X for chronic and 300X for acute) for azoxystrobin and that an additional safety factor of 10 is not necessary to be protective of infants and children.

Syngenta has considered the potential aggregate exposure from food, water and non-occupational exposure routes and concludes that aggregate exposure is not expected to exceed 100% of the chronic reference dose and that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from the aggregate exposure to azoxystrobin.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are a Federal or State government agency involved in administration of environmental quality programs. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

Federal or State Government entity, (NAICS 9241), e.g., Department of Agriculture, Environment, etc.

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

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number OPP-2003-0053. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

2. Electronic access . You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.

For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.

Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.

1. Electronically . If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

i. EPA Dockets . Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPP-2003-0053. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail . Comments may be sent by e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2003-0053. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

iii. Disk or CD ROM . You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I.C.2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.

2. By mail . Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2003-0053.

3. By hand delivery or courier . Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2003-0053. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.1.

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

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

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

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

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

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice.

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

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

Under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136p), at the discretion of the Administrator, a Federal or State agency may be exempted from any provision of FIFRA if the Administrator determines that emergency conditions exist which require the exemption. The Idaho Department of Agriculture, the Oregon Department of Agriculture, and the Washington State Department of Agriculture have requested the Administrator issue specific exemptions for the use of quinoxyfen on hops to control powdery mildew. Information in accordance with 40 CFR part 166 was submitted as part of this request.

As part of this request, the Applicants assert that currently registered products and non-chemical control measures do not provide adequate season long control of powdery mildew on susceptible hops varieties. Powdery mildew ( S. macularis ) is a serious hop disease in many hop growing areas throughout the world. During the early part of this century, a commercial hop production industry in the State of New York was devastated due to what is believed to have been an uncontrolled outbreak of powdery mildew. Before June of 1997, this disease had not been observed in the Pacific Northwest. Quinoxyfen has been shown to be an effective fungicide against hop powdery mildew over the past 4 years of testing. Quinoxyfen has not shown any plant growth regulatory effects or adverse impact to cone size. Additionally, quinoxyfen is a quinoline fungicide, which will provide growers with a new mode of action to control powdery mildew.

The U.S. is the second largest producer of hops in the world. The States estimate that there will be an 8% to 30% loss of gross revenues without the use of quinoxyfen.

The Applicants propose to apply no more than 6 to 8 fluid ounces of formulated product, containing 22.58% quinoxyfen (0.098 to 0.13 pound/active ingredient) per acre per application. No more than four applications per acre per year will be made. A total of 19,500 acres of hops may be treated; up to 3,000 acres of hops in Idaho, 3,500 acres of hops in Oregon, and 13,000 acres of hops in Washington State. Applications will be made from July 1, 2003, through September 15, 2003. Based on the maximum application rate and a total of four applications per acre, up to 10,140 pounds of quinoxyfen could be applied.

This notice does not constitute a decision by EPA on the application itself. The regulations governing section 18 of FIFRA require publication of a notice of receipt of an application for a specific exemption proposing “use of a new chemical (i.e., an active ingredient) which has not been registered by EPA.”

The Agency, will review and consider all comments received during the comment period in determining whether to issue the specific exemptions requested by the Idaho Department of Agriculture, the Oregon Department of Agriculture, and the Washington State Department of Agriculture.

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

• Crop production (NAICS 111)

• Animal production (NAICS 112)

• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311)

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532)

• Antimicrobial pesticides (NAICS 32561)

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

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number OPP-2003-0008. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

2. Electronic access . You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/ .

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.

For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.

Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.

1. Electronically . If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

i. EPA Dockets . Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket , and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPP-2003-0008. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail . Comments may be sent by e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov , Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2003-0008. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

iii. Disk or CD ROM . You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I.C.2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.

2. By mail . Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2003-0008.

3. By hand delivery or courier . Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2003-0008. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.1.

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

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

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

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

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

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

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

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

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

The petitioner summary of the pesticide petition is printed below as required by FFDCA section 408(d)(3). The summary of the petition was prepared by the petitioner and represents the view of the petitioner. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.

EPA has received a pesticide petition (1F6278) from BASF Corporation, Agricultural Products, P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.380 by making permanent the tolerances for residues of vinclozolin, 3-(3,5-dichlorophenyl)-5-ethenyl-5-methyl-2,4-oxazolidinedione and its metabolites containing the 3,5-dichloroaniline moiety in or on the raw agricultural commodities canola at 1.0 parts per million (ppm); eggs, milk, and the meat, fat, and meat byproducts of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep at 0.05 ppm; and in the meat, fat, and meat byproducts of poultry at 0.1 ppm. In addition, BASF had proposed extending the existing tolerance on succulent beans at 2.0 ppm for an additional 2 years. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

1. Plant metabolism . BASF Corporation notes that metabolism in plants is understood, the residues of concern are vinclozolin, 3-(3,5-dichlorophenyl)-5-methyl-5-vinyl-1,3-oxazolidine-2,4-dione) and metabolites containing the 3,5-dichloroanaline moiety.

2. Analytical method . The proposed analytical method involves extraction, hydrolysis, distillation, partition, and deriviatization followed by detection of residues by gas chromatograph/electron capture detector (gc/ecd). An enforcement method has been published in FDA's Pesticide Analytical Methods, Volume II pg. 876-887.

3. Magnitude of residues . Data previously submitted in support of the tolerances in canola, succulent beans and meat, milk, poultry, and eggs have been reviewed by the Agency and been found adequate to support the tolerances requested.

1. Acute toxicity . On July 18, 2000, EPA published in the Federal Register (65 FR 44453) (FRL-6594-8), time limited tolerances for vinclozolin in canola, succulent beans and meat, milk, poultry and eggs. The toxicological profile as reported in that Federal Register is repeated in this Notice. A battery of acute toxicity studies placed technical vinclozolin in toxicity category IV for acute oral toxicity lethal dose (LD) 50 of > 10,000 milligrams/kilograms (mg/kg)), and acute inhalation toxicity (LC 50 of 29.1 mg/liter (L)); and toxicity category III for acute dermal toxicity (LD 50 of > 5,000 mg/kg). Technical vinclozolin caused minimal eye and dermal irritation and the technical material is positive for skin sensitization.

2. Genotoxicity . Genotoxicity testing showed no evidence of mutagenic activity. (For details see the July 18, 2000 Federal Register (65 FR 44453)).

3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity —i. In four developmental toxicity studies, vinclozolin was given orally from gestational day (gd) 6 through 19 as follows: Study 4—dose levels of 0, 15, 50, or 150 mg/kg/day; study 5—dose levels of 0, 50, 100, 200 mg/kg/day; study 6—dose levels of 0, 200, 400 mg/kg/day; and study 8—dose levels of 0, 600, and 1,000 mg/kg/day. At the gd 20, the fetuses were evaluated.

The developmental toxicity no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) was set at 15 mg/kg/day and the developmental lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) was 50 mg/kg/day. The maternal toxicity LOAEL was < 600 mg/kg/day.

ii. A developmental study in rats via dermal exposure for 6 hours/day on intact skin with dosages of 0, 60, 180, and 360 mg/kg/day highest dose tested (HDT) had a developmental NOAEL of 60 mg/kg/day and a maternal NOAEL of 60 mg/kg/day.

iii. A developmental study in rabbits via oral gavage resulted in dosages of 0, 20, 80, and 300 mg/kg/day HDT with a developmental NOAEL of 300 mg/kg/day and a maternal NOAEL of 300 mg/kg/day.

iv. A second developmental study in rabbits via oral gavage resulted in dosages of 0, 50, 200, and 800 mg/kg/day HDT with a development toxicity NOAEL of 200 mg/kg/day and a maternal toxicity NOAEL of 50 mg/kg/day.

A two-generation rat reproduction study (consisting of two studies: Study A—dose levels of 0, 2.0 and 4.1 mg/kg/day; study B—dose levels of 0, 4.9, 29, 100, and 307 mg/kg/day) with a reproductive NOAEL of 4.9 mg/kg/day and pup effects at 29 mg/kg/day; and with a parental NOAEL of 4.9 mg/kg/day. (For a detailed discussion of the results of these studies see the Federal Register of July 18, 2000 (65 FR 44453)).

4. Chronic toxicity —i. A 1-year chronic feeding study in dogs fed dosages of 0, 1.1, 2.4, 4.9, and 48.7 mg/kg/day with a NOAEL of 2.4 mg/kg/day.

ii. A combination of 2 chronic feeding studies and 1 carcinogenicity study resulted in rats being fed combined dosages of 0, 1.2, 2.4, 7.0, 23, 71, 143, and 221 mg/kg/day (males) and 0, 1.6, 3.1, 7.0, 23, 71, 180, and 221 mg/kg/day (females) with a NOAEL of 1.2 mg/kg/day (males) and 1.6 mg/kg/day (females). An increased incidence of neoplasms occurred at dose levels greater than the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of greater than or equal to 23 mg/kg/day in the liver, adrenal, pituitary, prostate (males), uterus (females), and ovaries (females) at dose levels greater than or equal to 143 mg/kg/day. In the testes (males), Leydig cell adenomas were seen at the MTD for dose levels greater than or equal to 23.0 mg/kg/day due to the anti-androgenic nature of vinclozolin.

5. Carcinogenicity . A carcinogenicity study in mice fed dosages of 0, 2.1, 20.6, 432, and 1,225 HDT mg/kg/day (males) and 0, 2.8, 28.5, 557, and 1,411 (HDT) mg/kg/day (females) with a NOAEL of 20.6 mg/kg/day (males) and 28.5 mg/kg/day.

An increased incidence of neoplasms occurred at dose levels greater than the maximum tolerated dose ( > 28.5 mg/kg/day) in the liver of female mice. (For a detailed discussion of the results of these studies see the Federal Register of July 18, 2000 (65 FR 44453)).

EPA determined the following toxicological endpoints as reported in the Federal Register Notice of July 18, 2000. That reference provides a complete description of the Agency's rationale for the values assigned.

1. Acute toxicity . EPA selected the NOAEL of 6 mg/kg/day. The population subgroup of concern is females (13+) because the endpoint is an in utero effect applicable only to females of childbearing age. An uncertainty factor (UF) of 100 was used to account for interspecies extrapolation and intraspecies variation. On this basis, the acute reference dose (aRfD) is 0.06 mg/kg/day. EPA determined that a 10X FQPA safety factor is applicable. The acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) is 0.006 mg/kg/day. An acute dose and endpoint were not identified for other population subgroups.

2. Chronic toxicity . EPA has established the Reference Dose (RfD) for vinclozolin at 0.012 mg/kg/day. This RfD is based on a NOAEL of 1.2 mg/kg/day from the combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study in rats. An UF of 100 was used to account for interspecies extrapolation and intraspecies variation. A 10X FQPA safety factor was added resulting in a chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD) of 0.0012 mg/kg/day.

3. Short- and intermediate-term toxicity . For short- and intermediate-term dermal and inhalation toxicity, the NOAEL of 3 mg/kg/day from a rat developmental toxicity study was selected for the population subgroup of concern, females (13+). A dermal absorption factor of 25% was used to correct for route-to-route extrapolation (oral to dermal exposure) and a default inhalation absorption factor of 100% was assumed for oral to inhalation exposure. The margin of exposure (MOE) for females (13+), infants and children is 1,000X.

4. Long-term dermal and inhalation toxicity (cancer and non-cancer) . For chronic non-cancer and cancer dermal and inhalation toxicity, EPA selected the chronic NOAEL of 1.2 mg/kg/day from the combined rat chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study. The Q 1* calculated in a low-dose linear extrapolation is 2.9 x 10 -1 (mg/kg/day). A dermal absorption factor of 25% was used to correct for route-to-route extrapolation (oral to dermal exposure) and a default inhalation absorption factor of 100% was assumed for oral to inhalation exposure. The cancer assessment includes not only the adult U.S. population but also infants and children as well.

5. Carcinogenicity . Vinclozolin is classified as a Group C carcinogen based on Leydig (interstitial testicular) cell tumors in a perinatal rat developmental toxicity study. A non-linear (MOE) approach was determined to be appropriate based on a weight-of-the-evidence conclusion that tumor induction is via an anti-androgenic mechanism. Use of the PAD for overall anti-androgenic effects (0.0012 mg/kg/day) is also protective of cancer effects because it is protective of the anti-androgenic effects that are, in effect, precursors to tumor formation.

6. Overall anti-androgenic effects . The Agency has determined that use of the most sensitive regulatory toxicity endpoint and the highest UF would be protective of the anti-androgenic effects on all population subgroups caused by vinclozolin including developmental/reproductive effects as well as carcinogenic effects. In the case of vinclozolin, the most sensitive toxicity endpoint/dose and UF are derived from the rat oral chronic/carcinogenicity study, i.e., the NOAEL of 1.2 mg/kg/day and an UF of 1,000. The PAD of 0.0012 mg/kg/day was used in assessment of risks resulting from the anti-androgenic activity of vinclozolin.

7. Endocrine disruption . A series of mechanistic studies ( in vivo and in vitro ) were conducted to define the anti-androgenic properties of vinclozolin. The results of these studies showed that vinclozolin elicits the anti-androgenic effects by binding to androgen sensitive organs.

For a detailed discussion of the results of these exposure calculations see the Federal Register of July 18, 2000 (65 FR 44453).

1. Dietary exposure . The Agency has previously calculated exposures and risks for the canola green beans, meat, milk, poultry and eggs. The same calculations should be applied to re-establishing these tolerances.

i. Food — a. acute exposure and risk . Acute dietary risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. The Agency concluded that acute dietary exposure estimates for the only population subgroup of concern, females (13+), that “The very conservatively estimated acute dietary risk (food only) does not exceed the Agency's level of concern (LOC).”

b . Chronic exposure and risk. The chronic dietary exposure estimates expressed as a percentage of the cPAD (0.0012 mg/kg/day) were 4% for the U.S. population and 7% for the most highly exposed population subgroup, children (1-6 years old). EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the cPAD because the cPAD represents the level at or below which daily aggregate dietary exposure over a lifetime will not pose appreciable risk to human health. Therefore, the chronic dietary risk (food only) does not exceed the Agency's LOC.

ii. For cancer and anti-androgenic risk assessment . EPA believes that vinclozolin should be classified as a Group C carcinogen. However, due to the relationship between vinclozolin's anti-androgenic properties and its carcinogenic effects, the Agency believes protecting against the anti-androgenic effects would also be protective against potential carcinogenic effects to all population subgroups (including infants and children).

Accordingly, the cPAD will be protective against potential carcinogenic effects as well as the developmental/reproductive effects. The cPAD already incorporates the full, additional 10x safety factor for the protection of infants and children (i.e., it is derived from the NOAEL of 1.2 mg/kg/day with an MOE of 1,000 - 10x for intraspecies extrapolation; 10x for interspecies variation; and 10x for FQPA). Since this approach (using the cPAD) would be more protective than the proposed POD for cancer risk assessment of 3 mg/kg/day, and includes an additional 10x factor for the protection of infants and children, a separate non-linear risk assessment for cancer is not necessary.

Exposure estimates expressed as a percentage of the anti-androgenic PAD (0.0012 mg/kg/day) were 4% for the general U.S. population and 7% for the most highly exposed population subgroup, children (1-6 years old). In addition, as a point of comparison, the MOE was calculated to be 75,000 for the general U.S. population and 38,000 for children (1-6 years old).

2. Drinking water . In general, available monitoring data are of limited use because metabolite concentration measurements were not performed. For both surface water and ground water, the sum of vinclozolin and its principal metabolites, assumed to degrade completely to 3,5-dichloroaniline (here-in-after referred to as 3,5-DCA), have been used to assess the cancer risk associated with 3,5-DCA whereas vinclozolin per se has been used for the vinclozolin risk assessments.

