Under Ashland Forest Resiliency, only National Forest System lands would be treated. The legal description of the area being considered is T. 39 S., R. 1 E., in sections 17, 19, 20, 21, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35; T.40 S., R. 1 E., in sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17; T. 39 S., R 1 W., in sections 24, 25, 26, 34, 35 and 36; and T. 40 S., R. 1 W., section 1 and 2, W.M., Jackson County, Oregon. One of the primary goals for the Ashland Watershed is to “provide water for domestic supply” for the City of Ashland (RRNF LRMP page 4-265). Additional primary goals for the Watershed and the associated Upper Bear Analysis Area are “to protect and enhance conditions for late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystems, which serve as habitat for late-successional and old-growth related species including the northern spotted owl” (NWEP page C-11).

The Need for the Proposed Action is for urgent reduction of large-scale, high intensity wildland fire in the Upper Bear Analysis Area. One hundred years of fire suppression and fuel accumulations in this forest's wildland/urban interface now presents high potential for large-scale, high intensity wildfires that could significantly interrupt the supply of clean water and late-successional and old growth forest ecosystems in this Analysis Area. The Purpose of the Proposed Action is to protect values at risk, reduce crown fire potential and obtain conditions that are more resilient to wildland fires.

For Ashland Forest Resiliency, the Proposed Action is based on a strategy resulting from the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment. It is an integrated package of connected actions designed to attain the stated Purpose and Need, while meeting Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. There may be a need for Forest Plan amendment to ensure the ability to meet the Purpose and Need concurrent with attainment of Standards and Guidelines. A decision resulting from this NEPA analysis would also supplement the Rogue River-Siskiyou Fire Management Plan for the specific federally managed portions of the Upper Bear Analysis Area.

The primary treatment proposals and prescriptions include those that would modify fire behavior during a wildland fire event. Although stand treatments cannot alter all variables that influence fire behavior, they can directly or indirectly influence species composition, available fuel, fuel arrangement, fuel moisture, and surface winds. Reasons to enact treatments (vegetation management and fuel reduction) that affect fire behavior can be categorized into two broad groups: (1) Treatments that modify fire behavior to facilitate effective fire suppression, and (2) treatments that modify fire behavior to reduce potential for large scale high intensity wildland fire and/ or subsequent effects to soil, water, and late successional habitat.

Under Ashland Forest Resiliency, a total of approximately 8,150 acres are proposed to be treated. The first phase of the protection strategy for the Analysis Area and included under the Proposed Action is the concept of “compartmentalization”. This strategy involves the creation of Defensible Fuel Profile Zones (DFPZs) that integrate with existing shaded fuel breaks, to divide the Analysis Area into compartments. These compartments would be managed to eventually achieve the desired conditions with an overall objective of being able to contain any fire start (human or lightning) and subsequent fire within the compartment in which it started. DFPZs are a type of fuel break. The objective of the fuel modification within the DFPZ is to create large areas that are “crown-fire-resistant”. Active crown fires moving into these areas would drop to the ground and rely less on the suppression forces to be effective as compared to the current shaded fuel break system. Fires may still burn in these areas but intensities and stand and resource damage would be lower than before treatment. This technique is not the same as the shaded fuel break strategy that has been previously implemented in the Ashland Watershed. The DFPZs proposed for Ashland Forest Resiliency are designed to: Reduce wildland fire intensity in treated areas by limiting the amount of area affected by wildland fire; create areas where fire suppression efforts can be conducted more safely and effectively; break up the continuity of fuels over a large landscape; and become anchor lines for further area-wide fuel treatment, such as prescribed burning. To develop DFPZs, surface fuel reduction and understory vegetation clearing would occur over wider expanses than the current shaded fuel breaks. The width of treated areas would generally be 1/4 to 1/2 mile, with variations in the widths depending on vegetation cover, roads, geographic features, strategic location, elevation, and overall potential risk. The completed DFPZs would consist mostly of stands that would maintain a closed canopy (>60% canopy closure of dominant and co-dominant trees). Cutting and disposing of generally smaller diameter trees would primarily accomplish this, although larger trees may also be part of the treatment. This treatment would remove the majority of the existing ladder fuels. Pruning would remove remaining ladder fuels and raise the height-to-live-crown to 20-25 feet to directly affect fire behavior. Reasons for maintaining a mostly closed canopy include: maintain higher fuel moistures; reduce brush and grass growth; reduce maintenance intervals; and maintain future options for vegetation and fuels management. The DFPZs as designed for this compartmentalization strategy would not be uniform even-aged areas, but would encompass a wide variety in ages, sizes, and distribution of trees. The key feature would be the general openness of the understory and discontinuity of ladder fuels and ground fuels, producing a low probability of sustained crown fire. Also included in these DFPZs would be strategically placed safety zones for fire management personnel. Continued maintenance of these areas is an important component to the effectiveness of this strategy. The DFPZs and compartmentalization phase of the Proposed Action are the highest priority in that they would strategically “compartmentalize” any fire. Based on current vegetative conditions (as measured by seral stage condition), approximately 2,800 acres would be treated at this time to implement the entire DFPZ strategy.

As part of the overall strategy, priority areas within certain “compartments” would be treated using a combination of variable density management treatments and fuel hazard reduction treatments, including prescribed fire. Treatments within the compartments would be aimed at having a “fire safe” forest as described in the 2003 Assessment. Efforts would be focused on modifying the existing stand density and current/future surface fuel loads so that: (1) Wildland fires are primarily ground fires (as compared with running crown-fires); (2) fires would generate less than 4 foot flame lengths from ground fire under the 90th percentile of weather conditions; and (3) large woody material would be maintained to levels consistent with Forest Plan objectives.

The second phase would include the treatment of those compartments outside the Ashland Municipal Watershed that serve to protect or reduce the chance of a fire entering the Watershed. Within six designated compartments on National Forest, there are approximately 3,200 acres that are either in late-closed or mid-closed forest seral conditions. In order to attain the approximate desired seral stage distributions, approximately 50% of these acres or 1,600 acres are proposed for treatment with variable density management, including treatment of all slash. The majority of the variable density management treatments would target the mid-closed seral conditions. The remaining 50% (1,600 acres) would receive fuel hazard reduction treatments such as underburning, pruning along roads, hand piling and burning. This would move these critical compartments toward the desired fuel models. Under this phase, no other existing seral stages would receive treatment (outside of DFPZs).

The third phase would be to treat those compartments within and outside the Ashland Municipal Watershed that currently provide late-successional habitat conditions that can be managed to maintain these conditions. Because of their location, there are certain areas where late-successional habitat is most important and higher numbers of late-successional dependant species currently exist. Treatments proposed here focus on reducing the risk to late-successional habitat by treating approximately 600 acres of dense mid seral stands in a way that would break-up contiguous fuels. Proposed treatments would primarily be density management to reduce fire hazard and to encourage healthy forested stands that would grow into late seral stages. Treatments to additionally reduce fire risk include treatment of roadside areas (about 100-150 feet below roads and 50 feet above roads), with variable density management (about 250 acres). Under this phase, no other existing seral stages would receive treatment (outside of DFPZs).

The final phase of proposed vegetation treatments focuses on the Ashland Research Natural Area (RNA). Within the RNA, the conservation of large ponderosa pine, and pine species in general is the primary objective. This diversity of species is the reason the RNA was established. Within approximately 1,300 acres of the RNA, treatments would reduce hazardous fuels along with selective removal of competition to large pine and Douglas fir and/or create conditions that would encourage regeneration of the pine species. Treatments would primarily include variable density management with some small group selection to favor pine, and fuel reduction treatments, most likely underburning. There would also be some slashing of smaller diameter less-favored species and jackpot burning. Additional protection of the RNA and its diversity values would be provided under this strategy with creation of the DFPZs outside of the RNA (200 feet from existing road centerlines when adjacent to the RNA). Prescribed and routine maintenance underburning is proposed after density management treatments as a complimentary method that would encourage more natural regeneration of pines and sustain the pine ecosystem.

Depending on the location of areas being treated, as well as implementation methodology, additional facilities such as helicopter log landings from some density management treatments may be needed. These landings would be integrated into DFPZ and associated with existing roads and designated safety zones. There may also be need for the construction of access roads to the additional landings. Any new road segments are likely to be short spurs, located primarily on ridge top areas, and temporary. As the Proposed Action is fully developed, there may be additional connected activities that pertain to road management and/or watershed restoration.

Fire exclusion is not a goal of this strategy. The use of widland fire for resource benefits is not appropriate at this time due to the large build up of live and dead vegetation resulting from fire suppression. A lightning ignited wildland fire would occur when soil and fuel moistures are low and have a high probability of escaping management suppression resulting in a large-scale, high intensity fire.