In the absence of reliable, available monitoring data, EPA uses models to calculate the estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) of pesticides in ground water and surface water. However, EPA does not use these model estimates to quantify risk. Currently, EPA uses drinking water level of concerns (DWLOCs) as a surrogate to capture risk associated with exposure to pesticides in drinking water. A DWLOC represents the concentration of a pesticide in drinking water that would be acceptable as an upper limit in light of total aggregate exposure to that pesticide from food, water, and residential uses (if any). A DWLOC will vary depending on the residue level in foods, the toxicity endpoint and the drinking water consumption patterns and body weights for specific population subgroups. The calculated DWLOC is compared to the model estimate (EEC), and if the model estimates are below the DWLOC, the risks are not considered to be of concern.

For estimating ground water concentrations of vinclozolin and 3,5-DCA, EPA used the Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) model. Using SCI-GROW, the acute and chronic ground water EEC of vinclozolin per se is 0.53 parts per billion (ppb), and the acute and chronic ground water EEC of 3,5-DCA is 2.65 ppb.

For estimating surface water concentrations of vinclozolin and 3,5-DCA, EPA used tier II models, Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM) 3.12 and Exposure Analysis Modeling System (EXAMS) 2.975. The acute (peak) surface water EEC for vinclozolin is 5.68 ppb and for 3,5-DCA is 26 ppb. The chronic (annual mean) surface water EEC for vinclozolin is 0.165 ppb and for 3,5-DCA is 3.12 ppb.

i. Acute exposure and risk . For the population subgroup of concern, females (13+), the DWLOCs for vinclozolin per se at the various percentiles of exposure are as follows: 0 ppb at the 99.9th percentile; 4 ppb at the 99.85th percentile; 30 ppb at the 99.8th percentile; 47 ppb at the 99.75th percentile; 80 ppb at the 99.6th percentile; and 92 at the 99.5th percentile. At all but the very highest percentiles of exposure (99.85th and above), the DWLOC for vinclozolin per se is higher than the EEC of 5.68 ppb in surface water and 0.53 ppb in ground water. Given the level of refinement in the vinclozolin exposure estimate, using the highest percentiles of exposure in estimating risk would unreasonably overstate risk. Therefore, there is reasonable certainty that exposure to vinclozolin per se in drinking water will result in no harm.

ii. Chronic exposure and risk . The following chronic DWLOCs were calculated for vinclozolin per se: General U.S. population, 41 ppb; females (13+) 35 ppb; and children (1-6 years old), 11 ppb. The lowest DWLOC of 11 ppb for children 1-6 years old is higher than the EEC of 0.165 ppb in surface water and 0.53 ppb in ground water. Therefore, there is reasonable certainty that exposure to vinclozolin in drinking water will result in no harm.

3. Non-dietary exposure . From non-dietary exposure. There are no vinclozolin pesticide products registered for use by homeowners. Therefore, there is no potential for homeowner handler exposure to vinclozolin pesticide products. Vinclozolin can, however, be occupationally used in a manner that may lead to post-application exposures to the general population, in particular, golfers playing on treated golf courses and homeowners and their families coming into contact with or playing on sod which was previously treated on a sod farm. A chemical-specific turf exposure study was used to measure human exposure as well as residue dissipation over time.

All residential exposures are considered to be short-/intermediate-term duration (i.e., 1 day to 1 week and 1 week to several months, respectively), and the same endpoint applies to both durations of exposure. As the endpoints selected are from oral toxicity studies (NOAEL of 3 mg/kg/day for females (13+)) and NOAEL of 5 mg/kg/day for infants and children, route-to-route exposure was corrected by applying a 25% dermal absorption factor and a 100% default inhalation absorption factor was assumed. A 100% safety factor was used and a 10X FQPA safety factor was added raising the Agency's LOC to 1,000.

Post-application risks to the general population were considered for golfers following treatment of greens, tees, and fairways. Adult golfer exposures, women (13+), were less than the Agency's LOC even on the day of application (MOE = 1,700). Given the magnitude of the MOE for adult women golfers, the Agency does not believe that the risks to child golfers would exceed the Agency LOC either because the skin surface area/body weight ratio of the typical child golfer is similar to that of adults (within 15%). Therefore, the MOE for a child golfer is only slightly less than the MOE for adult golfers.

Since the risk assessment published in the Federal Register , of July 18, 2000 (65 FR 44453) establishing the tolerances in canola, BASF has established a 24 day preharvest interval for the harvest of turf for transplant into residential settings. The MOE calculated under this scenario is 1,100 which is below the Agency's LOC.

Cumulative exposure to substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

Vinclozolin, procymidone, and iprodione are members of the imide group of the dicarboximide class of fungicides. Each of these three pesticides can metabolize to 3,5-DCA. FQPA requires EPA to estimate cumulative risk from consumption of food and water containing 3,5-DCA derived from vinclozolin, iprodione, and procymidone.

1. Acute exposure and risk . EPA has certain evidence that these compounds induce similar toxic effects but has not yet determined whether or not these compounds modulate androgens by a common mechanism of toxicity. In fact, there is evidence that iprodione does not share a common mechanism of toxicity as it disrupts the endocrine system by inhibiting androgen synthesis rather than competing for the androgen receptor as vinclozolin does. In addition, these three chemicals do not have any known metabolites/degradates in common with the possible exception of 3,5-DCA which is structurally and toxicologically different from the parent compounds and unlikely to be an androgen receptor antagonist.

EPA has, at this time, some data which suggests that vinclozolin and procymidone have a common mechanism of toxicity. An article published in Toxicology & Industrial Health (Vol. 15, ISS 1-2, 1999, pg. 80-93) which reports the findings by Dr. Earl Gray, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC, suggests that procymidone alters sexual differentiation in the male rat by acting as an androgen-receptor antagonist in vivo and in vitro . The Agency has yet to make a conclusion as to whether these data are sufficient to evaluate whether vinclozolin and procymidone have a common mechanism of toxicity.

Even if it is assumed that vinclozolin and procymidone share a common mechanism of toxicity, a finding of reasonable certainty of no harm for vinclozolin can be made because any cumulative risk resulting from adding procymidone residues in wine to vinclozolin exposure is unlikely to differ significantly from the risk of vinclozolin alone. This conclusion is based on a number of factors. The exposure assessment for vinclozolin estimates that vinclozolin exposure through wine grapes contributes < 2% of the total vinclozolin exposure. The percent of imported wine grapes that are treated with procymidone is similar to that of vinclozolin (estimated 10% of wine grapes treated with vinclozolin and 9.4% of wine grapes treated with procymidone), and therefore, the exposure pattern for these chemicals is similar. In addition, the exposure estimates conservatively assume that all wine bearing vinclozolin residues also contain procymidone residues. In all likelihood, wine grapes would be treated with either vinclozolin or procymidone but not both chemicals. Vinclozolin exposure and procymidone exposure through wine grapes would each add < 2% to the “cumulative exposure.” As noted above, the acute food-only risk of vinclozolin is 83% of the aPAD at the 99.8th percentile of exposure, and the acute ground water EEC of 0.53 ppb and the acute surface water EEC of 5.68 ppb are lower than the drinking water DWLOC which is 30 ppb at the 99.8th percentile of exposure. There is ultimately enough room in the risk cup to accommodate vinclozolin and procymidone risk, even, if in the future, EPA does determine that procymidone and vinclozolin share a common mechanism of toxicity.

2. Carcinogenic exposure and risk . Since 3,5-DCA is not a registered pesticide, there is no FIFRA toxicology data base for this compound. In previous risk assessments, EPA has used the Q 1* for p-chloroaniline (PCA) to assess the carcinogenicity (only toxicological endpoint identified for 3,5-DCA) for other structurally related chloroanilines. EPA's approach on chloroanilines is to consider chloroaniline metabolites to be toxicologically equivalent to PCA unless there is sufficient evidence that the metabolite is not carcinogenic. A Q 1* of 6.38 x 10 -2 (mg/kg/day) has been calculated for p-chloroaniline based on the spleen sarcoma rate in male rats from a National Toxicology Program bioassay.

Exposure to 3,5-DCA was evaluated from the following sources: Residues of vinclozolin- and iprodione-derived 3,5-DCA in food and wine, residues of procymidone-derived 3,5-DCA in imported wine, and 3,5-DCA residues in water from domestic agricultural uses of iprodione and vinclozolin. There are no U.S. registrations for procymidone. Therefore, an evaluation of exposure to procymidone-derived 3,5-DCA in water is not appropriate.

3. Food risk —i. From vinclozolin-derived 3,5-DCA residues . Cancer risks were 2.6 x 10 -7 for all crops, excluding strawberries and stone fruits. BASF notes that the last day for legal use of vinclozolin in either strawberries or stonefruit was January 2000. In effect neither commodity has been treated with vinclozolin since the 1999 use season. In addition, the last day for legal use of vinclozolin on onions and raspberries was December 15, 2001. As a result the theoretical cancer risk calculated is an overestimation and these risks do not exceed the Agency's LOC.

ii. From iprodione-derived 3,5-DCA residues . As stated in the July 1998 Iprodione RED fact sheet, the cancer risk associated with 3,5-DCA derived from iprodione was 6 x 10 -9 . This risk does not exceed the Agency's LOC.

iii. From procymidone-derived 3,5-DCA residues . The cancer risk associated with 3,5-DCA in imported wine produced from grapes treated with procymidone was estimated to be 3.7 x 10 -7 . This risk does not exceed the Agency's LOC.

4. Drinking water risk —i. From vinclozolin derived 3,5-DCA . Since the use on onions has been eliminated, the carcinogenic DWLOC for 3,5-DCA (based on the commodities currently available for consumption) has been calculated to range from 0.46 ppb to 1.6 ppb. Using Tier II PRZM/EXAMS, the modeled EECs are 0.64 ppb for lettuce and 0.34 ppb for canola. The use site which represents the highest modeled exposure in drinking water is golf courses. Application to golf course turf is currently permitted on grass mowed at 1 inch or less. Using the Tier I generic expected environmental concentration (GENEEC) model, the Agency has calculated a chronic EEC of 0.29 ppb based on application to tees and greens and a chronic EEC of 2.33 ppb assuming application to tees, greens, and fairways. These EECs were the result of refinements to the GENEEC model. These refinements included the incorporation of an 87 percent crop area factor as well as the percentage of the golf course that actually receives pesticide treatment, bringing the resulting PCA factor down to 17%. It was assumed that tees and greens comprise 2.8% of the acreage of a golf course. When fairways are included, an additional 16.7% of the golf course is treated. The EEC of 2.33 ppb exceeds the DWLOC. In evaluating whether this EEC indicated a risk of concern EPA considered the following factors:

ii. The drinking water assessment on turf is based on GENEEC, a screening-level Tier I model . At present, PRZM-EXAMS, the Tier II model, does not have the appropriate parameters to accurately model turf runoff. Although GENEEC is not an ideal tool for use in drinking water risk assessments, it can provide high-end estimates of the concentrations that might be found in a confined pond of one hectare. Drinking water from surface water sources does not typically come from this type of scenario, but rather from bodies of water that are substantially larger than such ponds and from diverse watersheds. Unlike a confined pond, there is always some flow (in a river) or turn over (in a lake or reservoir) resulting in an over-estimation of the persistence of the chemicals near the drinking water utility intakes. Although a PCA of 17% was used to refine the model, the Agency recognizes that there are still uncertainties in the accuracy of the model to represent drinking water concentrations.

iii. The GENEEC model uses the 56-day average of pesticide concentrations immediately after an event (application of pesticide) . This short time-period may not adequately characterize a person's average daily exposure over a year, even more so, over a life time of 70 years.

iv. The GENEEC model assumes that once in every 10 years the EEC will be exceeded . For the other 9 out of 10 years the level of residue in drinking water is likely to be below the EEC with at least one half of the years falling significantly below by a factor of 5 to 10. Therefore, a person may be exposed to the EEC once in every 10 years or a total of 7 times during a lifetime of 70 years. The Agency believes the potential for such a lifetime exposure is minimal.

v. Iprodione 3,5-DCA . As stated in the RED, the DWLOC for 3,5-DCA derived from domestic uses of iprodione was estimated to be 0.55 ppb. The 3,5-DCA EEC in surface water associated with the use of iprodione alone was estimated to be 0.45 ppb. Thus, the iprodione derived 3,5-DCA carcinogenic DWLOC is not exceeded.

vi. From procymidone 3,5-DCA . There is no drinking water exposure because procymidone is not registered for use in the United States.

The cumulative, food-only cancer risk associated with 3,5-DCA derived from all three of these imide fungicides is 6.3 x 10 -7 when stone fruit and strawberries are excluded from consideration. There is uncertainty in the above risk estimates in that a surrogate Q 1* is being used for 3,5-DCA. However, due to the structural similarities of 3,5-DCA and p-chloroaniline (PCA), EPA believes that for 3,5-DCA, the use of the PCA Q 1* represents an upper-bound estimate.

The 3,5-DCA DWLOC from all three imide fungicides and those currently registered vinclozolin uses which are not being supported after this use season ranges from 0.26 ppb to 1.4 ppb. The estimated concentration of 3,5-DCA in water from applications of iprodione (1998 iprodione RED) is 0.45 ppb and falls within the range of the aggregated DWLOC cited above. The estimated concentration of 3,5-DCA in water from applications of vinclozolin is estimated to range from 0.29 ppb to 2.33 ppb.

As already stated, this range could potentially present a risk of concern based on the model, however, based on how the model estimates residue concentrations for cancer assessment, it is unlikely that a cancer risk of concern is present.

1. U.S. population —i. Acute risk . The acute dietary (food only) risk does not exceed the Agency's LOC at the percentiles of exposure up to the 99.8th percentile. Using anticipated residues, PCT data, and PICT data, the population subgroup of concern, females (13+) utilized 83% of the dietary (food only) aPAD at the 99.8th percentile of exposure. For drinking water, the EEC of 5.68 ppb in surface water and the EEC of 0.53 in ground water did not exceed the DWLOC of 30 ppb at the 99.8th percentile of exposure.

ii. Chronic risk . Using the exposure assumptions described above, aggregate dietary exposure to the U.S. population will use 4% of the cPAD and exposure to the most highly exposed population subgroup, children (1-6 year old) will use 7% of the cPAD. The chronic DWLOCs for vinclozolin were 41 ppb for the general U.S. population and 35 ppb for the most highly exposed population subgroup, women (13+). The chronic DWLOCs were higher than the chronic EEC of 0.53 ppb in ground water and 0.165 ppb in surface water. EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the cPAD because the cPAD represents the level at or below which daily aggregate dietary exposure over a lifetime will not pose appreciable risks to human health.

2. Short- and intermediate-term risk . Short- and intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account chronic dietary food and water (considered to be a background exposure level) plus indoor and outdoor residential exposure. All residential exposures are considered to be short- and intermediate-term duration and since the same endpoint applies to both durations of exposures, the dermal and inhalation exposures must be aggregated together with the food and water exposures for each population subgroup of concern, females (13+) and infants and children. Since the risk assessment published in the Federal Register of July 18, 2000 (65 FR 44453), establishing the tolerances in canola, BASF has established a 24-day preharvest interval for the harvest of turf for transplant into residential settings. The MOE calculated under this scenario is 1,100 which is below the Agency's LOC.

3. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population . Because the overall anti-androgenic effects are a prerequisite for hyperplasia and tumor formation, and are considered to be protective of the potential carcinogenic outcome of exposure to the anti-androgenic vinclozolin and its metabolites, the overall anti-androgenic aggregate risk which are identical to the chronic aggregate risk. The chronic aggregate risks are presented. The chronic (non-cancer) aggregate risk was below the Agency's LOC for food and drinking water sources of exposure. Chronic food-source risks were less than or equal to 7% of the cPAD when stone fruit and strawberries are excluded (uses have been canceled). EECs were compared to the chronic DWLOCs. The chronic EEC for residues of vinclozolin per se in ground water (0.53 ppb) was below the chronic DWLOCs for water consumption by adults (41 ppb for the general U.S. population and 35 ppb for females (13+)) and by children (11 ppb).

Cancer risks from vinclozolin derived 3,5-DCA were 2.6 x 10 -7 for all crops, excluding strawberries and stone fruits. This risk does not exceed the Agency's LOC. The 3,5-DCA DWLOC from all three imide fungicides (including canola, succulent beans, onions, and raspberries) ranges from 0.26 ppb to 1.4 ppb. It should be noted that vinclozolin is no longer used in onions and raspberries. The 3,5-DCA EEC resulting from iprodione use is 0.45 ppb and falls with the range of the aggregated DWLOC cited above. The 3,5-DCA EEC resulting from vinclozolin use is estimated to range from 0.29 ppb to 2.33 ppb. As already stated, this range could potentially present a risk of concern based on the model, however, based on how the model estimates residue concentrations for cancer assessment, it is unlikely that a cancer risk of concern is present.

4. Determination of safety . Based on these risk assessments, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to vinclozolin residues.

5. Infants and children . In assessing the potential for additional sensitivity of infants and children to residues of vinclozolin, EPA considered data from developmental toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit and a 2-generation reproduction study in the rat. The developmental toxicity studies are designed to evaluate adverse effects on the developing organism resulting from maternal pesticide exposure during gestation.

Reproduction studies provide information relating to effects from exposure to the pesticide on the reproductive capability of mating animals and data on systemic toxicity.

FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA determines that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children.

6. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity . The rationale for retaining the 10X FQPA safety factor is explained below:

i. There is evidence of increased susceptibility of offspring following in utero exposure to vinclozolin in the prenatal developmental toxicity study in rats.

ii. A developmental neurotoxicity study in rats with an expanded protocol is required for vinclozolin as a result of concern for the anti-androgenic properties of vinclozolin and its metabolites.

Based on the developmental and reproductive data for vinclozolin, EPA determined that an additional 10X safety factor for the protection of infants and children (as required by FQPA) should be retained.

1. Acute risk . No study with vinclozolin indicated that acute exposure to vinclozolin is likely to cause an adverse effect of concern on infants or children or the general public with the exception of the in utero effects on the developing fetus. Risks to the fetus are estimated by examining exposure to women of child-bearing age.

2. Chronic risk . Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit, it is concluded that aggregate exposure to vinclozolin from food will utilize 7% of the cPAD for infants and children. EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the cPAD because the cPAD represents the level at or below which daily aggregate dietary exposure over a lifetime will not pose appreciable risks to human health. Since the EEC's for residues of vinclozolin per se are lower than the chronic DWLOC's, aggregate exposure will not exceed 100% of the cPAD.

3. Short- or intermediate-term risk . The MOE is greater than or equal to 1,010 for aggregate risks to infants and children resulting from use of vinclozolin. Therefore, the risks do not exceed the Agency's LOC.

4. Determination of safety . Based on these risk assessments, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to vinclozolin residues.

CODEX maximum residue limits (MRLs) for residues of vinclozolin and its metabolites containing the 3,5-DCA moiety have been established in common bean at 2 ppm, rape seed at 1 ppm (no limit for canola), cattle meat and milk at 0.5 ppm, and chicken meat and eggs at 0.05 ppm. No Canadian or Mexican tolerances have been established for vinclozolin residues in succulent beans, rape, canola, meat, milk, poultry, or eggs.

The CODEX MRLs for canola (rapeseed), cattle meat, cattle milk, and poultry eggs are in harmony with the proposed tolerances associated with this petition. The chicken meat MRL (0.05 ppm) is not in harmony with the proposed tolerance in poultry meat (0.1 ppm) due to recovery discrepancies with the analytical method.

This action is directed to the public in general. Although this action may be of particular interest to those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under TSCA, FFDCA, or FIFRA, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number OPP-2002-0324. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.You may also obtain copies of test guidelines from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/home/guidelin.htm.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit II.A. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

EPA is announcing the availability of the revised final test guideline for Series 870-Health Effects Test Guideline, OPPTS 870.2600 Skin Sensitization. In 1996, the SAP reviewed the use of the Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) as a screening method in the Agency's harmonized test guideline OPPTS 870.2600 Skin sensitization. The LLNA is a test method for assessing the potential allergic contact dermatitis (skin sensitization) of chemicals and compounds. In January 2001, the assay was found to be scientifically valid by ICCVAM peer review (Ref. 1) as an alternative method, where applicable, to the traditional guinea pig tests (Guinea Pig Maximization Test (GPMT) (Ref. 2) and Buehler tests (Ref. 3)) which are currently accepted by regulatory authorities. This alternative test also provides animal welfare advantages. The Agency has now revised its harmonized test guideline OPPTS 870.2600 Skin Sensitization to incorporate the LLNA for use as an alternative method for assessing skin sensitization under the appropriate circumstances. The availability of the draft revised final test guideline OPPTS 870.2600 was announced in the Federal Register on September 12, 2001 (66 FR 47478) (FRL-6801-6). The draft revised guideline was reviewed by EPA's SAP in a public meeting on December 11, 2001, and recommendations of the SAP were incorporated into the revised test protocol. The guideline has been harmonized with OECD test guideline 429 Skin Sensitization: Local Lymph Node Assay which was adopted by OECD on April 24, 2002. It should be recognized that there are certain testing situations that may necessitate the use of traditional guinea pig tests. The LLNA may not be appropriate for all types of test materials, such as certain metallic compounds, high molecular weight proteins, strong dermal irritants and materials that do not sufficiently adhere to the ear for an acceptable period of time during treatment. When using the LLNA, particular care should be taken to ensure that hydrophilic materials are incorporated into a vehicle system that wets the skin and does not immediately run off. Thus, wholly aqueous vehicles or test materials and runny liquids are to be avoided. In all instances, the tester must document that appropriate techniques were used to facilitate adherence to the mouse ear for an adequate exposure duration. It may be possible to use the LLNA to test some of these materials if appropriate techniques are used to facilitate adherence. In situations for test materials where the LLNA is not applicable or may provide unreliable or problematic results, the GPMT tests are recommended. Although the LLNA, GPMT, or Buehler tests are considered to be acceptable tests, it is recognized that other tests may give useful results. If other tests are used, the investigator must provide justification/reasoning for use of other procedures and methods and protocols must be provided. A positive and negative control group must be included in each test.

This notice of availability does not involve a proposed regulatory action that would require the Agency to consider voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Section 12(d) of NTTAA directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA requires EPA to provide an explanation to Congress, through Office of Management and Budget (OMB), when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards when the NTTAA directs the Agency to do so.

The following references are cited in this document.

(1) The Murine Local Lymph Node Assay: A Test Method for Assessing the Allergic Contact Dermatitis Potential of Chemicals/Compounds. Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM), National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences, NIH Publication No. 99-4494 (1999). (Document available at http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/methods/llnadocs/llnarep.pdf.)

(2) Magnusson, B. Identification of contact sensitizers by animal assay. Contact Dermatology 6:46 (1980).

(3) Buehler, L.V. Occ1usive patch method for skin sensitization in guinea pigs: the Buehler method. Food and Chemical Toxicology 32:97101 (1994).

This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitter of the premanufacture notices addressed in the action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number OPPT-2003-0014. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center, Rm. B102-Reading Room, EPA West, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The EPA Docket Center Reading Room telephone number is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket, which is located in EPA Docket Center, is (202) 566-0280.

2. Electronic access . You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.

For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.

Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number and specific PMN number or TME number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.

1. Electronically . If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

i. EPA Dockets . Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select“ search,” and then key in docket ID number OPPT-2003-0014. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail . Comments may be sent by e-mail to oppt.ncic@epa.gov, Attention: Docket ID Number OPPT-2003-0014 and PMN Number or TME Number. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

iii. Disk or CD ROM . You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I.C.2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.

2. By mail . Send your comments to: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

3. By hand delivery or courier . Deliver your comments to: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO) in EPA East Building Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID Number OPPT-2003-0014 and PMN Number or TME Number. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is (202) 564-8930.

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

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

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

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

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

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice or collection activity.

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

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

Section 5 of TSCA requires any person who intends to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) a new chemical (i.e., a chemical not on the TSCA Inventory to notify EPA and comply with the statutory provisions pertaining to the manufacture of new chemicals. Under sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3) of TSCA, EPA is required to publish a notice of receipt of a PMN or an application for a TME and to publish periodic status reports on the chemicals under review and the receipt of notices of commencement to manufacture those chemicals. This status report, which covers the period from February 4, 2003 to February 10, 2003, consists of the PMNs pending or expired, and the notices of commencement to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.

This status report identifies the PMNs pending or expired, and the notices of commencement to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period. If you are interested in information that is not included in the following tables, you may contact EPA as described in Unit II. to access additional non-CBI information that may be available.

In Table I of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the PMNs received by EPA during this period: the EPA case number assigned to the PMN; the date the PMN was received by EPA; the projected end date for EPA's review of the PMN; the submitting manufacturer; the potential uses identified by the manufacturer in the PMN; and the chemical identity.

This is a summary of the Auction No. 49 Procedures Public Notice released on March 4, 2003. The complete text of the Auction No. 49 Procedures Public Notice, including attachments, is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC, 20554. The Auction No. 49 Procedures Public Notice may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via e-mail qualexint@aol.com.

1. By the Auction No. 49 Procedures Public Notice, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (“Bureau”) announces the procedures and minimum opening bids for the upcoming auction of licenses in the Lower 700 MHz C and D blocks, (the 710-716/740-746 MHz and 716-722 MHz bands) scheduled for May 28, 2003 (Auction No. 49). On December 2, 2002, in accordance with the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the Bureau released a public notice seeking comment on reserve prices or minimum opening bids and the procedures to be used for the auction of 251 licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band C block. The Bureau received five comments and five reply comments in response to the Auction No. 49 Comment Public Notice, 67 FR 72946 (December 9, 2002). On January 29, 2003, the Bureau released a public notice announcing a revised auction inventory to include five licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band D block. In the Auction No. 49 Revised Comment Public Notice, 68 FR 6452 (February 7, 2003), the Bureau sought comment on the procedural issues related to the auction of the D block licenses. In the Auction No. 49 Revised Comment Public Notice, the Bureau also revised the starting date for Auction No. 49. The Bureau received two comments and two reply comments in response to the Auction No. 49 Revised Comment Public Notice.

2. On January 18, 2002, the Commission released the Lower 700 MHz Report & Order, 67 FR 5491 (February 6, 2002), which adopted allocation and service rules for the Lower 700 MHz Band. Specifically, the Commission reallocated the entire 48 megahertz of spectrum in the Lower 700 MHz band to fixed and mobile services and retained the existing broadcast allocation for both new broadcast services and incumbent broadcast services during their transition to digital television (“DTV”). The Commission established technical criteria designed to protect incumbent television operations in the band during the DTV transition period, allowed low power television (“LPTV”) and TV translator stations to retain secondary status and operate in the band after the transition, and set forth a mechanism by which pending broadcast applications may be amended to provide analog or digital service in the core television spectrum or to provide digital service on TV Channels 52-58.

3. In its service rules, the Commission divided the Lower 700 MHz band into three 12-megahertz blocks, with each block consisting of a pair of 6-megahertz segments, and two 6-megahertz blocks of contiguous, unpaired spectrum. The Commission decided to divide the five blocks in the Lower 700 MHz band plan as follows: the two 6-megahertz blocks of contiguous unpaired spectrum, as well as two of the three 12-megahertz blocks of paired spectrum, were assigned over six Economic Area Groupings (“EAGs”); the remaining 12 megahertz block of paired spectrum was assigned over 734 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (“MSAs”) and Rural Service Areas (“RSAs”). All operations in the Lower 700 MHz band are generally regulated under the framework of Part 27's technical, licensing, and operating rules. To permit both wireless services and certain new broadcast operations in the Lower 700 MHz band, however, the Commission has amended the maximum power limits in Part 27 to permit 50 kW effective radiated power (“ERP”) transmissions in the Lower 700 MHz band, subject to certain conditions. Finally, the Commission established competitive bidding procedures and voluntary band-clearing mechanisms for the Lower 700 MHz band. On June 14, 2002, the Commission affirmed its decisions in the Lower 700 MHz Report and Order.

4. With respect to the MSA and RSA licenses, the Bureau notes that MSAs and RSAs are collectively known as Cellular Market Areas (CMAs). CMAs were created from the Metropolitan Statistical Areas (“MSAs”) defined by the Office of Management and Budget (CMA001-CMA305), the Gulf of Mexico (CMA306), and Rural Service Areas (“RSAs”) established by the FCC (CMA307-CMA734). These RSAs include parts of Puerto Rico not already in an MSA (CMA723-CMA729), U.S. Virgin Islands (CMA730-CMA731), Guam (CMA732), American Samoa (CMA733), and Northern Mariana Islands (CMA734). The CMA designation, rather than MSA/RSA, is used in the FCC Automated Auction System and in the Universal Licensing System.

5. Auction No. 49 will offer 256 licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band C block (710-716/740-746 MHz) and D block (716-722 MHz). This auction will include 251 C block and five D block licenses that remained unsold in Auction No. 44, which closed on September 18, 2002. The C block is a 12-megahertz block consisting of a pair of 6-megahertz segments, which is licensed over various MSAs/RSAs. The D block is a 6-megahertz unpaired spectrum block, which is licensed over five 700 MHz Economic Area Groupings (“700 MHz EAGs”). A complete list of licenses available in Auction No. 49 and their descriptions is included in Attachment A of the Auction No. 49 Procedures Public Notice.

6. The following table contains the block/frequency cross-reference for the 710-716/740-746 MHz and 716-722 MHz bands:

7. Prospective bidders must familiarize themselves thoroughly with the Commission's rules relating to the Lower 700 MHz band contained in title 47, part 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and those relating to application and auction procedures, contained in title 47, part 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Prospective bidders must also be thoroughly familiar with the procedures, terms and conditions (collectively, “terms”) contained in the Auction No. 49 Procedures Public Notice; the Auction No. 49 Comment Public Notices; and the Part 1 Fifth Report and Order, 65 FR 52323 (August 29, 2000), (as well as prior and subsequent Commission proceedings regarding competitive bidding procedures).

8. Auction participants bidding on licenses in the 698-746 MHz spectrum band should also be familiar with the Lower 700 MHz Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 66 FR 19106 (April 13, 2001), the Lower 700 MHz Report and Order and the Lower 700 MHz MO&O , 67 FR 45380 (July 9, 2002).

9. The terms contained in the Commission's rules, relevant orders, and public notices are not negotiable. The Commission may amend or supplement the information contained in our public notices at any time, and will issue public notices to convey any new or supplemental information to bidders. It is the responsibility of all prospective bidders to remain current with all Commission rules and with all public notices pertaining to this auction. Copies of most Commission documents, including public notices, can be retrieved from the FCC Auctions Internet site at http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions. Additionally, documents are available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC, 20554, or may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via e-mail qualexint@aol.com. When ordering documents from Qualex, please provide the appropriate FCC document number (for example, FCC 01-364 for the Lower 700 MHz Report and Order).

10. To ensure the competitiveness of the auction process, the Commission's rules prohibit applicants for the same geographic license area from communicating with each other during the auction about bids, bidding strategies, or settlements. This prohibition begins at the short-form application filing deadline and ends at the down payment deadline after the auction. Bidders competing for licenses in the same geographic license areas are encouraged not to use the same individual as an authorized bidder. A violation of the anti-collusion rule could occur if an individual acts as the authorized bidder for two or more competing applicants and conveys information concerning the substance of bids or bidding strategies between the bidders he or she is authorized to represent in the auction. A violation could similarly occur if the authorized bidders are different individuals employed by the same organization ( e.g. , law firm or consulting firm). In such a case, at a minimum, applicants should certify on their applications that precautionary steps have been taken to prevent communication between authorized bidders and that applicants and their bidding agents will comply with the anti-collusion rule.