There are various tools proposed for use to implement the strategy described above. These tools include variable density management, prescribed fire, and various vegetation modification treatments.

Variable density management involves the selective removal of some trees within a forested stand to increase spacing and accelerate growth in the crowns and root systems of the remaining trees. Density management is used to improve forest health of stands, to open the forest canopy for selected trees, to accelerate growth to maintain desired seral conditions, or to attain late-successional characteristics for biological diversity. Stands proposed to receive this treatment are generally over-dense, with high crown density and ladder fuels. Variable density refers to a non-uniform pattern for remaining trees, which would emulate more natural conditions, as opposed to more uniform residual stocking or a specified basal area or number of trees per acre traditionally utilized in growth and yield forestry on lands allocated to timber production.

A complementary treatment to variable density management includes the application of controlled (or prescribed) fire, termed underburning. Prescribed fire would be used to regulate the existing fuel profile and to create more of a mosaic of fuel loadings and canopy closures. Prescribed burning can result in a range of effects given a diversity of site conditions influencing fire intensity. Flame lengths, fire duration, age of vegetation, species, ladder fuels and condition of overstory vegetation would all determine the degree of overstory mortality. Some overstory mortality is expected.

Vegetation modification includes various methods such as slashing, hand piling of down material (and subsequent burning of piles), pruning trees along high risk areas to reduce ladder fuels, and jackpot, hand pile and burning or chipping of resultant slash material. This method is most appropriate for small areas with high risk. Prescribed fire and vegetation modification methods can be used in combination and/or in conjunction with variable density management. These methods can be used to dispose of slash created as a result of other treatment activities or as initial treatments on current stand conditions. For any activity that results in slash, slash would be treated.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action will include No-Action as required by NEPA. One additional alternative may be considered in detail in accordance with the Healthy Forests Restoration Act.

This notice of intent initiates the scoping process under NEPA, which will guide the development of the draft EIS. The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public comment by June 2004. The comment period for the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date EPA publishes the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register .

At the end of this period, comments submitted to the Forest Service, including names and addresses of those who responded, will be considered part of the public record for this proposal, and as such will be available for public review. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have standing to the Objection Process under the 36 CFR part 218. This Objection Process is a pre-decisional administrative review for the public to seek administrative consideration as provided for under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HR-1904); the regulations at 36 CFR 215 do not apply.

Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that, under the FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding the request for confidentiality, and where the request is denied, the agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address within a specified number of days.

The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participiation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft EISs must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC , 435 U.S. 519, 533 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft EIS stage, but that are not raised until completion of the final EIS, may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City Angoon v. Hodel , 803 F. 2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris , 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the comment period so substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.

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

Comments on the draft EIS will be analyzed, considered, and responded to by the Forest Service in preparing the final EIS. The final EIS is scheduled to be completed in Fall of 2004.

The Forest Service Responsible Official is Scott D. Conroy, Forest Supervisor of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. The Responsible Official will consider the Final EIS, applicable laws, regulations, policies, and analysis files in making a decision. The Responsible Official will document the decision and rationale in the Record of Decision.

In response to the European Union Directive on Data Protection that restricts transfers of personal information from Europe to countries whose privacy practices are not deemed “adequate,” the U.S. Department of Commerce has developed a “Safe Harbor” framework that will allow U.S. organizations to satisfy the European Directives requirements and ensure that personal data flows to the United States are not interrupted. In this process, the Department of Commerce repeatedly consulted with U.S. organizations affected by the European Directive and interested non-government organizations. On July 27, 2000, the European Commission issued its decision in accordance with Article 25.6 of the Directive that the Safe Harbor Privacy Principles provide adequate privacy protection. The Safe Harbor framework bridges the differences between the European Union (EU) and U.S. approaches to privacy protection. The complete set of Safe Harbor documents and additional guidance materials may be found at http://export.gov/safeharbor.

Once the Safe Harbor was deemed “adequate” by the European Commission on July 27, 2000, the Department of Commerce began working on the requirements that are necessary to put this accord into effect. The European Member States implemented the decision made by the Commission within 90 days. Therefore, the Safe Harbor became operational on November 1, 2000. The Department of Commerce created a list for U.S. organizations to sign up to the Safe Harbor and provided guidance on the mechanics of signing up to this list. As of January 28, 2004, 448 U.S. organizations have been placed on the Safe Harbor List, located at http://export.gov/safeharbor. Organizations that have signed up to this list are deemed “adequate” under the Directive and do not have to provide further documentation to European officials. This list will be used by EU organizations to determine whether further information and contracts will be needed for a U.S. organization to receive personally identifiable information. This list is necessary to make the Safe Harbor accord operational, and was a key demand of the Europeans in agreeing that the Principles were providing “adequate” privacy protection. The Safe Harbor provides a number of important benefits to U.S. firms. Most importantly, it provides predictability and continuity for U.S. organizations that receive personal information from the European Union. Personally identifiable information is defined as any that can be identified to a specific person, for example an employees name and extension would be considered personally identifiable information. All 15 member countries are bound by the European Commissions finding of “adequacy”. The Safe Harbor also eliminates the need for prior approval to begin data transfers, or makes approval from the appropriate EU member countries automatic. The Safe Harbor principles offer a simpler and cheaper means of complying with the adequacy requirements of the Directive, which should particularly benefit small and medium enterprises.

The decision to enter the Safe Harbor is entirely voluntary. Organizations that decide to participate in the Safe Harbor must comply with the safe harbors requirements and publicly declare that they do so. To be assured of Safe Harbor benefits, an organization needs to reaffirm its self-certification annually to the Department of Commerce that it agrees to adhere to the safe harbor's requirements, which includes elements such as notice, choice, access, data integrity, security and enforcement. This list will be most regularly used by European Union organizations to determine whether further information and contracts will be needed by a U.S. organization to receive personally identifiable information. It will be used by the European Data Protection Authorities to determine whether a company is providing “adequate” protection, and whether a company has requested to cooperate with the Data Protection Authority. This list will be accessed when there is a complaint logged in the EU against a U.S. organization. This will be on a monthly basis. It will be used by the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Transportation to determine whether a company is part of the Safe Harbor. This will be accessed if a company is practicing “unfair and deceptive” practices and has misrepresented itself to the public. It will be used by the Department of Commerce and the European Commission to determine if organizations are signing up to the list. This list is updated on a regular basis.

The self-certification form is provided via the Internet at http://export.gov/safeharbor and by mail to requesting U.S. firms.

OMB Number: 0625-0239.

Form Number: N/A.

Expiration Date: 5/31/04.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 500.

Estimated Time Per Response: 20 minutes—website; 40 minutes—letter.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 400 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Costs to Public: $20, 000.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

Title V of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 (“the Act”) as amended by the Trade Act of 2002 contains several provisions to assist the wool products industries. These include the establishment of tariff rate quotas (TRQ) for a limited quantity of worsted wool fabrics. The Act requires the President to fairly allocate the TRQ to persons who cut and sew men's and boys' worsted wool suits and suit like jackets and trousers in the United States, and who apply for an allocation based on the amount of suits they produce in the prior year. The Act further requires the President, on an annual basis, to consider requests from the manufacturers of the apparel products listed above, to modify the limitation on the quantity of imports subject to the TRQ. The Act specifies factors to be addressed in considering such requests. The TRQ was originally effective for goods entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after January 1, 2001, and was to remain in force through 2003. On August 6, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Trade Act of 2002, which includes several amendments to Title V of the Act including the extension of the program through 2005. A TRQ allocation will be valid only in the year for which it is issued.

On December 1, 2000, the President issued Proclamation 7383 that, among other things, delegates authority to the Secretary of Commerce to allocate the TRQ; to consider, on an annual basis, requests to modify the limitation on the quantity of the TRQ and to recommend appropriate modifications to the President; and to issue regulations to implement these provisions. On January 22, 2001, the Department of Commerce published regulations establishing procedures for allocation of the tariff rate quotas (66 FR 6459, 15 CFR part 335) and for considering requests for modification of the limitations (66 FR 6459, 15 CFR part 340).

The Department must collect certain information in order to fairly allocate the TRQ to eligible persons and to make informed recommendations to the President on whether or not to modify the limitation on the quantity of the TRQ.

The information collection forms will be provided via the Internet and by mail to requesting firms.

OMB Number: 0625-0240.

Form Number: ITA-4139, and ITA-4140P.

Type of Review: Regular.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 24.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1-24 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 352 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Costs: $76,200.