11. However, the Bureau cautions that merely filing a certifying statement as part of an application will not outweigh specific evidence that collusive behavior has occurred, nor will it preclude the initiation of an investigation when warranted. The Commission's anti-collusion rules allow applicants to form certain agreements during the auction, provided the applicants have not applied for licenses covering the same geographic areas. In Auction No. 49, for example, the rule would apply to any applicants bidding for the same MSA/RSA or EAG. Furthermore, the rule would apply to an applicant bidding for an EAG and another applicant bidding for an MSA/RSA within that EAG. In addition, applicants that apply to bid for all markets would be precluded from communicating with all other applicants until after the down payment deadline. However, all applicants may enter into bidding agreements before filing their FCC Form 175, as long as they disclose the existence of the agreement(s) in their Form 175. If parties agree in principle on all material terms prior to the short-form filing deadline, those parties must be identified on the short-form application pursuant to § 1.2105(c), even if the agreement has not been reduced to writing. If the parties have not agreed in principle by the filing deadline, an applicant would not include the names of those parties on its application, and may not continue negotiations with other applicants for licenses covering the same geographic areas. By signing their FCC Form 175 short-form applications, applicants are certifying their compliance with § 1.2105(c).

12. In addition, § 1.65 of the Commission's rules requires an applicant to maintain the accuracy and completeness of information furnished in its pending application and to notify the Commission within 30 days of any substantial change that may be of decisional significance to that application. Thus, §§ 1.65 and 1.2105 require an auction applicant to notify the Commission of any violation of the anti-collusion rules upon learning of such violation. Bidders therefore are required to make such notification to the Commission immediately upon discovery.

13. A summary listing of documents from the Commission and the Bureau addressing the application of the anti-collusion rules may be found in Attachment G of the Auction No. 49 Procedures Public Notice.

14. Among other licensing and technical rules, new Lower 700 MHz band licensees must comply with the interference protection requirements set forth in § 27.60 of the Commission's rules. Generally, § 27.60 establishes standards for protection of co- and adjacent-channel analog TV and DTV facilities. Thus, for example, a new licensee seeking to operate on the D block (716-722 MHz) portion of the Lower 700 MHz band must provide co-channel protection to nearby TV and DTV operations on Channel 55 and adjacent-channel protection to stations on Channels 54 and 56. New Lower 700 MHz band licensees should also be aware that incumbent broadcasters may be permitted to make certain changes to their authorized facilities. Such modified facilities may be entitled to interference protection from new Lower 700 MHz band licensees. In addition, Appendix D of the Lower 700 MHz Report and Order describes additional adjacent-channel interference considerations that are designed to mitigate the possibility of base-to-base interference that may arise at base receive stations that are in close proximity to high power transmitters operating on adjacent channels. Moreover, licensees intending to operate a facility at a power level of greater than 1 kilowatt must provide advance notice to the Commission and to licensees authorized in their area of operation. New Lower 700 MHz licensees also will have to comply with any additional technical requirements or interference protection requirements that may be adopted in the future as a result of pending and future rulemaking proceedings.

15. Potential bidders should recognize that the interference protection requirements for the Lower 700 MHz band are more stringent in certain respects relative to the interference standards that apply to the Upper 700 MHz band. These interference obligations will remain in force until the end of the DTV transition period at which time analog TV and DTV broadcasters will be required to vacate both the Upper and Lower 700 MHz bands.

16. Potential bidders should be aware that a greater number of broadcast incumbents exist in the Lower 700 MHz band relative to the Upper 700 MHz band. The Commission has also observed that, although there is approximately the same number of analog incumbents in both the Upper and Lower 700 MHz bands, the Lower 700 MHz consists of less spectrum and, therefore, incumbent licensees are more densely situated across the band. Further, there is a significantly greater number of DTV assignments on the eight television channels in the Lower 700 MHz band, including licenses, construction permits, pending applications, and pending allotment petitions, than exist in the Upper 700 MHz band. The Commission may also permit certain Channel 60-69 broadcasters to relocate temporarily into Channels 52-58 pursuant to a voluntary clearing arrangement.

17. The Commission has established a policy of facilitating voluntary clearing of the 700 MHz bands to allow for the introduction of new wireless services and to promote the transition of incumbent analog television licensees to DTV service. Generally speaking, this policy provides that the Commission will consider specific regulatory requests needed to implement voluntary agreements between incumbent broadcasters and new licensees to clear the Lower 700 MHz band early, if consistent with the public interest. The fundamentals of the Commission's voluntary clearing policy for the 700 MHz bands were established in a series of decisions beginning with the adoption of the Upper 700 MHz First Report and Order in January 2000. However, in light of certain differences between the Upper and Lower 700 MHz bands, the Commission decided not to extend certain aspects of its voluntary clearing policy to the Lower 700 MHz band, including the presumptions that were established in the Upper 700 MHz band for analyzing voluntary band-clearing proposals and the extended DTV construction period that was provided to certain single-channel broadcasters in connection with the arrangements for early clearing of the Upper 700 MHz band. In considering such regulatory requests, the Commission will consider whether grant of the request would result in public interest benefits, such as making new or expanded public safety or other wireless services available to consumers or deploying wireless service to rural or other underserved communities. The Commission intends to weigh these benefits against any likely public interest costs, such as the loss of any of the four stations in the designated market area with the largest audience share, the loss of the sole service licensed to the local community, the loss of a community's sole service on a channel reserved for noncommercial educational broadcast service, or a negative effect on the pace of the DTV transition in the market.

18. Subsequent to the adoption by the Commission of its voluntary clearing policy, the Auction Reform Act of 2002 was enacted. One provision of this legislation restricts the Commission's authority to waive certain broadcast interference standards and the minimum spacing requirements for certain proposals to relocate Channel 52-69 analog operations to a Channel 2-51 DTV allotment, if such waiver “will result in any degradation in or loss of service, or an increased level of interference to any television household except as the Commission's rules would otherwise expressly permit, exclusive of any waivers previously granted.”

19. The United States has bilateral agreements with both Canada and Mexico setting forth allotment and assignment plans for TV broadcast stations covering the 698-746 MHz band (Channels 52-59). While the U.S. has identified this band for reallocation to new services, neither Canada nor Mexico has done so to date. Pursuant to these agreements, the U.S. must protect the signals of Canadian and Mexican TV broadcast stations located in the border areas, and such operations will therefore affect U.S. non-broadcast use and services in this band. Accordingly, licenses issued for this band will be subject to whatever future agreements the U. S. develops with these two countries. Furthermore, until such time as existing agreements are replaced or modified to reflect the new uses, licensees in the band will be subject to existing agreements and the condition that harmful interference not be caused to, and must be accepted from, television broadcast operations in those countries.

20. Potential bidders are reminded that there are a number of incumbent broadcast television licensees already licensed and operating in the 710-716/740-746 MHz and 716-722 MHz bands that will be subject to the upcoming auction. As discussed in greater detail, the Commission made clear that geographic area licensees operating on the spectrum associated with Channels 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 59 must comply with the co-channel and the adjacent channel provision of § 27.60 of the Commission's rules. These limitations may restrict the ability of such geographic licensees to use certain portions of the electromagnetic spectrum or provide service to certain regions in their geographic license areas.

21. Potential bidders are solely responsible for identifying associated risks and for investigating and evaluating the degree to which such matters may affect their ability to bid on, otherwise acquire, or make use of licenses available in Auction No. 49.

22. To aid potential bidders, the Bureau will issue shortly a Due Diligence Announcement listing incumbent licensees operating in these bands. The Commission makes no representations or guarantees that the matters listed in this Due Diligence Announcement are the only pending matters that could affect spectrum availability in these services.

23. Potential bidders also should be aware that certain applications (including those for modification), petitions for rulemaking, requests for special temporary authority (“STA”), waiver requests, petitions to deny, petitions for reconsideration, and applications for review may be pending before the Commission and relate to particular applicants or incumbent licensees. In addition, certain judicial proceedings that may relate to particular applicants or incumbent licensees, or the licenses available in Auction No. 49, may be commenced, or may be pending, or may be subject to further review. We note that resolution of these matters could have an impact on the availability of spectrum in Auction No. 49. In addition, although the Commission will continue to act on pending applications, requests and petitions, some of these matters may not be resolved by the time of the auction. To aid potential bidders, the Bureau will issue shortly a Due Diligence Announcement listing matters pending before the Commission that relate to licenses or applications in these services. The Commission makes no representations or guarantees that the matters listed in the Due Diligence Announcement are the only pending matters that could affect spectrum availability in these services.

24. In addition, potential bidders may research the licensing database for the Media Bureau on the Internet in order to determine which frequencies are already licensed to incumbent licensees. The Commission makes no representations or guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of information in its databases or any third party databases, including, for example, court docketing systems. Furthermore, the Commission makes no representations or guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of information that has been provided by incumbent licensees and incorporated into the database. Potential bidders are strongly encouraged to physically inspect any sites located in, or near, the EAG, MSA or RSA for which they plan to bid.

25. Licensing records for the Media Bureau are contained in the Media Bureau's Consolidated Data Base System (CDBS) and may be researched on the Internet at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/. Potential bidders may query the database online and download a copy of their search results if desired. Detailed instructions on using Search for Station Information, Search for Ownership Report Information and Search for Application Information and downloading query results are available online by selecting the CDBS Public Access (main) button at the bottom of the Electronic Filing and Public Access list section. The database searches return either station or application data. The application search provides an application link that displays the complete electronically filed application in application format. An AL/TC search under the application search link permits searching for Assignment of License/Transfer of Control groups using the AL/TC group lead application. For further details, click on the Help file.

26. Potential bidders should direct questions regarding the search capabilities of CDBS to the Media Bureau help line at (202) 418-2662, or via e-mail at mbinfo@fcc.gov.

27. All applicants must certify on their FCC Form 175 applications under penalty of perjury that they are legally, technically, financially and otherwise qualified to hold a license, and not in default on any payment for Commission licenses (including down payments) or delinquent on any non-tax debt owed to any Federal agency. Prospective bidders are reminded that submission of a false certification to the Commission is a serious matter that may result in severe penalties, including monetary forfeitures, license revocations, exclusion from participation in future auctions, and/or criminal prosecution.

28. The FCC makes no representations or warranties about the use of this spectrum for particular services. Applicants should be aware that an FCC auction represents an opportunity to become an FCC licensee in this service, subject to certain conditions and regulations. An FCC auction does not constitute an endorsement by the FCC of any particular services, technologies or products, nor does an FCC license constitute a guarantee of business success. Applicants and interested parties should perform their own due diligence before proceeding, as they would with any new business venture.

29. As is the case with many business investment opportunities, some unscrupulous entrepreneurs may attempt to use Auction No. 49 to deceive and defraud unsuspecting investors. Common warning signals of fraud include the following:

• The first contact is a “cold call” from a telemarketer, or is made in response to an inquiry prompted by a radio or television infomercial.

• The offering materials used to invest in the venture appear to be targeted at IRA funds, for example, by including all documents and papers needed for the transfer of funds maintained in IRA accounts.

• The amount of investment is less than $25,000.

• The sales representative makes verbal representations that: (a) The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), FCC, or other government agency has approved the investment; (b) the investment is not subject to state or federal securities laws; or (c) the investment will yield unrealistically high short-term profits. In addition, the offering materials often include copies of actual FCC releases, or quotes from FCC personnel, giving the appearance of FCC knowledge or approval of the solicitation.

30. Information about deceptive telemarketing investment schemes is available from the FTC at (202) 326-2222 and from the SEC at (202) 942-7040. Complaints about specific deceptive telemarketing investment schemes should be directed to the FTC, the SEC, or the National Fraud Information Center at (800) 876-7060. Consumers who have concerns about specific proposals regarding Auction No. 49 may also call the FCC Consumer Center at (888) CALL-FCC ((888) 225-5322).

31. Licensees must comply with the Commission's rules regarding the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The construction of a wireless antenna facility is a federal action and the licensee must comply with the Commission's NEPA rules for each such facility. The Commission's NEPA rules require, among other things, that the licensee consult with expert agencies having NEPA responsibilities, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the State Historic Preservation Office, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (through the local authority with jurisdiction over floodplains). The licensee must prepare environmental assessments for facilities that may have a significant impact in or on wilderness areas, wildlife preserves, threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitats, historical or archaeological sites, Indian religious sites, floodplains, and surface features. The licensee must also prepare environmental assessments for facilities that include high intensity white lights in residential neighborhoods or excessive radio frequency emission.

32. The auction will begin on Wednesday, May 28, 2003. The initial schedule for bidding will be announced by public notice at least one week before the start of the auction. Unless otherwise announced, bidding on all licenses will be conducted on each business day until bidding has stopped on all licenses.

33. Auction No. 49—Lower 700 MHz Band

34. The bidding methodology for Auction No. 49 will be simultaneous multiple round bidding. The Commission will conduct this auction over the Internet. Telephonic bidding will also be available, and the FCC Wide Area Network will be available as well. Qualified bidders are permitted to bid telephonically or electronically.

35. Listed are important dates associated with Auction No. 49:

36. One commenter, Banks, requests that the Bureau limit eligibility in Auction No. 49 to parties that qualified to participate in Auction No. 44. Banks argues that such an eligibility limitation is mandated by the Auction Reform Act. Banks bases its argument on language from the Auction Reform Act, which limited the entities eligible to participate in Auction No. 44 to “those entities that were qualified entities, and that submitted applications to participate in auction 44, by May 8, 2002, as part of the original auction 44 short form filing deadline.” Banks contends that this restriction on eligibility applies to the spectrum blocks identified rather than a specific auction of those spectrum blocks. Thus, Banks concludes that the eligibility limitation extends to any subsequent auction of those same blocks of spectrum. Banks argues that the only other possible interpretation of the Auction Reform Act is that it does not permit further auctions of the C and D block spectrum until the Commission goes forward with the auction of the remainder of the 700 MHz spectrum. Only two commenters, Qualcomm and C&S, address Banks's assertion that the Auction Reform Act limits who is eligible to participate in Auction No. 49. Both Qualcomm and C&S oppose Banks's interpretation of the Auction Reform Act. As we explain, an analysis of the Auction Reform Act establishes that Banks's reading of the statute is incorrect.

37. In the Auction Reform Act, among other things, Congress provided that the Commission not commence or conduct Auction No. 44 on June 19, 2002. In the following subsection, Congress indicated that this prohibition on conducting Auction No. 44 did not apply to the Lower 700 MHz C and D block licenses, established a restriction on the entities eligible to bid in the auction of these licenses, and established a deadline for the auction of such licenses and the deposit of the auction proceeds in the U.S. Treasury. A plain reading of these provisions shows that the limitations on who qualified to bid on the C block and the D block licenses only applied to the conduct of Auction No. 44 and not to any subsequent auction. The restriction on eligible bidders is contained in the same subparagraph as other provisions regarding the timing of Auction No. 44, the conduct of Auction No. 44, and the deposit of the proceeds from Auction No. 44 in the U.S. Treasury. The timing provisions regarding the conduct of the auction and the deposit of the auction proceeds are significant because they indicate that Congress was only referring to one event, the conduct of Auction No. 44. Congress was not providing any instructions regarding the conduct of future auctions including the C and D block spectrum. Further, contrary to Banks's suggestion, nothing in the statute indicates that Congress was precluding in any manner a re-auction of the spectrum. Finally, Banks's interpretation of the Auction Reform Act is contrary to the statutory objectives of section 309(j) of the Communications Act. As Qualcomm notes in its comments, under Banks's interpretation of the Auction Reform Act, bidding on the licenses in Auction No. 49 would be limited to the same bidders that chose not to bid on the licenses when they were offered in Auction No. 44. This is unlikely to result in the licenses being awarded to the parties that value them most highly. Thus, absent explicit statutory language supporting Banks' interpretation, we decline to adopt the eligibility restrictions Banks suggests. Accordingly, any entity wishing to participate in the auction must:

• Submit a short-form application (FCC Form 175) electronically by 6 p.m. ET, April 11, 2003.

• Submit a sufficient upfront payment and an FCC Remittance Advice Form (FCC Form 159) by 6 p.m. ET, May 2, 2003.

• Comply with all provisions outlined in this public notice.

38. The following is a list of general contact information relating to Auction No. 49.

39. Guidelines for completion of the short-form (FCC Form 175) are set forth in Attachment D of the Auction No. 49 Procedures Public Notice. The short-form application seeks the applicant's name and address; legal classification; status; bidding credit eligibility; identification of the license(s) sought; and the authorized bidders and contact persons. All applicants must certify on their FCC Form 175 applications under penalty of perjury that they are legally, technically, financially and otherwise qualified to hold a license and, as discussed in section II.E (Provisions Regarding Defaulters and Former Defaulters), that they are not in default on any payment for Commission licenses (including down payments) or delinquent on any non-tax debt owed to any Federal agency.

40. In Auction No. 49, Form 175 will include a mechanism that allows an applicant to create customized lists of licenses. The applicant will make selections for one or more of the filter criteria and the system will produce a list of licenses satisfying the specified criteria. The applicant may apply for all the licenses in the customized list (by using the “Save all filtered licenses” option); select and save individual licenses separately from the list; or create a second customized list without selecting any of the licenses from the first list. Applicants also will be able to select licenses from one customized list and then create other customized lists to select additional licenses.

41. All applicants must comply with the uniform part 1 ownership disclosure standards and provide information required by §§ 1.2105 and 1.2112 of the Commission's rules. Specifically, in completing FCC Form 175, applicants will be required to file an “Exhibit A” providing a full and complete statement of the ownership of the bidding entity. The ownership disclosure standards for the short-form are set forth in § 1.2112 of the Commission's rules.

42. Applicants will be required to identify on their short-form applications any parties with whom they have entered into any consortium arrangements, joint ventures, partnerships or other agreements or understandings which relate in any way to the licenses being auctioned, including any agreements relating to post-auction market structure. Applicants will also be required to certify on their short-form applications that they have not entered into any explicit or implicit agreements, arrangements or understandings of any kind with any parties, other than those identified, regarding the amount of their bids, bidding strategies, or the particular licenses on which they will or will not bid. As discussed, if an applicant has had discussions, but has not reached a joint bidding agreement by the short-form deadline, it would not include the names of parties to the discussions on its applications and may not continue discussions with applicants for the same geographic license area(s) after the deadline. Where applicants have entered into consortia or joint bidding arrangements, applicants must submit an “Exhibit B” to the FCC Form 175.

43. A party holding a non-controlling, attributable interest in one applicant will be permitted to acquire an ownership interest in, form a consortium with, or enter into a joint bidding arrangement with other applicants for licenses in the same geographic license area provided that (i) the attributable interest holder certifies that it has not and will not communicate with any party concerning the bids or bidding strategies of more than one of the applicants in which it holds an attributable interest, or with which it has formed a consortium or entered into a joint bidding arrangement; and (ii) the arrangements do not result in a change in control of any of the applicants. While the anti-collusion rules do not prohibit non-auction related business negotiations among auction applicants, bidders are reminded that certain discussions or exchanges could touch upon impermissible subject matters because they may convey pricing information and bidding strategies.

44. A bidding credit represents the amount by which a bidder's winning bids are discounted. The size of the bidding credit depends on the average of the aggregated annual gross revenues for each of the preceding three years of the bidder, its affiliates, its controlling interests, and the affiliates of its controlling interests.

45. In the Lower 700 MHz Report & Order, the Commission determined that three levels of bidding credits were appropriate for the MSA/RSA licenses in the C block and that the licenses in the D block would be limited to two levels of bidding credits. Aloha and Cavalier urge that the Commission apply three levels of bidding credits to the EAG licenses in the D block. Because the bidding credit levels were adopted by the Commission in its Lower 700 MHz band proceeding, they were not a matter upon which the Bureau sought comment. Accordingly, for Auction No. 49, bidding credits will be available to small and very small businesses and entrepreneurs, or consortia thereof, as defined in 47 CFR 27.702 for the Lower 700 MHz band licenses:

• A bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues of not more than $40 million for the preceding three years (“small business”) receives a 15 percent discount on its winning bids for Lower 700 MHz band licenses;

• A bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three years (“very small business”) receives a 25 percent discount on its winning bids for Lower 700 MHz band licenses;

• A bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues of not more than $3 million for the preceding three years (“entrepreneur”) receives a 35 percent discount on its winning bids for the MSA/RSA licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band. This definition applies only with respect to licenses in Block C (710-716 MHz and 740-746 MHz) as specified in 47 CFR 27.5(c)(1).

46. A bidder that qualifies as an entrepreneur may bid on EAG licenses in Block D, but will only receive a 25 percent bidding credit on any EAG license that it wins. Bidding credits are not cumulative; a qualifying applicant receives either the 15 percent, 25 percent, or 35 percent bidding credit on its winning bid, but only one credit per license.

47. To encourage the growth of wireless services in federally recognized tribal lands the Commission has implemented a tribal land bidding credit. See section V.E. of the Auction No. 49 Procedures Public Notice.

48. Controlling interest standard. On August 14, 2000, the Commission released the Part 1 Fifth Report and Order, in which the Commission, inter alia, adopted a “controlling interest” standard for attributing to auction applicants the gross revenues of their investors and affiliates in determining small business eligibility for future auctions. The Commission observed that the rule modifications adopted in the various Part 1 orders would result in discrepancies and/or redundancies between certain of the new Part 1 rules and existing service-specific rules, and the Commission delegated to the Bureau the authority to make conforming edits to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) consistent with the rules adopted in the Part 1 proceeding. Part 1 rules that superseded inconsistent service-specific rules will control in Auction No. 49. Accordingly, the “controlling interest” standard as set forth in the part 1 rules will be in effect for Auction No. 49.

49. Control. The term “control” includes both de facto and de jure control of the applicant. Typically, ownership of at least 50.1 percent of an entity's voting stock evidences de jure control. De facto control is determined on a case-by-case basis. The following are some common indicia of de facto control:

• The entity constitutes or appoints more than 50 percent of the board of directors or management committee;

• The entity has authority to appoint, promote, demote, and fire senior executives that control the day-to-day activities of the licensee; or

• The entity plays an integral role in management decisions.

50. Attribution for small, very small business and entrepreneur eligibility. In determining which entities qualify as small, very small businesses or entrepreneurs, the Commission will consider the gross revenues of the applicant, its affiliates, its controlling interests, and the affiliates of its controlling interests. The Commission does not impose specific equity requirements on controlling interest holders. Once the principals or entities with a controlling interest are determined, only the revenues of those principals or entities, the affiliates of those principals or entities, the applicant and its affiliates, will be counted in determining small business eligibility.

51. A consortium of small businesses, very small businesses or entrepreneurs is a “conglomerate organization formed as a joint venture between or among mutually independent business firms,” each of which individually must satisfy the definition of small business, very small business or entrepreneur in §§ 1.2110(f), 27.702. Thus, each consortium member must disclose its gross revenues along with those of its affiliates, its controlling interests, and the affiliates of its controlling interests. We note that although the gross revenues of the consortium members will not be aggregated for purposes of determining eligibility for small business, very small business or entrepreneur credits, this information must be provided to ensure that each individual consortium member qualifies for any bidding credit awarded to the consortium.

52. Applicants should note that they will be required to file supporting documentation to their FCC Form 175 short-form applications to establish that they satisfy the eligibility requirements to qualify as small, very small businesses or entrepreneurs (or consortia of small, very small businesses or entrepreneurs) for this auction.

53. Applicants should further note that submission of an FCC Form 175 application constitutes a representation by the certifying official that he or she is an authorized representative of the applicant, has read the form's instructions and certifications, and that the contents of the application and its attachments are true and correct. Submission of a false certification to the Commission may result in penalties, including monetary forfeitures, license forfeitures, ineligibility to participate in future auctions, and/or criminal prosecution.

54. Small business, very small business, or entrepreneur eligibility (Exhibit C). Entities applying to bid as small or very small businesses or entrepreneurs (or consortia of small or very small businesses or entrepreneurs) will be required to disclose on Exhibit C to their FCC Form 175 short-form applications, separately and in the aggregate, the gross revenues for the preceding three years of each of the following: (i) The applicant, (ii) Its affiliates, (iii) its controlling interests, and (iv) the affiliates of its controlling interests. Certification that the average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years do not exceed the applicable limit is not sufficient. A statement of the total gross revenues for the preceding three years is also insufficient. The applicant must provide separately for itself, its affiliates, its controlling interests, and the affiliates of its controlling interests, a schedule of gross revenues for each of the preceding three years, as well as a statement of total average gross revenues for the three-year period. If the applicant is applying as a consortium of small, very small businesses or entrepreneurs, this information must be provided for each consortium member.

55. Each applicant must certify on its FCC Form 175 application that it is not in default on any Commission licenses and that it is not delinquent on any non-tax debt owed to any Federal agency. In addition, each applicant must attach to its FCC Form 175 application a statement made under penalty of perjury indicating whether or not the applicant, its affiliates, its controlling interests, or the affiliates of its controlling interest have ever been in default on any Commission licenses or have ever been delinquent on any non-tax debt owed to any Federal agency. The applicant must provide such information for itself, its affiliates, its controlling interests, and the affiliates of its controlling interests, as defined by § 1.2110 of the Commission's rules (as amended in the Part 1 Fifth Report and Order ). Applicants must include this statement as Exhibit D of the FCC Form 175. Prospective bidders are reminded that the statement must be made under penalty of perjury and, further, submission of a false certification to the Commission is a serious matter that may result in severe penalties, including monetary forfeitures, license revocations, exclusion from participation in future auctions, and/or criminal prosecution.

56. “Former defaulters”— i.e. , applicants, including their attributable interest holders, that in the past have defaulted on any Commission licenses or been delinquent on any non-tax debt owed to any Federal agency, but that have since remedied all such defaults and cured all of their outstanding non-tax delinquencies—are eligible to bid in Auction No. 49, provided that they are otherwise qualified. However, as discussed infra in section III.D.iii, former defaulters are required to pay upfront payments that are fifty percent more than the normal upfront payment amounts.

57. Installment payment plans will not be available in Auction No. 49.

58. Applicants owned by minorities or women, as defined in 47 CFR 1.2110(c)(2), may attach an exhibit (Exhibit E) regarding this status. This applicant status information is collected for statistical purposes only and assists the Commission in monitoring the participation of “designated entities” in its auctions. Applicants wishing to submit additional information may do so on Exhibit F (Miscellaneous Information) to the FCC Form 175.

59. After the short-form filing deadline (April 11, 2003), applicants may make only minor changes to their FCC Form 175 applications. Applicants will not be permitted to make major modifications to their applications ( e.g. , change their license selections or proposed service areas, change the certifying official or change control of the applicant or change bidding credits). See 47 CFR 1.2105. Permissible minor changes include, for example, deletion and addition of authorized bidders (to a maximum of three) and revision of exhibits. Applicants should make these modifications to their FCC Form 175 electronically and submit a letter, briefly summarizing the changes, by electronic mail to the attention of Margaret Wiener, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, at the following address: auction49@fcc.gov. The electronic mail summarizing the changes must include a subject or caption referring to Auction No. 49. The Bureau requests that parties format any attachments to electronic mail as Adobe® Acrobat® (pdf) or Microsoft® Word documents.

60. A separate copy of the letter should be faxed to the attention of Kathryn Garland at (717) 338-2850. Questions about other changes should be directed to Howard Davenport of the Auctions and Industry Analysis Division at (202) 418-0660.

61. Applicants have an obligation under 47 CFR 1.65, to maintain the completeness and accuracy of information in their short-form applications. Amendments reporting substantial changes of possible decisional significance in information contained in FCC Form 175 applications, as defined by 47 CFR 1.2105(b)(2), will not be accepted and may in some instances result in the dismissal of the FCC Form 175 application.

62. On Wednesday, April 2, 2003, the FCC will sponsor a free seminar for Auction No. 49 at the Federal Communications Commission, located at 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The seminar will provide attendees with information about pre-auction procedures, conduct of the auction, the FCC Automated Auction System, and the lower 700 MHz and auction rules. The seminar will also provide an opportunity for prospective bidders to ask questions of FCC staff.

63. To register, complete the registration form in Attachment B, of the Auction No. 49 Procedures Public Notice, and submit it by Friday, March 28, 2003. Registrations are accepted on a first-come, first-served basis.

64. In order to be eligible to bid in this auction, applicants must first submit an FCC Form 175 application. This application must be submitted electronically and received at the Commission no later than 6:00 p.m. ET on April 11, 2003. Late applications will not be accepted.

65. There is no application fee required when filing an FCC Form 175. However, to be eligible to bid, an applicant must submit an upfront payment. See section III.D.

66. Applicants must file their FCC Form 175 applications electronically. Applications may generally be filed at any time beginning at noon ET on April 2, 2003, until 6:00 p.m. ET on April 11, 2003. Applicants are strongly encouraged to file early and are responsible for allowing adequate time for filing their applications. Applicants may update or amend their electronic applications multiple times until the filing deadline on April 11, 2003.

67. Applicants must press the “SUBMIT Application” button on the “Submission” page of the electronic form to successfully submit their FCC Form 175s. Any form that is not submitted will not be reviewed by the FCC. Information about accessing the FCC Form 175 is included in Attachment C of the Auction No. 49 Procedures Public Notice. Technical support is available at (202) 414-1250 (voice) or (202) 414-1255 (text telephone (TTY)); hours of service Monday through Friday, from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM ET. In order to provide better service to the public, all calls to the hotline are recorded.

68. Applicants can also contact Technical Support via e-mail. To obtain the address, click the Support tab on the Form 175 Homepage.

69. Applicants should carefully review 47 CFR 1.2105, and must complete all items on the FCC Form 175. Instructions for completing the FCC Form 175 are in Attachment D of the Auction No. 49 Procedures Public Notice. Applicants are encouraged to begin preparing the required attachments for FCC Form 175 prior to submitting the form. Attachments C and D to the Auction No. 49 Procedures Public Notice provide information on the required attachments and appropriate formats.

70. The FCC Form 175 electronic review system may be used to locate and print applicants' FCC Form 175 information. There is no fee for accessing this system. See Attachment C of the Auction No. 49 Procedures Public Notice for details on accessing the review system.

71. Applicants may also view other applicants' completed FCC Form 175s after the filing deadline has passed and the FCC has issued a public notice explaining the status of the applications. Note: Applicants should not include sensitive information ( i.e. , TIN/EIN) on any exhibits to their FCC Form 175 applications.

72. After the deadline for filing the FCC Form 175 applications has passed, the FCC will process all timely submitted applications to determine which are acceptable for filing, and subsequently will issue a public notice identifying: (i) Those applications accepted for filing; (ii) those applications rejected; and (iii) those applications which have minor defects that may be corrected, and the deadline for filing such corrected applications.

73. As described more fully in the Commission's rules, after the April 11, 2003, short-form filing deadline, applicants may make only minor corrections to their FCC Form 175 applications. Applicants will not be permitted to make major modifications to their applications ( e.g. , change their license selections, change the certifying official, change control of the applicant, or change bidding credit eligibility).

74. In order to be eligible to bid in the auction, applicants must submit an upfront payment accompanied by an FCC Remittance Advice Form (FCC Form 159). After completing the FCC Form 175, filers will have access to an electronic version of the FCC Form 159 that can be printed and faxed to Mellon Bank in Pittsburgh, PA. All upfront payments must be received at Mellon Bank by 6:00 p.m. ET on May 2, 2003.

75. Please note that:

• All payments must be made in U.S. dollars.

• All payments must be made by wire transfer.

• Upfront payments for Auction No. 49 go to a lockbox number different from the lockboxes used in previous FCC auctions, and different from the lockbox number to be used for post-auction payments.

• Failure to deliver the upfront payment by the May 2, 2003, deadline will result in dismissal of the application and disqualification from participation in the auction.

76. Wire transfer payments must be received by 6 p.m. ET on May 2, 2003. To avoid untimely payments, applicants should discuss arrangements (including bank closing schedules) with their banker several days before they plan to make the wire transfer, and allow sufficient time for the transfer to be initiated and completed before the deadline. Applicants will need the following information:

77. Applicants must fax a completed FCC Form 159 (Revised 2/00) to Mellon Bank at (412) 209-6045 at least one hour before placing the order for the wire transfer (but on the same business day). On the cover sheet of the fax, write “Wire Transfer—Auction Payment for Auction Event No. 49.” Bidders should confirm receipt of their upfront payment at Mellon Bank by contacting their sending financial institution.