The estimated annual cost for this collection is $76,200 ($15,000 for respondents and $61,200 for Federal government).

Comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

The Stelco Group received a de minimis margin in the investigation and was excluded from the antidumping duty order. Several months after the publication of the antidumping duty order, the Department received requests for clarification regarding the Stelco Group's exclusion from the order. See Memorandum to the File from Daniel O'Brien, International Trade Compliance Analyst, Regarding Inquiries Concerning Stelco's Exclusion from the Order , dated February 11, 2004. Specifically, parties have inquired as to whether all products produced by the Stelco Group, or only those both produced and exported by the Stelco Group, are excluded from the antidumping order. These inquiries result from inconsistent language in the order and in our instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), then known as the U.S. Customs Service, regarding the order. The order states that the Department will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation on:

The corrected instructions to CBP regarding the order 1 read:

The merchandise covered by this order is certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid cross-sectional diameter.

Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; and (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are (f) free machining steel products ( i.e. , products that contain by weight one or more of the following elements: 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium).

Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. This grade 1080 tire cord quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no inclusions greater than 20 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.006 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium.

This grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 7.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no inclusions greater than 20 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per ton; and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.008 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified).

The designation of the products as “tire cord quality” or “tire bead quality” indicates the acceptability of the product for use in the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the scope. However, should petitioners or other interested parties provide a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of importation of such products for other than those applications, end-use certification for the importation of such products may be required. Under such circumstances, only the importers of record would normally be required to certify the end use of the imported merchandise.

All products meeting the physical description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this scope.

The products subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, and 7227.90.6059 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of information concerning, or a request from an interested party for a review of, an antidumping duty order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. As indicated in the Background section, we have received information from CBP and an outside party indicating that the nature of the Stelco Group's exclusion from the order is unclear, because the order could be read to indicate that all products produced by the Stelco Group, whether exported by the Stelco Group or not, are excluded from the order. As explained below, the order was intended to exclude only steel wire rod both produced and exported by the Stelco Group. Thus, the new information to the effect that this may not be clear to CBP and outside parties constitutes changed circumstances warranting a review of the order. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating a changed circumstances review based upon the information received from outside parties.

Section 351.221(c)(3)(ii)(2003) of the regulations permits the Department to combine the notice of initiation of a changed circumstances review and the notice of preliminary results in a single notice if the Department concludes that expedited action is warranted. In this instance, because we already have on the record all the information necessary to make a preliminary finding, we find that expedited action is warranted and have combined the notice of initiation and the notice of preliminary results.

We preliminarily find that only merchandise produced and exported by the Stelco Group is excluded from the antidumping duty order. During the investigation, the Department analyzed only sales of merchandise both produced and exported by the Stelco Group. 2 Therefore, the determination that the Stelco Group had not made sales at less than fair value was based on sales with respect to which the Stelco Group was the potential price discriminator. There was no determination regarding sales with respect to which a third party would have been responsible for any price discrimination in setting the price to U. S. customers. Sales of Stelco Group merchandise to unaffiliated Canadian parties who resold merchandise to the United States are not within the ambit of the Stelco Group exclusion. Thus, consistent with the Department's practice, merchandise produced but not exported by the Stelco Group is not excluded from the order. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From India , 67 FR 34899 (May 16, 2002) (excluding from the order only merchandise “produced and exported” by a zero margin respondent).

If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this changed circumstances review, we will instruct CBP to continue to exclude shipments of subject merchandise produced and exported by the Stelco Group from the order and, for all merchandise produced but not exported by the Stelco Group to collect a cash deposit equal to the rate established for the exporter, or if the exporter does not have its own rate, the “all others” rate of 8.11 percent, effective as of the date of the final results of this changed circumstances review. Furthermore, for the period prior to the effective date of the final results of this changed circumstances review, we will instruct CBP to liquidate any entries of merchandise produced by Stelco, regardless of exporter, without regard to antidumping duties.

Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication of this notice, or the first working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, which must be limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities.

Consistent with section 351.216(e) of the Department's regulations, we will issue the final results of this changed circumstances review no later than 270 days after the date on which this review was initiated, or within 45 days if all parties agree to our preliminary finding. We are issuing and publishing this finding and notice in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and sections 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3) of the Department's regulations.

On February 3, 2004, the Department published its affirmative preliminary determination of this antidumping duty investigation in the Federal Register . See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 5127 (February 3, 2004). This notice of preliminary determination states that the Department will issue its final determination no later than 75 days after the date on which the Department issued its preliminary determination.

Section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii) provide that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise. Additionally, the Department's regulations, at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), require that requests by respondents for postponement of a final determination be accompanied by a request for an extension of the provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six months.

On January 30, 2004, in accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), Shunde Yongjian Housewares Co., Ltd. (Yongjian), a mandatory respondent in this investigation, requested that the Department postpone its final determination. On February 3, 2004, Yongjian requested that the Department fully extend the provisional measures by 60 days in accordance with sections 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2). Accordingly, pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), we are postponing the final determination until no later than 135 days after the publication of the preliminary determination in the Federal Register ( i.e. , until no later than June 13, 2004), because: (1) The preliminary determination is affirmative, and therefore the exporters or producers have standing to request this postponement; and (2) the requesting exporter/producer accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise ( see Memorandum from Thomas F. Futtner, Acting Office Director, Office 4, to Holly A. Kuga, Acting Deputy Assistant Secreatry, Group II, “Respondent Selection Memorandum,” dated September 10, 2003); and, (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist. Suspension of liquidation will be extended accordingly.

This notice of postponement is published pursuant to section 735(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(g).

Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act requires the Department to issue the final results of a new shipper review within 90 days after the date on which the preliminary results were issued. However, if the Department determines the issues are extraordinarily complicated, section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act allows the Department to extend the deadline for the final results up to 150 days after the date on which the preliminary results were issued.

On December 31, 2002, the Department received properly filed requests from Shanghai Xiuwei International Trading Co., Ltd. (“Shanghai Xiuwei”) and Sichuan-Dujiangyan Dubao Bee Industrial Co., Ltd. (“Sichuan Dubao”), in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and section 351.214(c) of the Department's regulations, for a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the People's Republic of China (PRC), which has a December anniversary date, and a June semiannual anniversary date. Shanghai Xiuwei identified itself as an exporter of processed honey produced by its supplier, Henan Oriental Bee Products Co., Ltd. (“Henan Oriental”). Sichuan Dubao identified itself as the producer of the processed honey that it exports.

On February 5, 2003, the Department initiated this new shipper review for the period February 10, 2001 through November 30, 2002. See Honey From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Reviews (68 FR 5868, February 5, 2003). On July 21, 2003, the Department extended the preliminary results of this new shipper review 300 days until November 26, 2003. See Honey From the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review, 68 FR 43086 (July 21, 2003). On December 4, 2003, the Department published its preliminary results of this review. See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review: Honey From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 67832 (December 4, 2003) ( Preliminary Results ). In the preliminary results of this review, we indicated that we were unable to complete our analysis of all factors relevant to the bona fides of Shanghai Xiuwei's and Sichuan Dubao's U.S. sales. We described our research and contact efforts in the Memorandum from Brandon Farlander and Dena Aliadinov to the File, dated November 26, 2003. We also indicated that additional time was needed to research the appropriate surrogate values to value raw honey.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, the Department may extend the deadline for completion of the final results of a new shipper review by 60 days if it determines that the case is extraordinarily complicated. The Department has determined that this case is extraordinarily complicated because of the issues pertaining to the bona fides of Shanghai Xiuwei's and Sichuan Dubao's U.S. sales, as well as the issues pertaining to the raw honey surrogate values. Accordingly, the final results of this new shipper review cannot be completed within the statutory time limit of 90 days. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and section 351.214(i)(2) of the regulations, the Department is extending the time limit for the completion of final results by an additional 30 days. The final results will now be due no later than March 25, 2004.

This notice is published pursuant to sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Background

On July 10, 1990, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on industrial nitrocellulose from Brazil. See Antidumping Duty Order: Industrial Nitrocellulose From Brazil , 55 FR 28266 (July 10, 1990). On December 31, 2003, Nitro Quimica Brasileira (Nitro Quimica), a Brazilian exporter of subject merchandise and an interested party in this proceeding, requested that the Department revoke the antidumping duty order on industrial nitrocellulose from Brazil through a changed circumstances review. According to Nito Quimica, revocation is warranted because of “lack of interest” on behalf of the U.S. industry. Specifically, Nitro Quimeca asserts that no domestic producer of industrial nitrocellulose currently exists. Nitro Quimica asserts that Hercules Incorporated, the only petitioner in the original investigation and the only U.S. producer at the time in which this order was issued, sold its nitrocellulose business to Green Tree Chemical Technologies (Green Tree) on June 16, 2001. Nitro Quimica further contends that Green Tree has closed its U.S. production facility on about November 26, 2003. ( See Nitro Quimica December 31, 2003 letter at Attachment 3. ) Nitro Quimica asserts that the effective date of the revocation should be “retroactive to the date on which Green Tree ceased its U.S. production” (Nitro Quimica December 31, 2003 letter at page 2).