78. A completed FCC Remittance Advice Form (FCC Form 159, Revised 2/00) must be faxed to Mellon Bank in order to accompany each upfront payment. Proper completion of FCC Form 159 (Revised 2/00) is critical to ensuring correct credit of upfront payments. Detailed instructions for completion of FCC Form 159 are included in Attachment E of the Auction No. 49 Procedures Public Notice. An electronic version of the FCC Form 159 is available after filing the FCC Form 175. The FCC Form 159 can be completed electronically, but must be filed with Mellon Bank via facsimile.

79. In the Part 1 Order, 62 FR 13540 (March 21, 1997), the Commission delegated to the Bureau the authority and discretion to determine appropriate upfront payment(s) for each auction. In addition, in the Part 1 Fifth Report and Order, the Commission ordered that “former defaulters,” i.e. , applicants that have ever been in default on any Commission license or have ever been delinquent on any non-tax debt owed to any Federal agency, be required to pay upfront payments fifty percent greater than non-“former defaulters.” For purposes of this calculation, the “applicant” includes the applicant itself, its affiliates, its controlling interests, and affiliates of its controlling interests, as defined by § 1.2110 of the Commission's rules (as amended in the Part 1 Fifth Report and Order ).

80. In the Auction No. 49 Comment Public Notice and Auction No. 49 Revised Comment Public Notice we proposed that the amount of the upfront payment would determine the number of bidding units on which a bidder may place bids. In order to bid on a license, otherwise qualified bidders that applied for that license on Form 175 must have an eligibility level that meets or exceeds the number of bidding units assigned to that license. At a minimum, therefore, an applicant's total upfront payment must be enough to establish eligibility to bid on at least one of the licenses applied for on Form 175, or else the applicant will not be eligible to participate in the auction. An applicant does not have to make an upfront payment to cover all licenses for which the applicant has applied on Form 175, but rather to cover the maximum number of bidding units that are associated with licenses on which the bidder wishes to place bids and hold high bids at any given time.

81. In the Auction No. 49 Comment Public Notice and Auction No. 49 Revised Comment Public Notice, the Bureau proposed upfront payments on a license-by-license basis using the following formula:

82. The Bureau received two comments on this issue. Aloha and Cavalier support the Bureau's proposal. Accordingly, the Bureau adopts its proposed formula for determining upfront payments.

83. The specific upfront payments and bidding units for each license are set forth in Attachment A of the Auction No. 49 Procedures Public Notice.

84. In calculating its upfront payment amount, an applicant should determine the maximum number of bidding units on which it may wish to be active (bidding units associated with licenses on which the bidder has the standing high bid from the previous round and licenses on which the bidder places a bid in the current round) in any single round, and submit an upfront payment covering that number of bidding units. In order to make this calculation, an applicant should add together the upfront payments for all licenses on which it seeks to bid in any given round. Bidders should check their calculations carefully, as there is no provision for increasing a bidder's maximum eligibility after the upfront payment deadline.

85. Former defaulters should calculate their upfront payment for all licenses by multiplying the number of bidding units they wish to purchase by 1.5. In order to calculate the number of bidding units to assign to former defaulters, the Commission will divide the upfront payment received by 1.5 and round the result up to the nearest bidding unit.

86. Note: An applicant may, on its FCC Form 175, apply for every applicable license being offered, but its actual bidding in any round will be limited by the bidding units reflected in its upfront payment.

87. The Commission will use wire transfers for all Auction No. 49 refunds. To ensure that refunds of upfront payments are processed in an expeditious manner, the Commission is requesting that all pertinent information as listed be supplied to the FCC. Applicants can provide the information electronically during the initial short-form filing window after the form has been submitted. Wire Transfer Instructions can also be manually faxed to the FCC, Financial Operations Center, Auctions Accounting Group, Attn: Gail Glasser or Tim Dates, at (202) 418-2843 by May 2, 2003. All refunds will be returned to the payer of record as identified on the FCC Form 159 unless the payer submits written authorization instructing otherwise. For additional information, please call Gail Glasser at (202) 418-0578 or Tim Dates at (202) 418-0496.

Eligibility for refunds is discussed in section V.G.

88. Approximately ten days before the auction, the FCC will issue a public notice announcing all qualified bidders for the auction. Qualified bidders are those applicants whose FCC Form 175 applications have been accepted for filing and have timely submitted upfront payments sufficient to make them eligible to bid on at least one of the licenses for which they applied.

89. All qualified bidders are automatically registered for the auction. Registration materials will be distributed prior to the auction by two separate overnight mailings, one containing the confidential bidder identification number (BIN) and the other containing the SecurID cards, both of which are required to place bids. These mailings will be sent only to the contact person at the contact address listed in the FCC Form 175.

90. Applicants that do not receive both registration mailings will not be able to submit bids. Therefore, any qualified applicant that has not received both mailings by noon on Tuesday, May 20, 2003, should contact the Auctions Hotline at (717) 338-2888. Receipt of both registration mailings is critical to participating in the auction, and each applicant is responsible for ensuring it has received all of the registration material.

91. Qualified bidders should note that lost bidder identification numbers or SecurID cards can be replaced only by appearing in person at the FCC headquarters, located at 445 12th St., SW, Washington, DC 20554. Only an authorized representative or certifying official, as designated on an applicant's FCC Form 175, may appear in person with two forms of identification (one of which must be a photo identification) in order to receive replacements. Qualified bidders requiring replacements must call technical support prior to arriving at the FCC.

92. The Commission will conduct this auction over the Internet. Telephonic bidding will also be available, and the FCC Wide Area Network will be available as well. Qualified bidders are permitted to bid telephonically or electronically, i.e. , over the Internet or the FCC's Wide Area Network. In either case, each authorized bidder must have its own SecurID card, which the FCC will provide at no charge. Each applicant with one authorized bidder will be issued two SecurID cards, while applicants with two or three authorized bidders will be issued three cards. For security purposes, the SecurID cards and the FCC Automated Auction System user manual are only mailed to the contact person at the contact address listed on the FCC Form 175. Please note that each SecurID card is tailored to a specific auction; therefore, SecurID cards issued for other auctions or obtained from a source other than the FCC will not work for Auction No. 49. The telephonic bidding phone number will be supplied in the first overnight mailing, which also includes the confidential bidder identification number. Each applicant should indicate its bidding preference—electronic or telephonic—on the FCC Form 175.

93. Please note that the SecurID cards can be recycled, and we encourage bidders to return the cards to the FCC. We will provide pre-addressed envelopes that bidders may use to return the cards once the auction is over.

94. All qualified bidders will be eligible to participate in a mock auction on Thursday, May 22, 2003. The mock auction will enable applicants to become familiar with the FCC Automated Auction System prior to the auction. Participation by all bidders is strongly recommended. Details will be announced by public notice.

95. The first round of bidding for Auction No. 49 will begin on Wednesday, May 28, 2003. The initial bidding schedule will be announced in a public notice listing the qualified bidders, which is released approximately 10 days before the start of the auction.

96. In the Auction No. 49 Comment Public Notice and Auction No. 49 Revised Comment Public Notice, we proposed to award all licenses in Auction No. 49 in a simultaneous multiple round auction. Aloha and Cavalier agree with the Bureau's proposal. We conclude that it is operationally feasible and appropriate to auction the licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band through a simultaneous multiple round auction. Unless otherwise announced, bids will be accepted on all licenses in each round of the auction. This approach, we believe, allows bidders to take advantage of synergies that exist among licenses and is administratively efficient.

97. In the Auction No. 49 Comment Public Notice and Auction No. 49 Revised Comment Public Notice, the Bureau proposed that the amount of the upfront payment submitted by a bidder would determine the initial maximum eligibility (as measured in bidding units) for each bidder. One commenter, Banks, requests that the Bureau modify, or create an exception, to this procedure in conjunction with adopting new procedures that would apply when a high bidder withdraws its bid during the course of the auction. Specifically, Banks suggests that in Auction No. 49, when a bidder withdraws its standing high bid, the next-highest bidder should be offered the licenses at its last bid amount, regardless of whether the next-highest bidder has any bidding eligibility available or is even still in the auction. In support of its proposal, Banks claims that adoption of this procedure will ensure that the party that values the license most highly wins the license. As the Bureau explains, it declines to adopt Banks' proposal because it would undermine the efficacy of the Bureau's activity and eligibility rules, thereby potentially decreasing the likelihood that the license is awarded to the bidder who values it most highly.

98. The Commission's rules do not provide for the procedure suggested by Banks. Pursuant to § 1.2109(b) of the Commission's rules, however, the Bureau retains the discretion to offer licenses to the next-highest bidder if a winning bidder withdraws or defaults “ after the Commission has declared competitive bidding closed.” Although the Bureau has the discretion to award licenses to the next-highest bidder in such cases, the Commission has consistently indicated, “the best course is to re-auction the license.” The Commission has also recognized that the circumstances for which a next-highest offer would be appropriate are narrow. Further, the Commission has observed that re-offering a defaulted license to the next highest bidder “may not ensure that the license will be offered to the bidder who values it most highly. In particular, as the license is offered to bidders at that next highest bids, other parties can argue that they would pay more for the license if given the opportunity.” Thus, even where the rules provide for a procedure similar to the one suggested by Banks, it is generally disfavored.

99. Perhaps more significantly, Banks's proposal also implicates the activity and eligibility rules that apply to the conduct of the Commission's simultaneous multiple round auctions. A bidder's eligibility at the start of an auction is based upon the upfront payment amount that is converted into bidding units, using an auction-specific dollar to bidding unit ratio. Through the upfront payment, the applicant may purchase as many bidding units as it desires, but it must have sufficient bidding units to be eligible to bid on at least one of the licenses that it selects on the FCC Form 175 (“short-form application”). The activity rules, in turn, require bidder participation throughout the auction. Each bidder must have bidding activity in each round that accounts for a specified fraction of the bidder's current eligibility, as measured in bidding units. Once eligibility has been reduced, a bidder will not be permitted to regain its lost bidding eligibility.

100. The activity and eligibility rules serve several important functions that are necessary to an efficient auction process. The auction activity and eligibility rules encourage bidders to make early bids in the auction, as opposed to waiting until later rounds to participate. Prompt and early participation by a bidder in the auction reveals useful information to other bidders about its demand and valuations for licenses. This transparent process allows bidders to modify their strategies based on current prices. The activity and eligibility rules also help maintain the pace of the auction, which reduces costs to bidders and the Commission. By promoting an efficient auction process, these rules increase the likelihood that the winning bidder will be the party that most highly values the license. By circumventing the activity and eligibility rules, Banks' proposal to restore eligibility would undermine this efficiency.

101. Furthermore, in contrast with one of the basic principles of our auction design, Banks' proposal would permit the withdrawal of one bidder to directly affect the auction outcome for another bidder by means other than straightforwardly outbidding it. In essence, this change would allow the withdrawing bidder to turn a license over to the holder of the second-highest bid, without the second highest bidder having to outbid the other bidders who might have an interest in the license. This would create the potential for anti-competitive strategic interaction among auction participants and abuse of the auction rules. Finally, Banks' proposal does not address whether the eligibility of other bidders, that may also have an interest, should also be restored and at what level to allow them to bid for the license. Instead, Banks' proposal makes a questionable assumption that the next highest bidder is the only bidder who would at that stage be interested in submitting a bid. Thus, Banks' proposal does not appear to increase the likelihood that the winning bidder will be the party that most highly values the license.

102. Accordingly, the Bureau rejects Banks' request and adopts its proposal that the amount of the upfront payment submitted by a bidder determines the maximum initial eligibility (in bidding units) for each bidder. Note again that each license is assigned a specific number of bidding units equal to the upfront payment listed in Attachment A of the Auction No. 49 Procedures Public Notice on a bidding unit per dollar basis. The total upfront payment defines the maximum number of bidding units on which the applicant will be permitted to bid and hold high bids in a round. As there is no provision for increasing a bidder's eligibility after the upfront payment deadline, prospective bidders are cautioned to calculate their upfront payments carefully. The total upfront payment does not affect the total dollar amount a bidder may bid on any given license.

103. In order to ensure that the auction closes within a reasonable period of time, an activity rule requires bidders to bid actively throughout the auction, rather than wait until late in the auction before participating. Bidders are required to be active on a specific percentage of their current eligibility during each round of the auction.

104. A bidder's activity level in a round is the sum of the bidding units associated with licenses on which the bidder is active. A bidder is considered active on a license in the current round if it is either the high bidder at the end of the previous bidding round and does not withdraw the high bid in the current round, or if it submits a bid in the current round ( see “Bid Increments and Minimum Accepted Bids” in section IV.B.iii). The minimum required activity is expressed as a percentage of the bidder's current bidding eligibility, and increases by stage as the auction progresses. Because these procedures have proven successful in maintaining the pace of previous auctions (as set forth under “Auction Stages” in section IV.A.iii and “Stage Transitions” in section IV.A.iv), we adopt them for Auction No. 49.

105. In the Auction No. 49 Comment Public Notice and Auction No.49 Revised Comment Public Notice, the Bureau proposed to conduct the auction in three stages and employ an activity rule. The Bureau further proposed that, in each round of Stage One, a bidder desiring to maintain its current eligibility would be required to be active on licenses encompassing at least 80 percent of its current bidding eligibility. In each round of Stage Two, a bidder desiring to maintain its current eligibility would be required to be active on at least 90 percent of its current bidding eligibility. Finally, the Bureau proposed that a bidder in Stage Three, in order to maintain its current eligibility, would be required to be active on 98 percent of its current bidding eligibility. The Bureau received no comments on this proposal.

106. The Bureau adopts its proposals for the activity rule and stages. Listed are the activity levels for each stage of the auction. The FCC reserves the discretion to further alter the activity percentages before and/or during the auction.

Stage One: During the first stage of the auction, a bidder desiring to maintain its current eligibility will be required to be active on licenses encompassing at least 80 percent of its current bidding eligibility in each bidding round. Failure to maintain the required activity level will result in a reduction in the bidder's bidding eligibility in the next round of bidding (unless an activity rule waiver is used). During Stage One, reduced eligibility for the next round will be calculated by multiplying the bidder's current activity (the sum of bidding units of the bidder's standing high bids and bids during the current round) by five-fourths (5/4).

Stage Two: During the second stage of the auction, a bidder desiring to maintain its current eligibility is required to be active on 90 percent of its current bidding eligibility. Failure to maintain the required activity level will result in a reduction in the bidder's bidding eligibility in the next round of bidding (unless an activity rule waiver is used). During Stage Two, reduced eligibility for the next round will be calculated by multiplying the bidder's current activity (the sum of bidding units of the bidder's standing high bids and bids during the current round) by ten-ninths (10/9).

Stage Three: During the third stage of the auction, a bidder desiring to maintain its current eligibility is required to be active on 98 percent of its current bidding eligibility. Failure to maintain the required activity level will result in a reduction in the bidder's bidding eligibility in the next round of bidding (unless an activity rule waiver is used). In this final stage, reduced eligibility for the next round will be calculated by multiplying the bidder's current activity (the sum of bidding units of the bidder's standing high bids and bids during the current round) by fifty-fortyninths (50/49).

Caution: Since activity requirements increase in each auction stage, bidders must carefully check their current activity during the bidding period of the first round following a stage transition. This is especially critical for bidders that have standing high bids and do not plan to submit new bids. In past auctions, some bidders have inadvertently lost bidding eligibility or used an activity rule waiver because they did not re-verify their activity status at stage transitions. Bidders may check their activity against the required activity level by using the bidding system's bidding module.

107. Because the foregoing procedures have proven successful in maintaining proper pace in previous auctions, the Bureau adopts them for Auction No. 49.