The product covered by this review is industrial nitrocellulose, currently classifiable under HTS subheading 3912.20.00. The HTS item number is provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive as to the scope of the product coverage.

Industrial nitrocellulose is a dry, white, amorphous synthetic chemical with a nitrogen content between 10.8 and 12.2 percent. Industrial nitrocellulose is used as a film-former in coatings, lacquers, furniture finishes, and printing inks. The scope of this order does not include explosive grade nitrocellulose, which has a nitrogen content of greater than 12.2 percent.

Pursuant to section 782(h)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), the Department may revoke an antidumping or countervailing duty order based on a review under section 751(b) of the Tariff Act ( i.e. , a changed circumstances review). Section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act requires a changed circumstances review to be conducted upon receipt of a request which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review. 19 CFR 351.222(g) provides that the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review under 19 CFR 351.216 and may revoke an order (in whole or in part) if it determines that producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product to which the order (or the part of the order to be revoked) pertains have expressed a lack of interest in the relief provided by the order, in whole or in part, or if changed circumstances exist sufficient to warrant revocation.

In this case, the Department finds that the information submitted provides sufficient evidence of changed circumstances to warrant a review. Given Nitro Quimica's assertions, we will consider whether there is interest in continuing the order on the part of the U.S. industry.

Interested parties may submit comments for consideration in the Department's preliminary results. (These comments may include the effective date proposed by Nitro Quimica for revocation of this order.) The due date for filing any such comments is no later than 20 days after publication of this notice. Responses to those comments may be submitted not later than 10 days following submission of the comments. All written comments must be submitted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303, and must be served on all interested parties on the Department's service list in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303.

The Department will publish in the Federal Register a notice of preliminary results of changed circumstances review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(i), which will set forth the factual and legal conclusions upon which our preliminary results are based, and a description of any action proposed based on those results. The Department will also issue its final results of review within 270 days after the date on which the changed circumstances review is initiated, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e), and will publish these results in the Federal Register .

While the changed circumstances review is underway, the current requirement for a cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties on all subject merchandise will continue unless and until it is modified pursuant to the final results of this changed circumstances review.

This notice is in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.222.

The Estuary Restoration Act (ERA), signed into law in November 2000, makes restoring our estuaries a national priority. The ERA promotes the restoration of one million acres of estuarine habitat by 2010 by leveraging limited Federal resources with state and local funding, developing and enhancing monitoring and research capabilities, and encouraging partnerships among public agencies and between the public and private sectors. As part of the ERA, NOAA is required to develop and maintain an inventory of estuary restoration projects.

The purpose of the inventory is to: provide information on monitoring and restoration techniques to advance the science of restoration, track acres of habitat restored toward the one million acre goal of the ERA, and provide information for reports transmitted to Congress. In addition, the inventory may be a resource for restoration practitioners to monitor the progress of their own restoration projects. Project information can also be shared with the restoration community over the NERI web site (see ADDRESSES ).

Phase 1 developments have been completed for the inventory which went on-line on February 16, 2004. Phase 2 developments will include additional searching capabilities, an interactive mapping application, as well as the incorporation of any viable suggestions from this request for comments.

The National Estuary Restoration Inventory is an on-line database of restoration projects. Restoration practitioners may voluntarily submit eligible restoration projects for entry into the inventory using an on-line submission form. Eligible projects must: (1) aim to provide ecosystem benefits for estuaries and their associated ecosystems, and (2) include monitoring to gauge the success of restoration efforts. Submission is mandatory for projects funded through the Estuary Restoration Act.

Restoration practitioners are notified once their project(s) is (are) accepted into the inventory via e-mail at which time they may log into the inventory and begin entering information for their project(s). The data entry interface contains twelve sections for entering data including general information, project abstract, contacts, geographic location, project benefits, habitat types and acreage restored, restoration techniques, monitoring and success criteria, regional restoration plans, project partners, budget, and project photos. Once updated project information is approved by NERI administrators, the data will be made available on-line through queries and reports. To assist users with entering and querying data, a detailed Help section has been created with descriptions of all inventory fields as well as useful tips for searching the inventory. In addition, users may contact the NERI administrators with questions, comments, and suggestions via e-mail at neri@noaa.gov .

Comments are invited on: (a) the usability of the site for entering, updating, and viewing information on estuary habitat restoration projects; (b) the types of information being tracked, including comments on specific fields and/or suggestions for additional/fewer fields; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information presented; and (d) other suggestions that would make the site more user-friendly.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and published as part of the public record. All comments will be reviewed by the NERI development team and addressed either via e-mail response or in a later phase of development. Comments must be received by March 26, 2004.

Summary of Information Collection

The purpose of these surveys is to assess the level of service the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) provides to its current customers. The proposed collection of information will be conducted annually. Less frequent collection or no collection of information would result in the inability to effectively measure customer satisfaction and improve products and services based on feedback. The surveys will provide information on the level of overall customer satisfaction, and on customer satisfaction with several attributes of service which impact the level of overall satisfaction. The objectives of the survey are to help DTIC (1) gauge the level of satisfaction among both its general and Top 200 users, and (2) identify possible areas for improving our products and services. The surveys are designed to assist in evaluating the following knowledge objectives:

• To improve customer retention;

• To determine the perceived quality of products, service and customer care;

• To indicate trends in products, services and customer care;

• To benchmark our customer satisfaction results with other Federal government agencies.

The Statement of Claimant Requesting Recertified Check is used to ascertain pertinent information needed by the Department of Defense in order to reissue checks to payees, if the checks have not been negotiated to financial institutions within one (1) year of the date of issuance, when an original check has been lost, not received, damaged, stolen, etc. The form will be completed by the payee who was issued the original check. The information provided on this form will be used in determining whether a check may be reissued to the named payee.

DFAS will conduct a variety of activities to include, but not necessarily limited to customer satisfaction surveys, transaction based telephone interviews, Interactive Voice Response Systems (IVRS) telephonic surveys, etc. If the customer feedback activities were not conducted, DFAS would not only be in violation of E.O. 12862, but would also not have the knowledge necessary to provide the best service possible and provide unfiltered feedback from the customer for our process improvement activities. The information collected provides information about customer perceptions and can help identify agency operations that need quality improvement, provide early detection of process or systems problems, and focus attention on areas where customer service and functional training or changes in existing operations will improve service delivery.

Summary of Information Collection

Defense Finance and Accounting Service maintains updated debt accounts and initiates debt collection action for separated military members, out-of-service civilian employees, and other individuals not on an active federal government payroll system. When notice is received that an individual debtor is deceased, an effort is made to ascertain whether the decedent left an estate by contacting clerks of probate courts. If it's determined that an estate was established, attempts are made to collect the debt from the estate. If no estate appears to have been established the debt is written off as uncollectible.

The entire meeting was devoted to the discussion of classified information as defined in section 552b(c)(1), Title 5 of the U.S. Code and therefore was closed. The Board discussed several current critical intelligence issues and advised the Director, DIA, as to the successful accomplishment of the mission assigned to the Joint Military College.

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

The Defense Logistics Agency proposes to amend a system of records notice in its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The amendment is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

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

The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on February 13, 2004, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, ‘Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,’ dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

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

Type of Review: New.

Title: National Assessment of Educational Progress 2004-2007 System Clearance.

Frequency: One-time.

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

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

  Responses: 906,322.

  Burden Hours: 231,800.

Abstract: This clearance request covers all pilot, field, and full scale assessment and survey activities of the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Students are assessed and surveyed in the 4th, 8th and 12th grades as well as some of their teachers and school administrators.

Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2429. 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 Kathy Axt at her e-mail address Kathy Axt@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

On May 30, 1997, the Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) issued an Order (FE Order No. EA-145) authorizing Powerex to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico as a power marketer using the international electric transmission facilities of San Diego Gas and Electric Company. That two-year authorization expired on May 30, 1999. On April 15, 1999, Powerex filed an application with FE for renewal of this export authority and requested that the Order be issued for an additional two-year term. On June 18, 1999, DOE issued FE Order No. EA-145-A granting that request. That two-year authorization expired on June 18, 2001. On June 19, 2001, Powerex filed an application with FE for renewal of this export authority and requested that the Order be issued for an additional two-year term. On August 13, 2001, DOE issued FE Order No. EA-145-B granting that request. That two-year authorization expired on August 13, 2003. On July 31, 2003, Powerex filed an application with FE for renewal of this export authority and requested that the Order be issued for an additional five-year term.

DOE notes that the circumstances described in this application are virtually identical to those for which export authority had previously been granted in FE Order EA-145. Consequently, DOE believes that it has adequately satisfied its responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 through the documentation of a categorical exclusion in the FE Docket EA-145 proceeding.

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 Powerex request to export to Mexico should be clearly marked with Docket EA-145-C. Additional copies are to be filed directly with Mr. Douglas Little, Vice President, Trade Policy & Development, Powerex Corp., 666 Burrard Street, Suite 1400, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6C 2X8, and Ms. Erika Rosin, Contracts Manager, Powerex Corp., 666 Burrard Street, Suite 1400, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6C 2X8.

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.

The Request for Projects (RFP) is available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/glla.

The purpose of this request is to solicit ideas for projects that would help to implement the Great Lakes Legacy Act. In order to receive funding under the Legacy Act, projects must be located in one of the 31 U.S. Great Lakes AOCs. Top priority will be given to projects that are geared toward on-the-ground remediation ( i.e. , actual implementation of a remedial option) of contaminated sediments within a U.S. AOC. Remediation projects would include, but are not limited to, remedial options such as: Dredging, capping, monitored natural recovery, treatment technologies, or a combination of remedial alternatives for contaminated sediment.

The next priority level would be given to projects that seek to move a contaminated sediment site toward remediation. These projects could include: Site characterizations, site assessments, source identification/source control, monitoring, remedial alternatives evaluations and short-term/long-term effects analyses.

Please note that this Legacy Act RFP is a departure from GLNPO's annual funding guidance process. The funding guidance proposals for Great Lakes sediment grant projects are being solicited under a separate request for proposal process scheduled for release in January 2004.

Additionally, the Legacy Act program is not a grants program. The process for selecting Legacy Act projects is not a grants competition, but it is based on the development of a negotiated Project Agreement (PA) between USEPA and the non-federal sponsor. USEPA will consider projects based on the extent to which they meet the required components of the Legacy Act and this RFP.

The non-federal share of the cost of a project shall be at least 35% of the total project costs and 100% of cost of operation and maintenance of the project. It is the responsibility of the non-federal sponsor to secure the non-federal share of project costs. The non-federal share may include the value of in-kind services contributed by the non-federal sponsor, and may include funds or in-kind services provided pursuant to an administrative order on consent or a judicial consent decree. The non-federal share of the cost of a project may not include any funds paid pursuant to, or the value of any in-kind service performed under, a unilateral administrative order or court order.

GLNPO will review Legacy Act project proposals as they are received. GLNPO intends to enter into PA discussions with project applicants that meet the required components outlined in the RFP. With a limited amount of funds available in FY04, it is expected that the initial projects that result in a PA will be funded with FY04 funds, to the extent they are available. Other projects that result in a PA will be dependent upon funding, if any, received for the Act in FY05. If necessary, GLNPO will consider, but is not required to release, an additional solicitation for projects to be funded from FY05 appropriations.

Funding (through project agreements) is available pursuant to section 118(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)). States, tribes, industry, non-governmental organizations, and other stakeholders are eligible to apply.

This action is directed to the public in general, nevertheless, a wide range of stakeholders may be interested in obtaining the risk assessments for benfluralin, including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the use of pesticides on food. Since other entities also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPP-2003-0381. 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 EPA's 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 on 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-2003-0381. 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-2003-0381. 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-2003-0381.

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-2003-0381. 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 or collection activity.

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

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

EPA is making available to the public the risk assessments that have been developed as part of the Agency's interim public participation process for tolerance reassessment and reregistration. During the next 60 days, EPA will accept comments on the human health and environmental fate and effects risk assessments and other related documents for benfluralin, available in the individual pesticide docket. Benfluralin is a dinitroaniline herbicide registered for use on lettuce; animal feed crops; non-bearing fruits and berries; commercial and residential turf; and ornamentals. Like other REDs for pesticides developed through the interim process, the benfluralin RED will be made available to the public for comment.

EPA and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) have been using a pilot public participation process for the assessment of organophosphate pesticides since August 1998. In considering how to accomplish the movement from the organophosphate pilot process to the public participation process that will be used for non-organophosphates, such as benfluralin, EPA and the USDA have adopted an interim public participation process. For the past 3 years, EPA has been using this interim process in reviewing many non-organophosphate pesticides completing tolerance reassessment and reregistration. The interim public participation process ensures public access to the Agency's risk assessments while also allowing EPA to meet its reregistration commitments. It takes into account that the risk assessment development work on these pesticides is substantially complete, and that related risk issues are not extremely complex. The interim public participation process involves: A registrant error correction period; a period for the Agency to respond to the registrant's error correction comments; the release of the refined risk assessments and risk characterizations to the public via the docket and EPA's internet website; a significant effort on stakeholder consultations, such as meetings and conference calls; and the issuance of the risk management decision document (i.e., RED) after the consideration of issues and discussions with stakeholders. The USDA may hold meetings and conference calls with the public (i.e., interested stakeholders such as growers, USDA Cooperative Extension Offices, commodity groups, and other Federal government agencies) to discuss any identified risks and solicit input on risk management strategies. EPA participates in USDA's meetings and conference calls with the public. This feedback is used to complete the risk management decisions and the RED. EPA conducts a close-out conference call with interested stakeholders to describe the regulatory decisions presented in the RED. REDs for pesticides developed under the interim process may be made available for another public comment period, depending on the complexity of the decision and the level of stakeholder interest.

Included in the public version of the official record are the Agency's risk assessments and related documents for benfluralin. As additional comments, reviews, and risk assessment modifications become available, these will also be docketed. The benfluralin risk assessments reflect only the work and analysis conducted as of the time they were produced and it is appropriate that, as new information becomes available and/or additional analyses are performed, the conclusions they contain may change.

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may; however, be of interest to persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) or the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA); environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the use of pesticides. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPP-2003-0348. 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), Room 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, 22202-4501. 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/ . To access RED documents and RED fact sheets electronically, go directly to the Office of Pesticide Program's Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm .

An electronic version of the official public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://cascade.epa.gov/RightSite/dk_public_home.htm 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 EPA's 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 Dockets. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA Dockets 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 Dockets. 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 Dockets. 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 Dockets.

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 Dockets 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 Dockets. 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 Dockets. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA Dockets. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA Dockets 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 if additional information is needed regarding the substance of your comment. The Agency'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 Dockets. 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 Dockets to submit comments electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://cascade.epa.gov/RightSite/dk_public_home.htm , and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPP-2003-0348. 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-2003-0348. In contrast to EPA Dockets, 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 Dockets, 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 Dockets.

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 Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20460-0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2003-0348.

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, Room 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, 22202-4501, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2003-0348. 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 Dockets 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 Dockets. 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 Dockets without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

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

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

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

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

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

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

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

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

The Agency has issued a RED for the herbicide propanil. Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended in 1988, EPA is conducting an accelerated reregistration program to reevaluate existing pesticides to make sure they meet current scientific and regulatory standards. The data base to support the reregistration of propanil is substantially complete and the pesticide's risks have been mitigated so that it will not pose unreasonable risks to people or the environment when used according to its approved labeling.

In addition, EPA is reevaluating existing pesticides and reassessing tolerances under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. The RED also presents the Agency's tolerance reassessment decision for propanil, which includes the consideration of risk to infants and children for any potential dietary, drinking water, dermal, inhalation or oral exposures. The Agency's June 2002 tolerance reassessment decision for propanil was based on the data required for reregistration, the current guidelines for conducting acceptable studies to generate such data, and published scientific literature. Propanil has been found to meet the FQPA safety standard.

The Agency has found that the current uses of propanil on rice and turf are eligible for reregistration, provided the changes specified in the RED are made to the labels. The small grain use has been voluntarily cancelled.

All registrants of pesticide products containing the active ingredient propanil will be sent a copy of the RED, and must respond to the labeling requirements and product-specific data requirements (if applicable) within 8 months of receipt.

The reregistration program is being conducted under Congressionally mandated time frames, and EPA recognizes both the need to make timely reregistration decisions and to involve the public. Therefore, EPA is issuing this RED with a 60-day comment period. Although the 60-day public comment period does not affect the registrant's response due date, it is intended to provide an opportunity for public input and a mechanism for initiating any necessary amendments to the RED. If any comment significantly affects the RED, the Agency will amend the RED by publishing the amendment in the Federal Register .