108. In the Auction No. 49 Comment Public Notice and Auction No. 49 Revised Comment Public Notice, the Bureau proposed that the auction would generally advance to the next stage ( i.e. , from Stage One to Stage Two, and from Stage Two to Stage Three) when the auction activity level, as measured by the percentage of bidding units receiving new high bids, is below 20 percent for three consecutive rounds of bidding in each Stage. The Bureau further proposed that it would retain the discretion to change stages unilaterally by announcement during the auction. This determination, the Bureau proposed, would be based on a variety of measures of bidder activity, including, but not limited to, the auction activity level, the percentages of licenses (as measured in bidding units) on which there are new bids, the number of new bids, and the percentage increase in revenue. The Bureau received no comments on this subject.

109. The Bureau adopts its proposal. Thus, the auction will start in Stage One and will generally advance to the next stage ( i.e. , from Stage One to Stage Two, and from Stage Two to Stage Three) when, in each of three consecutive rounds of bidding, the high bid has increased on 20 percent or less of the licenses being auctioned (as measured in bidding units). In addition, the Bureau will retain the discretion to regulate the pace of the auction by announcement. This determination will be based on a variety of measures of bidder activity, including, but not limited to, the auction activity level, the percentages of licenses (as measured in bidding units) on which there are new bids, the number of new bids, and the percentage increase in revenue. The Bureau believes that these stage transition rules, having proven successful in prior auctions, are appropriate for use in Auction No. 49.

110. In the Auction No. 49 Comment Public Notice and Auction No. 49 Revised Comment Public Notice, the Bureau proposed that each bidder in the auction would be provided five activity rule waivers. Bidders may use an activity rule waiver in any round during the course of the auction. Aloha and Cavalier support the Bureau's proposal on this issue.

111. Based upon its experience in previous auctions, the Bureau adopts its proposal that each bidder be provided five activity rule waivers that may be used in any round during the course of the auction. Use of an activity rule waiver preserves the bidder's current bidding eligibility despite the bidder's activity in the current round being below the required level. An activity rule waiver applies to an entire round of bidding and not to a particular license. The Bureau is satisfied that our practice of providing five waivers over the course of the auction provides a sufficient number of waivers and flexibility to the bidders while safeguarding the integrity of the auction.

112. The FCC Automated Auction System assumes that bidders with insufficient activity would prefer to use an activity rule waiver (if available) rather than lose bidding eligibility. Therefore, the system will automatically apply a waiver (known as an “automatic waiver”) at the end of any round where a bidder's activity level is below the minimum required unless: (i) there are no activity rule waivers available; or (ii) the bidder overrides the automatic application of a waiver by reducing eligibility, thereby meeting the minimum requirements. If a bidder has no waivers remaining and does not satisfy the required activity level, the current eligibility will be permanently reduced, possibly eliminating the bidder from the auction.

113. A bidder with insufficient activity that wants to reduce its bidding eligibility rather than use an activity rule waiver must affirmatively override the automatic waiver mechanism during the round by using the reduce eligibility function in the bidding system. In this case, the bidder's eligibility is permanently reduced to bring the bidder into compliance with the activity rules as described in “Auction Stages” ( see section IV.A.iii discussion). Once eligibility has been reduced, a bidder will not be permitted to regain its lost bidding eligibility.

114. Finally, a bidder may proactively use an activity rule waiver as a means to keep the auction open without placing a bid. If a bidder submits a proactive waiver (using the proactive waiver function in the FCC Automated Auction System) during a round in which no bids are submitted, the auction will remain open and the bidder's eligibility will be preserved. However, an automatic waiver triggered during a round in which there are no new bids or withdrawals will not keep the auction open.

115. For Auction No. 49, the Bureau proposed to employ a simultaneous stopping rule. The Bureau also sought comment on a modified version of the stopping rule. The modified version of the stopping rule would close the auction for all licenses after the first round in which no bidder submits a proactive waiver, a withdrawal, or a new bid on any license on which it is not the standing high bidder. Thus, absent any other bidding activity, a bidder placing a new bid on a license for which it is the standing high bidder would not keep the auction open under this modified stopping rule.

116. The Bureau further proposed retaining the discretion to keep the auction open even if no new bids or proactive waivers are submitted and no previous high bids are withdrawn in a round. In this event, the effect will be the same as if a bidder had submitted a proactive waiver. Thus, the activity rule will apply as usual, and a bidder with insufficient activity will either use an activity rule waiver (if it has any left) or lose bidding eligibility.

117. In addition, the Bureau proposed that it reserve the right to declare that the auction will end after a designated number of additional rounds (“special stopping rule”). If the Bureau invokes this special stopping rule, it will accept bids in the final round(s) only for licenses on which the high bid increased in at least one of the preceding specified number of rounds. The Bureau proposed to exercise this option only in circumstances such as where the auction is proceeding very slowly, where there is minimal overall bidding activity or where it appears likely that the auction will not close within a reasonable period of time. Before exercising this option, the Bureau is likely to attempt to increase the pace of the auction by, for example, moving the auction into the next stage (where bidders will be required to maintain a higher level of bidding activity), increasing the number of rounds per day, and/or adjusting the minimum acceptable bids and bid increments for the licenses.

118. Aloha and Cavalier support the Bureau's proposal concerning the auction stopping rules. In light of the foregoing, the Bureau adopts the proposals. Auction No. 49 will begin under the simultaneous stopping rule, and the Bureau will retain the discretion to invoke the other versions of the stopping rule. The Bureau believes that these stopping rules are most appropriate for Auction No. 49, because its experience in prior auctions demonstrates that the auction stopping rules balance the interests of administrative efficiency and maximum bidder participation.

119. In the Auction No. 49 Comment Public Notice and Auction No. 49 Revised Comment Public Notice, the Bureau proposed that, by public notice or by announcement during the auction, it may delay, suspend, or cancel the auction in the event of natural disaster, technical obstacle, evidence of an auction security breach, unlawful bidding activity, administrative or weather necessity, or for any other reason that affects the fair conduct of competitive bidding. Aloha and Cavalier support the Bureau's proposal on this issue.

120. Because this approach has proven effective in resolving exigent circumstances in previous auctions, the Bureau adopts its proposed auction cancellation rules. By public notice or by announcement during the auction, the Bureau may delay, suspend, or cancel the auction in the event of natural disaster, technical obstacle, evidence of an auction security breach, unlawful bidding activity, administrative or weather necessity, or for any other reason that affects the fair and competitive conduct of competitive bidding. In such cases, the Bureau, in its sole discretion, may elect to resume the auction starting from the beginning of the current round, resume the auction starting from some previous round, or cancel the auction in its entirety. Network interruption may cause the Bureau to delay or suspend the auction. The Bureau emphasizes that exercise of this authority is solely within its discretion, and its use is not intended to be a substitute for situations in which bidders may wish to apply their activity rule waivers.

121. The initial bidding schedule will be announced in the public notice listing the qualified bidders, which is released approximately 10 days before the start of the auction. Each bidding round is followed by the release of round results. Multiple bidding rounds may be conducted in a given day. Details regarding round results formats and locations will also be included in the qualified bidders public notice.

122. The FCC has discretion to change the bidding schedule in order to foster an auction pace that reasonably balances speed with the bidders' need to study round results and adjust their bidding strategies. The Bureau may increase or decrease the amount of time for the bidding rounds and review periods, or the number of rounds per day, depending upon the bidding activity level and other factors.

123. Background. The Balanced Budget Act calls upon the Commission to prescribe methods by which a reasonable reserve price will be required or a minimum opening bid established when FCC licenses are subject to auction ( i.e. , because they are mutually exclusive), unless the Commission determines that a reserve price or minimum opening bid is not in the public interest. Consistent with this mandate, the Commission directed the Bureau to seek comment on the use of a minimum opening bid and/or reserve price prior to the start of each auction. Among other factors, the Bureau must consider the amount of spectrum being auctioned, levels of incumbency, the availability of technology to provide service, the size of the geographic service areas, the extent of interference with other spectrum bands, and any other relevant factors that could have an impact on the spectrum being auctioned. The Commission concluded that the Bureau should have the discretion to employ either or both of these mechanisms for future auctions.

124. In the Auction No. 49 Comment Public Notice and Auction No. 49 Revised Comment Public Notice, the Bureau proposed to establish minimum opening bids for Auction No. 49 and to retain discretion to lower the minimum opening bids. Specifically, for Auction No. 49, the Bureau proposed the following license-by-license formula for calculating minimum opening bids:

125. In the alternative, the Bureau sought comment on whether, consistent with the Balanced Budget Act, the public interest would be served by having no minimum opening bid or reserve price.

126. Two commenters allege that the minimum opening bids are too high and ask that the Bureau revise the proposed formula to reduce the minimum opening bids. Neither commenter proposes a specific reduction to the minimum opening bids nor a specific change to the formula used to compute the minimum opening bid. Further, the commenters provide no evidence that the proposed minimum opening bids are too high.

127. Following consideration of comments received, the Bureau adopts its proposed minimum opening bids for Auction No. 49. The Bureau notes that the minimum opening bids adopted here are approximately 60% less than those used in Auction No. 44. Based on this reduction and other considerations, the Bureau believes the minimum opening bids are well below the levels of the likely winning bids, and are not so high as to discourage competition. Thus, the Bureau is not persuaded that the proposed minimum opening bids are unreasonable.

128. The minimum opening bids adopted for Auction No. 49 are reducible at the discretion of the Bureau. The Bureau emphasizes, however, that such discretion will be exercised, if at all, sparingly and early in the auction, i.e. , before bidders lose all waivers and begin to lose substantial eligibility. During the course of the auction, the Bureau will not entertain any requests to reduce the minimum opening bid on specific licenses.

129. The specific minimum opening bids for each license available in Auction No. 49 are set forth in Attachment A of the Auction No. 49 Procedures Public Notice.

130. In the Auction No. 49 Comment Public Notice and Auction No. 49 Revised Comment Public Notice, the Bureau proposed to use a smoothing methodology to calculate minimum acceptable bids. The smoothing methodology is designed to vary the increment for a given license between a maximum and minimum percentage based on the bidding activity on that license. This methodology allows the increments to be tailored to the activity on a license, decreasing the time it takes for licenses receiving many bids to reach their final prices. The formula used to calculate this increment is included as Attachment F of the Auction No. 49 Procedures Public Notice. The Bureau further proposed to retain the discretion to change the minimum acceptable bids and bid increments if circumstances so dictate. Aloha and Cavalier support the Bureau's position concerning minimum acceptable bids and bid increments.

131. In each round, each eligible bidder will be able to place a bid on a particular license for which it applied in any of nine different amounts. The FCC Automated Auction System will list the nine bid amounts for each license.

132. Once there is a standing high bid on a license, the FCC Automated Auction System will calculate a minimum acceptable bid for that license for the following round, as described in Attachment F of the Auction No. 49 Procedures Public Notice. The difference between the minimum acceptable bid and the standing high bid for each license will define the bid increment — i.e. , bid increment = (minimum acceptable bid)−(standing high bid). The nine acceptable bid amounts for each license consist of the minimum acceptable bid (the standing high bid plus one bid increment) and additional amounts calculated using multiple bid increments ( i.e. , the second bid amount equals the standing high bid plus two times the bid increment, the third bid amount equals the standing high bid plus three times the bid increment, etc. ).

133. At the start of the auction and until a bid has been placed on a license, the minimum acceptable bid for that license will be equal to its minimum opening bid. Corresponding additional bid amounts will be calculated using bid increments defined as the difference between the minimum opening bid times one plus the percentage increment, rounded as described in Attachment F of the Auction No. 49 Procedures Public Notice, and the minimum opening bid— i.e. , bid increment = (minimum opening bid)(1 + percentage increment) {rounded}−(minimum opening bid). At the start of the auction and until a bid has been placed on a license, the nine acceptable bid amounts for each license consist of the minimum opening bid and additional amounts calculated using multiple bid increments ( i.e. , the second bid amount equals the minimum opening bid plus the bid increment, the third bid amount equals the minimum opening bid plus two times the bid increment, etc. )

134. In the case of a license for which the standing high bid has been withdrawn, the minimum acceptable bid will equal the second highest bid received for the license. The additional bid amounts are calculated using the difference between the second highest bid times one plus the minimum percentage increment, rounded, and the second highest bid.

135. The Bureau retains the discretion to change the minimum acceptable bids and bid increments and the methodology for determining the minimum acceptable bids and bid increments if they determine circumstances so dictate. The Bureau will do so by announcement in the FCC Automated Auction System. The Bureau may also use its discretion to adjust the minimum bid increment without prior notice if circumstances warrant.

136. At the end of each bidding round, the high bids will be determined based on the highest gross bid amount received for each license. A high bid from a previous round is sometimes referred to as a “standing high bid.” A “standing high bid” will remain the high bid until there is a higher bid on the same license at the close of a subsequent round. Bidders are reminded that standing high bids count towards bidding activity.

137. In the Auction No. 49 Comment Public Notice and Auction No. 49 Revised Comment Public Notice , the Bureau proposed to use a random number generator to select a high bid in the event of identical high bids on a license in a given round ( i.e. , tied bids). Aloha and Cavalier support the Bureau's proposal concerning tie bids. No commenter opposed the Bureau's proposal. Therefore, the Bureau adopts its proposal. A Sybase® SQL pseudo-random number generator based on the Lecuyer algorithm will be used to assign a random number to each bid. The tied bid having the highest random number will become the standing high bid. The remaining bidders, as well as the high bidder, will be able to submit a higher bid in a subsequent round. If no bidder submits a higher bid in a subsequent round, the high bid from the previous round will win the license. If any bids are received on the license in a subsequent round, the high bid will once again be determined on the highest gross bid amount received for the license.

138. During a round, a bidder may submit bids for as many licenses as it wishes (subject to its eligibility), withdraw high bids from previous bidding rounds, remove bids placed in the same bidding round, or permanently reduce eligibility. Bidders also have the option of making multiple submissions and withdrawals in each round. If a bidder submits multiple bids for a single license in the same round, the system takes the last bid entered as that bidder's bid for the round. Bidders should note that the bidding units associated with licenses for which the bidder has removed or withdrawn its bid do not count towards the bidder's activity at the close of the round.

139. Please note that all bidding will take place remotely either through the FCC Automated Auction System or by telephonic bidding. (Telephonic bid assistants are required to use a script when entering bids placed by telephone. Telephonic bidders are therefore reminded to allow sufficient time to bid by placing their calls well in advance of the close of a round. Normally, four to five minutes are necessary to complete a bid submission.) There will be no on-site bidding during Auction No. 49.

140. A bidder's ability to bid on specific licenses in the first round of the auction is determined by two factors: (i) The licenses applied for on FCC Form 175 and (ii) the upfront payment amount deposited. The bid submission screens will allow bidders to submit bids on only those licenses for which the bidder applied on its FCC Form 175.

141. In order to access the bidding functions of the FCC Automated Auction System, bidders must be logged in during the bidding round using the bidder identification number provided in the registration materials, and the passcode generated by the SecurID card. Bidders are strongly encouraged to print bid confirmations for each round after they have completed all of their activity for that round.

142. In each round, eligible bidders will be able to place bids on a given license in any of nine different amounts. For each license, the FCC Automated Auction System interface will list the nine acceptable bid amounts in a drop-down box. Bidders may use the drop-down box to select from among the nine bid amounts. The FCC Automated Auction System also includes an import function that allows bidders to upload text files containing bid information.

143. Until a bid has been placed on a license, the minimum acceptable bid for that license will be equal to its minimum opening bid. Once there is a standing high bid on a license, the FCC Automated Auction System will calculate a minimum acceptable bid for that license for the following round, as described in section IV.B.iii.

144. Finally, bidders are cautioned in selecting their bid amounts because, as explained in the following section, bidders who withdraw a standing high bid from a previous round, even if mistakenly or erroneously made, are subject to bid withdrawal payments.

145. In the Auction No. 49 Comment Public Notice and Auction No. 49 Revised Comment Public Notice , the Bureau proposed bid removal and bid withdrawal procedures. Aloha and Cavalier agree with the Bureau's proposal concerning bid removal and bid withdrawal. With respect to bid withdrawals, the Bureau proposed limiting each bidder to withdrawals in no more than two rounds during the course of the auction. The two rounds in which withdrawals are used, the Bureau proposed, would be at the bidder's discretion.