The legal authority for this RED falls under FIFRA, as amended in 1988 and 1996. Section 4(g)(2)(A) of FIFRA directs that, after submission of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, “the Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active ingredient are eligible for reregistration,” before calling in product-specific data on individual end-use products, and either reregistering products or taking “other appropriate regulatory action.”

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 ID number OPP-2003-0228. 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 EPA's 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-2003-0228. 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-2003-0228. 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-2003-0228.

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-2003-0228. 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 pesticide petitions 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 these petitions contain 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 these petitions. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petitions.

The petitioner's 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 represents the view of the petitioner. The petitions summaries 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 (2F6440 and 3F6595) from Arvesta Corporation, 100 First Street, Suite 1700, San Francisco, CA 94105 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a tolerance for the combined residues of acequinocyl (3-dodecyl-1,4-dihydro-1,4-dioxo-2-naphthyl acetate) and its metabolite 2-dodecyl-3-hydroxy-1,4-naphthoquinone expressed as acequinocyl equivalents in or on the raw agricultural commodities as follows:

PP 2F6440 . Fruit, pome group at 0.4 parts per million (ppm); apple, wet pomace at 1.0 ppm; fruit, citrus, group at 0.3 ppm; orange, oil at 30 ppm; almond and pistachio at 0.01 ppm; almond, hulls at 1.5 ppm; cattle, meat, and kidney at 0.01 ppm; cattle, liver, and fat at 0.02 ppm; and milk at 0.01 ppm.

PP 3F6595 . Strawberries at 0.4 ppm.

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 petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

1. Plant metabolism . The nature of the residues of acequinocyl in plants is adequately understood based on three crops: Apples, oranges, and eggplant. The major residue in all plant metabolism studies is acequinocyl. A minor but significant metabolite is acequinocyl-OH (2-dodecyl-3-hydroxy-1,4-naphthoquinone). The proposed tolerance expression is the parent, acequinocyl and its hydroxy metabolite, acequinocyl-OH.

2. Analytical method . The analytical methods to quantitate residues of acequinocyl and acequinocyl-OH in/on fruit crops, almond nutmeats, and hulls utilize high pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) using mass spectrometric/molecular size (MS/MS) detection. The analytical method to quantitate acequinocyl and acequinocyl-OH in various animal tissues and milk utilizes the same principles as in the crop method. After cleanup the purified extract is submitted for HPLC analysis using MS/MS detection. The target limit of quantitation (LOQ) for all matrices is 0.01 ppm.

3. Magnitude of residues . The proposed use of acequinocyl calls for a maximum application rate of 2 applications at 0.3 lb active ingredient per acre per application, with a 21-day interval between applications. The pre-harvest interval is 14 days for pome fruit, 7 days for citrus, almond, and pistachio and 1-day for strawberries.

i. Pome fruit . The maximum residues expressed as acequinocyl equivalents were 0.23 ppm in apple and 0.05 in pear. The results of the apple processing study indicated that acequinocyl residues do not concentrate in apple juice but do concentrate in wet apple pomace with a concentration factor of 3.5.

ii. Citrus . The maximum residues expressed as acequinocyl equivalents were 0.18 ppm in oranges, 0.08 ppm in grapefruit and 0.11 ppm in lemons. The results of the orange processing study indicated that acequinocyl residues do not concentrate in orange juice or dry pulp but do concentrate in the orange oil with a concentration factor of 165.

iii. Almonds . All residues in nutmeat were <0.01 ppm (LOQ). The maximum residues expressed as acequinocyl equivalents in hulls was 1.3 ppm.

iv. Strawberry . The maximum residues expressed as acequinocyl equivalents in/on strawberry fruit were 0.36 ppm.

The crop field trial data are adequate to support the proposed tolerances of 0.4 ppm for pome fruit, 0.3 ppm for citrus, 0.01 ppm for almond and pistachio, 1.5 ppm for almond hulls, 1.0 ppm for apple wet pomace, 30 ppm for orange oil and 0.4 ppm for strawberry fruit.

1. Acute toxicity . Acequinocyl technical has low acute, dermal and inhalation toxicity in laboratory animals. The oral lethal dose (LD) 50 (male and female) in the rat and mouse was >5,000 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg). The dermal LD 50 (male and female) was >2,000 mg/kg. The inhalation lethal concentration (LC) 50 was reported as >0.84 milligram/Liter (mg/L). In the eye and dermal irritation studies, acequinocyl technical was not an eye or skin irritant to rabbits and was not a skin sensitizer in guinea pigs.

2. Genotoxicity . Acequinocyl was found to be negative in the Ames reverse mutation, mouse lymphoma, Chinese hamster lung (CHL) chromosome aberration and mouse micronucleus assays.

3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity —i. Rat teratology . Acequinocyl technical was administered by oral gavage to pregnant Sprague Dawley rats at dose levels of 0, 50, 150, 500, or 750 mg/kg/day. Common signs in the descendants included vaginal discharge, pallor, pale eyes, hypoactivity, piloerection, slow or irregular breathing, intra-uterine hemorrhage, and blood stained stomach and/or intestinal contents. Maternal no observed effect level (NOEL) = 150 mg/kg/day based on these signs. Developmental NOEL = 500 mg/kg/day based on increase in certain skeletal variants that may be attributed to the observed maternal toxicity.

ii. Rabbit teratology . Groups of New Zealand white rabbits received acequinocyl technical by gavage at doses of 0, 30, 60, or 120 mg/kg/day. Maternal NOEL = 60 mg/kg/day based on reduction in maternal body weight and 5 females were sacrificed at 120 mg/kg/day. Fetal NOEL = 60 mg/kg/day due to skeletal variations in the thoraco-lumbar ribs.

iii. Rat reproduction study . Acequinocyl technical was fed to 2-generations of male and female Sprague Dawley rats at dietary concentrations of 0, 100, 800, or 1,500 ppm (0, 7.3, 59, or 111 mg/kg/day for males and 0, 8.7, 69, or 134 mg/kg/day for females). Systemic and pup NOEL = 100 ppm (7.3 and 8.7 mg/kg/day).

iv. Systemic . Hemorrhage and swollen body parts were seen at 800 and 1,500 ppm in F1 males. At 800 and 1,500 ppm, treatment-related clinical signs, hemorrhagic effects, subcutaneous bleeding on body parts and/or cranium and/or brain were seen in the F1 pups. At 800 and 1,500 ppm toxicity seen in F2 pups included subcutaneous bleeding on body parts and/or cranium and/or brain at weaning.

4. Subchronic toxicity —i. Rat feeding study . Fischer rats received acequinocyl technical at dietary concentrations of 0, 100, 400, 1,600, or 3,200 ppm (0, 7.57, 30.4, 120, 253 mg/kg/day for males and 0, 8.27, 32.2, 129, 286 mg/kg/day for females respectively) for 13 consecutive weeks. Treatment-related yellow brown urine in all animals of both sexes at 400 ppm suggested the presence of the metabolite of the test material. Macroscopic examination on the surviving animals revealed no treatment-related abnormalities. At 3,200 and 1,600 ppm, macroscopic and microscopic examination of the mortalities revealed hemorrhaging of muscle and other organs. NOEL = 400 ppm (30.4 mg/kg/day for males and 32.2 mg/kg/day for females).

ii. Mouse feeding study . Groups of CD-1 (ICR) BR mice received acequinocyl technical by oral route at concentrations of 0, 100, 500, 1,000, or 1,500 ppm (0, 16, 81, 151, 295 mg/kg/day for males and 0, 21, 100, 231, 342 mg/kg/day for females respectively) for 13 weeks. At 100 ppm, there were hepatic histopathological lesions and an increase in relative liver weight. A clear NOEL for both sexes was not determined.

iii. Dog feeding study . Acequinocyl technical was administered via gelatin capsule to male and female Beagle dogs at dose levels of 0, 40, 160, 640, or 1,000 mg/kg/day once a day 7 days a week for 13 weeks. At 40, 160, and 640 mg/kg/day colored feces was observed in both sexes. At 160 and 640 mg/kg/day, treatment-related decrease in body weight gain in males and an increase platelet count for females was observed. Macroscopic and microscopic examinations on the surviving animals revealed no treatment-related abnormalities. A clear NOEL was not determined.

iv. A 28-day dermal toxicity . Groups of Sprague Dawley rats received daily dermal applications of acequinocyl technical at doses of 0, 40, 200, or 1,000 mg/kg/day for 6 hours/day for 28 days followed by a 14-day treatment free period only in the high dose group. There were no macroscopic findings. Red staining occurred on the back of the animals and was only seen in the morning after dosing. There was no evidence of systemic toxicity. NOEL = 1,000 mg/kg/day.

5. Chronic toxicity —i. Dog feeding study . Beagle dogs were dosed by capsule at 0, 5, 20, 80, or 320 mg/kg/day for 1-year with acequinocyl technical. Minor disturbances in platelet counts were observed in both sexes at 80 and 320 mg/kg/day. There were no treatment-related macroscopic histopathological findings. Colored feces and/or abnormally stained sawdust were observed for all treatment groups. Varying degrees of discoloration of the urine was observed for animals receiving 20 mg/kg/day or more. The discoloration was considered to be attributable to a colored metabolite of the test substance. NOEL = 20 mg/kg/day.

ii. Rat feeding/oncogenicity study . Groups of F344 rats received acequinocyl technical at dietary levels of 0, 50, 200, 800, or 1,600 ppm (0, 2.25, 9.02, 36.4, 74.0 mg/kg/day for males and 0, 2.92, 11.6, 46.3, 93.6 mg/kg/day for females respectively) for 2 years. NOEL = 200 ppm (9.02 and 11.6 mg/kg/day for males and females respectively). Corneal abnormalities and hypertrophy of the eye were observed in 800 ppm and 1,600 ppm males and 1,600 ppm females respectively. At 800 ppm and 1,600 ppm, prothrombin time (PT) was observed to be longer in males and shorter in females and activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) longer in females. Reddish brown urine was observed in both males and females respectively. There was no incidence of tumors.

iii. Mouse oncogenicity study . Acequinocyl technical was administered in the diet of Crl:CD-1(ICR)BR mice at 0, 20, 50, 150, or 500 ppm for 80 weeks. NOEL = 20 ppm (lowest dose tested (LDT) equal to 2.7 and 3.5 mg/kg/day in males and females respectively), based on brown pigmented cells. At 50 and 500 ppm in both sexes, there was an increase incidence of fatty hepatocytes. Other associated findings were increased liver weight, slight increase in pale livers, or pale areas within livers. Glomerular amyloidosis was statistically increased in the 150 and 500 ppm males. Yellow brown urine was consistently found in both sexes at high dose. There was no increase in the incidence of tumors.

6. Animal metabolism . Sprague Dawley rats were dosed orally with acequinocyl labeled 14C-phenyl or 14C-dodecyl. Both labels were used in the single low dose (10 mg/kg) study. The high dose (500 mg/kg) and 14-day repeat dose studies (10 mg/kg/day) were conducted with 14C-phenyl acequinocyl only. Excretion was rapid, with most of the dose in the feces. Less than 15% of the radioactivity was found in the urine. Absorption was about 25-42% based on the bile duct cannulation studies, which found 20-33% of the administered dose in bile, plus 5-9% in urine plus cage wash. Acequinocyl was not detected in urine and was only a minor component (1-2%) in the feces. The major fecal metabolite (12-36%) was the 2-hydroxy-3-dodecyl-1,4-naphthalenedione (acequinocyl-OH or designated R1). Subsequent oxidation of the dodecyl chain yielded butanoic and hexanoic acids, the only measurable identified urinary metabolites. 2-(1,2-dioxotetradecyl)-benzoic acid comprised 19-40% of the radioactivity in the feces. There were no remarkable differences in metabolite disposition due to gender and no effect of pre-dosing for 2 weeks. The large dose slowed transit time and reduced absorption.

7. Metabolite toxicology . The toxicity of acequinocyl-OH is concurrently evaluated during toxicity testing because this metabolite is both a plant and animal metabolite and is formed in the course of toxicity tests and is considered not of toxicological concern.

8. Endocrine disruption . A standard battery of toxicity tests have been conducted on acequinocyl. No effects were seen to indicate that acequinocyl has an effect on the endocrine system.

1. Dietary exposure . Acute and chronic risk assessments were conducted to assess dietary exposures from acequinocyl in food using dietary exposure evaluation model (DEEM) and the following input parameters: Tolerance level residues (including a residue value of 0.3 ppm for citrus dry pulp); consumption data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1998 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII); 100% crop treated for all commodities; default processing factors for all commodities; acute toxicological endpoint of 30.4 mg/kg body weight (bwt) no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL); 0.304 mg/kg bwt acute reference dose (RfD) from the 90-day rat subchronic study; chronic toxicological endpoint of 2.7 mg/kg bwt NOAEL; 0.027 mg/kg bwt (chronic RfD) from the chronic mouse study.

i. Food . Acute dietary food exposure estimates to acequinocyl were less than 100% of acute RfD for the total U.S. population at 2.21%, females 13-50 years at 1.43%, all infants (<1 year) at 4.81%, children 1 to 6 years at 6.33%. The most highly exposed population was children 1 to 3 years at 8.18%. The chronic dietary food exposure estimates to acequinocyl are less than 100% of chronic RfD for the total U.S. population at 5.6%, females 13-50 years at 3.0%, all infants (<1 year) at 12.4%. The most highly exposed population was children 1 to 6 years at 21.2%.

ii. Drinking water . The available environmental fate data indicate that acequinocyl does not persist in the environment nor does it have the ability to leach into ground water resources. Acequinocyl degrades rapidly in the environment. Aqueous photolysis T1/2: 14 minutes, soil photolysis T1/2: 2 days, aerobic soil metabolism (4 soils) T1/2: <3 days, aerobic aquatic metabolism T1/2: 0.39 day in water and sediment, hydrolysis T1/2: pH4 = 74 days, pH7 = 2.2 days, pH9 = 1.3 hours. Acequinocyl shows low soil mobility. Based on First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and screening concentration in ground water (SCI-GROW) models, for acute exposures, the drinking water estimated concentration (DWEC) of acequinocyl is estimated to be 1.561 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.006 ppb for ground water. The acute DWEC of 1.561 ppb is the peak day FIRST concentration. The DWEC for chronic exposures is estimated to be 0.024 ppb for surface water and 0.006 ppb for ground water. The chronic DWEC of 0.024 ppb is the annual average FIRST concentration. To determine drinking water exposure, drinking water levels of comparison (DWLOCs) were calculated and used as a point of comparison against the model estimates of the pesticide concentration in drinking water. For acequinocyl, the acute and chronic DWLOC values were greater than the estimated concentration DWEC in surface water and ground water for each population group. Therefore, exposures to acequinocyl in drinking water do not pose a significant human health risk.

2. Non-dietary exposure . There are no residential uses for acequinocyl.

There is no information available to indicate that toxic effects produced by acequinocyl are cumulative with those of any other compound.

1. U.S. population . The acute dietary food exposure to acequinocyl was estimated at 2.21% of acute RfD for the total U.S. population. The calculated DWLOCs ranged from 2,791 to 10,405 ppb for all the population subgroups. The surface water and ground water DWECs for acequinocyl were estimated to be 1.561 ppb and 0.006 ppb, respectively. Since the acute DWECs are less than the DWLOCs for all population subgroups, the acute aggregate risk estimates are below the level of concern. The chronic dietary food exposure to acequinocyl was estimated at 5.6% of chronic RfD for total U.S. population. The calculated DWLOCs ranged from 213 to 892 ppb for all the population subgroups. The surface water and ground water DWECs for acequinocyl were estimated to be 0.024 ppb and 0.006 ppb, respectively. Since the chronic DWECs are less than the DWLOCs for all population subgroups, the chronic aggregate risk estimates are below the level of concern.

2. Infants and children . The acute dietary food exposure to acequinocyl was estimated at 4.81% of acute RfD for all infants (<1 year), 6.33% of acute RfD for children 1 to 6 and 8.18% of acute RfD for children 1 to 2 (most highly exposed). The calculated DWLOCs ranged from 2,791 to 10,405 ppb for all the population subgroups. The surface water and ground water DWECs for acequinocyl were estimated to be 1.561 ppb and 0.006 ppb, respectively. Since the acute DWECs are less than the DWLOCs for all population subgroups including infants, the acute aggregate risk estimates are below the level of concern. The chronic dietary food exposure to acequinocyl was estimated at 12.4% of chronic RfD for all infants (<1 year), and 21.2% of chronic RfD for children 1 to 6 (most highly exposed). The calculated DWLOCs ranged from 213 to 892 ppb for all the population subgroups. The surface water and ground water DWECs for acequinocyl were estimated to be 0.024 ppb and 0.006 ppb, respectively. Since the chronic DWECs are less than the DWLOCs for all population subgroups including infants, the chronic aggregate risk estimates are below the level of concern.