146. Procedures. Before the close of a bidding round, a bidder has the option of removing any bids placed in that round. By using the “remove bid” function in the bidding system, a bidder may effectively “unsubmit” any bid placed within that round. A bidder removing a bid placed in the same round is not subject to withdrawal payments. Removing a bid will affect a bidder's activity for the round in which it is removed, i.e. , a bid that is removed does not count towards bidding activity. This procedure will enhance bidder flexibility during the auction, and therefore, the Bureau adopts these procedures for Auction No. 49.

147. Once a round closes, a bidder may no longer remove a bid. However, in later rounds, a bidder may withdraw standing high bids from previous rounds using the withdraw bid function in the FCC Automated Auction System (assuming that the bidder has not reached its withdrawal limit). A high bidder that withdraws its standing high bid from a previous round during the auction is subject to the bid withdrawal payments specified in 47 CFR 1.2104(g).

148. In previous auctions, the Bureau has detected bidder conduct that, arguably, may have constituted strategic bidding through the use of bid withdrawals. While the Bureau continues to recognize the important role that bid withdrawals play in an auction, i.e. , reducing risk associated with efforts to secure various licenses in combination, the Bureau concludes that, for Auction No. 49, adoption of a limit on the use of withdrawals to two rounds per bidder is appropriate. By doing so the Bureau believes it strikes a reasonable compromise that will allow bidders to use withdrawals. Its decision on this issue is based upon its experience in prior auctions, particularly the PCS D, E and F block and 800 MHz SMR auctions, and is in no way a reflection of our view regarding the likelihood of any speculation or “gaming” in this auction.

149. The Bureau will therefore limit the number of rounds in which bidders may place withdrawals to two rounds. These rounds will be at the bidder's discretion and there will be no limit on the number of bids that may be withdrawn in either of these rounds. Withdrawals during the auction will be subject to the bid withdrawal payments specified in 47 CFR 1.2104(g). Bidders should note that abuse of the Commission's bid withdrawal procedures could result in the denial of the ability to bid on a market.

150. If a high bid is withdrawn, the minimum acceptable bid will equal the second highest bid received for the license, which may be less than, or equal to, in the case of tied bids, the amount of the withdrawn bid. To set the additional bid amounts, the second highest bid also will be used in place of the standing high bid in the formula used to calculate bid increments. The Commission will serve as a “place holder” high bidder on the license until a new bid is submitted on that license.

151. Calculation. Generally, the Commission imposes payments on bidders that withdraw high bids during the course of an auction. If a bidder withdraws its bid and there is no higher bid in the same or subsequent auction(s), the bidder that withdrew its bid is responsible for the difference between its withdrawn bid and the high bid in the same or subsequent auction(s). See 47 CFR 1.2104(g)(1). In the case of multiple bid withdrawals on a single license, within the same or subsequent auction(s), the payment for each bid withdrawal will be calculated based on the sequence of bid withdrawals and the amounts withdrawn. No withdrawal payment will be assessed for a withdrawn bid if either the subsequent winning bid or any of the intervening subsequent withdrawn bids, in either the same or subsequent auction(s), equals or exceeds that withdrawn bid. Thus, a bidder that withdraws a bid will not be responsible for any withdrawal payments if there is a subsequent higher bid in the same or subsequent auction(s). This policy allows bidders most efficiently to allocate their resources as well as to evaluate their bidding strategies and business plans during an auction while, at the same time, maintaining the integrity of the auction process. The Bureau retains the discretion to scrutinize multiple bid withdrawals on a single license for evidence of anti-competitive strategic behavior and take appropriate action when deemed necessary.

152. In the Part 1 Fifth Report and Order , the Commission modified § 1.2104(g)(1) of the rules regarding assessments of interim bid withdrawal payments. As amended, § 1.2104(g)(1) provides that in instances in which bids have been withdrawn on a license that is not won in the same auction, the Commission will assess an interim withdrawal payment equal to 3 percent of the amount of the withdrawn bids. The 3 percent interim payment will be applied toward any final bid withdrawal payment that will be assessed after subsequent auction of the license. Assessing an interim bid withdrawal payment ensures that the Commission receives a minimal withdrawal payment pending assessment of any final withdrawal payment. The Part 1 Fifth Report and Order provides specific examples showing application of the bid withdrawal payment rule.

153. Bids placed during a round will not be made public until the conclusion of that bidding period. After a round closes, the Bureau will compile reports of all bids placed, bids withdrawn, current high bids, new minimum acceptable bids, and bidder eligibility status (bidding eligibility and activity rule waivers), and post the reports for public access. Reports reflecting bidders' identities for Auction No. 49 will be available before and during the auction. Thus, bidders will know in advance of this auction the identities of the bidders against which they are bidding.

154. The FCC will use auction announcements to announce items such as schedule changes and stage transitions. All FCC auction announcements will be available by clicking a link on the FCC Automated Auction System.

155. As noted in section II.H., after the short-form filing deadline, applicants may make only minor changes to their FCC Form 175 applications. For example, permissible minor changes include deletion and addition of authorized bidders (to a maximum of three) and certain revision of exhibits. Applicants must make these modifications to their FCC Form 175 electronically and submit a letter, briefly summarizing the changes, by electronic mail to the attention of Margaret Wiener, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division at the following address: auction49@fcc.gov. The electronic mail summarizing the changes must include a subject or caption referring to Auction No. 49. The Bureau requests that parties format any attachments to electronic mail as Adobe® Acrobat® (pdf) or Microsoft® Word documents.

156. A separate copy of the letter should be faxed to the attention of Kathryn Garland at (717) 338-2850. Questions about other changes should be directed to Howard Davenport of the Auctions and Industry Analysis Division at (202) 418-0660.

157. After bidding has ended, the Commission will issue a public notice declaring the auction closed, identifying winning bidders, down payments and any withdrawn bid payments due.

158. Within ten business days after release of the auction closing notice, each winning bidder must submit sufficient funds (in addition to its upfront payment) to bring its total amount of money on deposit with the Commission for Auction No. 49 to 20 percent of its net winning bids (actual bids less any applicable small, very small business or entrepreneur bidding credits). In addition, by the same deadline all bidders must pay any bid withdrawal payments due under 47 CFR 1.2104(g), as discussed in “Bid Removal and Bid Withdrawal,” section IV.B.vi. (Upfront payments are applied first to satisfy any withdrawn bid liability, before being applied toward down payments.)

159. On June 8, 2000, the Commission awarded Qualcomm, Inc. a transferable Auction Discount Voucher (“ADV”) in the amount of $125,273,878.00. This ADV may be used by Qualcomm or its transferee, in whole or in part, to adjust a winning bid in any spectrum auction prior to June 8, 2003, subject to terms and conditions set forth in the Commission's Order. Qualcomm transferred $10,848,000.00 of the ADV to a winning bidder in FCC Auction No. 35 and the transferee used its portion of the ADV to pay a portion of one of its winning bids in Auction No. 35. The remaining portion of Qualcomm's ADV could be used to adjust winning bids in another FCC auction, including Auction No. 49.

160. Within ten business days after release of the auction closing notice, winning bidders must electronically submit a properly completed long-form application (FCC Form 601) and required exhibits for each license won through Auction No. 49. Winning bidders that are small, very small businesses or entrepreneurs must include an exhibit demonstrating their eligibility for small, very small business or entrepreneur bidding credits. See 47 CFR 1.2112(b). Further filing instructions will be provided to auction winners at the close of the auction.

161. At the time it submits its long-form application (FCC Form 601), each winning bidder also must comply with the ownership reporting requirements as set forth in 47 CFR 1.913, 1.919, and 1.2112(a). We remind applicants that effective December 10, 2002, electronic filing of the Ownership Disclosure Information Report (FCC Form 602) became mandatory. Accordingly, forms filed manually will not be accepted. Winning bidders without a current Form 602 already on file with the Commission must submit a properly completed Form 602 at the time they submit their long-form applications. Further filing instructions will be provided to auction winners at the close of the auction.

162. A winning bidder that intends to use its license(s) to deploy facilities and provide services to federally-recognized tribal lands that are unserved by any telecommunications carrier or that have a telephone service penetration rate equal to or below 70 percent is eligible to receive a tribal land bidding credit as set forth in 47 CFR 1.2107 and 1.2110(f). A tribal land bidding credit is in addition to, and separate from, any other bidding credit for which a winning bidder may qualify.

163. Unlike other bidding credits that are requested prior to the auction, a winning bidder applies for the tribal land bidding credit after winning the auction when it files its long-form application (FCC Form 601). When filing the long-form application, the winning bidder will be required to advise the Commission whether it intends to seek a tribal land bidding credit, for each market won in the auction, by checking the designated box(es). After stating its intent to seek a tribal land bidding credit, the applicant will have 90 days from the close of the long-form filing window to amend its application to select the specific tribal lands to be served and provide the required tribal government certifications. Licensees receiving a tribal land bidding credit are subject to performance criteria as set forth in 47 CFR 1.2110(f).

164. For additional information on the tribal land bidding credit, including how the amount of the credit is calculated, applicants should review the Commission's rule making proceeding regarding tribal land bidding credits and related public notices. Relevant documents can be viewed on the Commission's Web site by going to http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions and clicking on the Tribal Land Credits link.

165. Any high bidder that defaults or is disqualified after the close of the auction ( i.e. , fails to remit the required down payment within the prescribed period of time, fails to submit a timely long-form application, fails to make full payment, or is otherwise disqualified) will be subject to the payments described in 47 CFR 1.2104(g)(2). In such event the Commission may re-auction the license or offer it to the next highest bidder (in descending order) at their final bid. In addition, if a default or disqualification involves gross misconduct, misrepresentation, or bad faith by an applicant, the Commission may declare the applicant and its principals ineligible to bid in future auctions, and may take any other action that it deems necessary, including institution of proceedings to revoke any existing licenses held by the applicant.

166. All applicants that submitted upfront payments but were not winning bidders for a license in Auction No. 49 may be entitled to a refund of their remaining upfront payment balance after the conclusion of the auction. No refund will be made unless there are excess funds on deposit from that applicant after any applicable bid withdrawal payments have been paid. All refunds will be returned to the payer of record, as identified on the FCC Form 159, unless the payer submits written authorization instructing otherwise.

167. Bidders that drop out of the auction completely may be eligible for a refund of their upfront payments before the close of the auction. Qualified bidders that have exhausted all of their activity rule waivers, have no remaining bidding eligibility, and have not withdrawn a high bid during the auction must submit a written refund request. If you have completed the refund instructions electronically, then only a written request for the refund is necessary. If not, the request must also include wire transfer instructions, Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) and FCC Registration Number (FRN). Send refund request to: Federal Communications Commission, Financial Operations Center, Auctions Accounting Group, Gail Glasser or Tim Dates, 445 12th Street, SW., Room ­1-C863, Washington, DC 20554.

168. Bidders are encouraged to file their refund information electronically using the refund information portion of the FCC Form 175, but bidders can also fax their information to the Auctions Accounting Group at (202) 418-2843. Once the information has been approved, a refund will be sent to the party identified in the refund information.

On January 29, 2003, the Federal Trade Commission published the Amended Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”), 16 CFR part 310, and its Statement of Basis and Purpose in the Federal Register . 1 The notice stated that the Amended Rule would become effective March 31, 2003; that full compliance with § 310.4(a)(7), the caller identification transmission provision, would be required by January 29, 2004; and that the Commission would announce at a future time the date by which full compliance with § 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B), the “do-not-call” registry provision, would be required.

By letter dated February 27, 2003, the Direct Marketing Association (“DMA”) petitioned the Commission either to “forebear from enforcing the requirements of § 310.4(b)(1)(iv) * * * and § 310.4(a)(6)(i) of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) or in the alternative, stay the effectiveness of these sections of the rule * * *.” These are the provisions that, respectively, prohibit telemarketers from abandoning calls, and require taping of the entire telemarketing call in any transaction combining the use of preacquired account information and a free-to-pay conversion offer.

Also on February 27, 2003, the American Teleservices Association (“ATA”) petitioned the Commission to stay the effective date of the Amended TSR pending resolution of lawsuits initiated by ATA and DMA that challenge the validity of certain provisions of the Amended Rule. 2 ATA seeks, in the alternative, postponement of the March 31, 2003, effective date of the Amended TSR until the FCC has finished its review of its regulations under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. 227.

Based on information submitted by the petitions together with information obtained from other sources, the Commission has determined that full compliance with the recording requirement of the call abandonment safe harbor provision (§ 310.4(b)(4)(iii)) by March 31, 2003, many constitute an undue burden on some telemarketers and sellers, who may need to reprogram or purchase software for their equipment, or replace their current equipment. In some instances, it will be very difficult or impossible to accomplish this by the March 31, 2003, effective date. Therefore, the Commission has determined to extend the date by which it will require full compliance with § 310.4(b)(4)(iii) until October 1, 2003. The Commission also stays until October 1, 2003, the date by which it will require full compliance with the safe harbor record retention requirement, § 310.4(b)(4)(iv), to the extent it would require record keeping to document the use of a recorded message in instances of call abandonment. The additional six months should give industry ample time to make the changes in their operations necessary to comply with the recording requirement of the call abandonment safe harbor.

The requirement of full compliance with the prohibition on call abandonment (§ 310.4(b)(1)(iv)) is not stayed, and the requirement of full compliance with the other requirements of the call abandonment safe harbor provision (§§ 310.4(b)(4)(i), (ii) & (iv)) similarly is not stayed. 3 The Commission determined that these provisions are necessary to remedy the abusive practice of call abandonment and the related abusive practice of disconnecting the call after only one or two rings, before the consumer can reach the telephone to answer it. 4 Nothing the petitioners have submitted demonstrates that telemarketers would be unable to comply with these call abandonment provisions.

As the Statement of Basis and Purpose indicates, in the future the Commission will announce the date by which full compliance with the national “do-not-call” registry provisions of the amended Rule will be required. Full compliance with all other provisions of the amended Rule—with the exception of the Caller ID provision (§ 310.4(a)(7))—will be required by the date on which the amended Rule is effective, March 31, 2003. Full compliance with the Caller ID provisions will be required by January 29, 2004.

This conference call is scheduled to begin at 10:30 a.m., Eastern Standard Time. To participate in the conference call, please dial 404-639-4100 or 800-713-1971 and enter conference code 122482. You will then be automatically connected to the call.

Contact Person for More Information: Victor Balaban, Office of Terrorism Preparedness and Emergency Response, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE, (D-44), Atlanta, Georgia 30333, telephone 404/639-7428, fax 404/639-7977.

The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

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

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

FDA regulations in part 11 (21 CFR part 11) provide criteria for acceptance of electronic records; electronic signatures, and handwritten signatures executed to electronic records as equivalent to paper records. Under these regulations, records and reports may be submitted to FDA electronically provided the agency has stated its ability to accept the records electronically in an agency-established public docket and that the other requirements of part 11 are met.

The recordkeeping provisions in part 11 (§§ 11.10, 11.30, 11.50, and 11.300) require standard operating procedures to assure appropriate use of, and precautions for, systems using electronic records and signatures: (1) § 11.10 specifies procedures and controls for persons who use closed systems to create, modify, maintain, or transmit electronic records; (2) § 11.30 specifies procedures and controls for persons who use open systems to create, modify, maintain, or transmit electronic records; (3) § 11.50 specifies procedures and controls for persons who use electronic signatures; and (4) § 11.300 specifies controls to ensure the security and integrity of electronic signatures based upon use of identification codes in combination with passwords. The reporting provision (§ 11.100) requires persons to certify in writing to FDA that they will regard electronic signatures used in their systems as the legally binding equivalent of traditional handwritten signatures.

The burden created by the information collection provision of this regulation is a one-time burden associated with the creation of standard operating procedures, validation, and certification. The agency anticipates the use of electronic media will substantially reduce the paperwork burden associated with maintaining FDA required records.

The respondents will be businesses and other for-profit organizations, State or local governments, Federal agencies, and nonprofit institutions.

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