To date, no Codex, Canadian or Mexican tolerances exists for acequinocyl.

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 ID number OPP-2004-0030. 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 EPA's 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-2004-0030. 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-2004-0030. 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-2004-0030.

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-2004-0030. 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 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 ID number OPP-2004-0025. 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 EPA's 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-2004-0025. 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-2004-0025. 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-2004-0025.

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-2004-0025. 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 a pesticide petition (4F6812) from Pytech Chemicals GmbH, 9330 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by adding gamma-cyhalothrin ((S)-α-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl (Z)-(1R,3R)-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoripropenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate) to the tolerance expression of lambda-cyhalothrin, ((S)-α-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl-(Z)-(1R,3R)-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-enyl)-2,1-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and (R)-alpha-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl-(Z)-(1S,3S)-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-enyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate). Gamma-cyhalothrin is the isolated active isomer of lambda-cyhalothrin. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

1. Plant metabolism . Gamma-cyhalothrin relies on the metabolism data conducted on lambda-cyhalothrin, which has been thoroughly tested and is adequately understood.

2. Analytical method . An adequate analytical method is available for enforcement purposes.

3. Magnitude of residues . Gamma-cyhalothrin, the isolated active isomer, will be applied at half the application rates of lambda-cyhalothrin. Comparison studies of gamma-cyhalothrin versus lambda-cyhalothrin used on the representative crops of tomatoes, sweet corn, broccoli, and cottonseed prove that the established tolerances for lambda-cyhalothrin will be sufficient to cover the potential residues of gamma-cyhalothrin.

1. Acute toxicity . The acute oral lethal dose (LD) 50 was >50 milligrams/kilogram body weight (mg/kg bwt) in male rats and 55 mg/kg bwt in female rats, acute dermal LD 50 was >1,500 mg/kg bwt in male rats and 1,643 mg/kg bwt in female rats and the 4-hour lethal concentration (LC) 50 for male rats was 40.2 milligrams/meter (mg/m 3 ) and, for female rats, 28.2 mg/m 3 .

2. Genotoxicity . The following genotoxicity tests were all negative: Salmonella , E.coli reverse mutation assay, mouse bone marrow micronucleus test, in vitro chromosomal aberration in rat lymphocytes, and mouse lymphoma forward mutation assay.

3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity . A developmental toxicity study in rats given gavage doses of 0, 0.1, 0.5, and 2 mg/kg/day with no developmental toxicity observed under the conditions of the study. The developmental no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) is greater than 2 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested (HDT). The maternal NOAEL and lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) are established at 0.5 and 2 mg/kg/day, respectively, based on reduced body weight, body weight gain, and feed consumption.

4. Subchronic toxicity . A 90-day feeding study in rats fed doses of 0, 2.5, 10, 50, and 100 parts per million (ppm) with a NOAEL of 50 ppm and a LOAEL of 100 ppm based on mortality, decreased feed consumption, decreased body weights, and increased relative liver and kidney weight at 100 ppm.

5. Chronic toxicity . Gamma-cyhalothrin, and lambda-cyhalothrin are contained within the chemical cyhalothrin. Cyhalothrin consists of four isomers, lambda-cyhalothrin consists of two of these isomers and gamma-cyhalothrin is the single active isomer contained in both. The chronic studies were conducted on cyhalothrin.

6. Metabolite toxicology . The Agency has previously determined that the metabolites of lambda-cyhalothrin are not of toxicological concern and need not be included in the tolerance expression. Given this determination, it is concluded that there is no need to discuss metabolite toxicity.

7. Endocrine disruption . No studies have been conducted to investigate the potential of gamma-cyhalothrin to induce estrogenic or other endocrine effects. However, no evidence of such effects has been noted in the battery of toxicity studies which have been conducted on cyhalothrin/lambda-cyhalothrin, and there is no reason to suspect that any such effects would be likely.

The Agency has conducted an extensive assessment of the aggregate exposure. Results are reported in the Federal Register of September 27, 2002 (FR 67 60902) (FRL-7200-1).

For purposes of this request, it has been assumed that cyhalothrin (i.e., gamma-cyhalothrin, and lambda-cyhalothrin) does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.

The Agency has conducted an extensive assessment of the aggregate exposure. Results are reported in the Federal Register of September 27, 2002.

There are Codex maximum residue levels established or pending for residues of cyhalothrin, as the sum of all isomers, in or on the following crops and commodities.

Canadian maximum residue levels of 0.1 ppm for pome fruit, stone fruit, and canola are established in Canada for lambda-cyhalothrin based on the “negligble” residue clause of Canadian Food and Drug Act Regulations (B.15.002(1)).

Ecological risk assessment is a process for evaluating the likelihood that adverse ecological effects may occur or are occurring as a result of exposure to one or more stressors. A critical early step in conducting an ecological risk assessment is deciding which aspects of the environment will be selected for evaluation. This step is often challenging because of the remarkable diversity of species, ecological communities, and ecological functions from which to choose and because of statutory ambiguity regarding what is to be protected.

The purpose of this document is to build on existing EPA guidance and experience to assist those who are involved in ecological risk assessments in carrying out this step, which in the parlance of ecological risk assessment is termed “selecting assessment endpoints.” The document describes a set of endpoints, known as generic ecological assessment endpoints (GEAEs), that can be considered and adapted for specific ecological risk assessments. The document is intended to enhance the application of ecological risk assessment at EPA, thereby improving the scientific basis for ecological risk management decisions. However, the document is not a regulation, nor is it intended to substitute for federal regulations. It describes general principles and is not prescriptive. Rather, it is intended to be a useful starting point that is flexible enough to be applied to many different types of ecological risk assessments. Risk assessors and risk managers at EPA are the primary audience; the document also may be useful to others outside the Agency.

This publication satisfies the Privacy Act requirement that agencies publish an amended system of records notice in the Federal Register when there is a revision, change, or addition to the system of records. FCA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) has determined to amend FCA-18 to permit disclosure of records for the purpose of assessment reviews. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-296, Nov. 25, 2002) requires certain Inspectors General to “establish an external review process for ensuring that adequate internal safeguards and management procedures continue to exist within each Office * * *”

The PCIE and the ECIE are establishing peer review processes that are designed to provide qualitative measurement against the Inspector General (IG) community standards to ensure that adequate internal safeguards and management procedures are maintained, foster high-quality investigations and investigative processes, ensure that the highest level of professionalism is maintained, and promote consistency in investigative standards and practices within the IG community. The FCA OIG has committed to undergoing qualitative assessment reviews of its investigations. Proposed routine use (12) will allow disclosure of information to authorized officials within the PCIE, the ECIE, the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as necessary, for the purpose of conducting qualitative assessment reviews of the OIG's investigative operations.

Proposed routine use (13) will allow the disclosure of information to the PCIE and the ECIE for their preparation of reports to the President and Congress on the activities of the Inspectors General.

As required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act, we have notified the Office of Management and Budget, the Committee on Government Reform of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate of the new routine uses. The notice is published in its entirety below.

Public comment will be solicited at the meeting. Public comment will be limited to five minutes per speaker. Those who wish to have printed material distributed to Advisory Committee members should submit thirty (30) copies to the Executive Secretary prior to close of business March 31, 2004. Those who wish to utilize electronic data projection in their presentation to the Committee must submit their material to the Executive Secretary prior to close of business March 31, 2004. In addition, anyone planning to comment is encouraged to contact the Executive Secretary at her/his earliest convenience.

“National Children's Study pilot project to determine feasibility of NCS data collection in Primary Care Practices.”

The project is being conducted in response to a modification of an AHRQ RFP entitled “Resource Center for Primary Care Practice-Based Research Networks (PBRNs)” (issued under Contract 290-02-0008).

In January 2003 AHRQ requested that the PBRN Resource Center assess the potential for PBRNs to participate in the National Children's Study (NCS).

In 2000, Congress passed the Children's Health Act, authorizing an unprecedented study of the impact of the environment on children's health.

The goal of the NCS is to identify sufficient numbers of women of childbearing age to enroll 100,000 pregnant women into the NCS early in gestation, and then to enroll and follow their children through 21 years of age.

A key design issue for the NCS is the manner in which participants will be recruited and enrolled into the study. Previous research states that a well-established relationship between the researcher and the subject, convenient study location and active community ties bolster recruitment success and the likelihood of a parent to enroll their child in longitudinal studies. PBRNs consist mainly of non-academic, community-based primary care practices with well-established relationships with their subject population. PBRNs therefore offer a potentially valuable resource for identifying, enrolling, and following women and children for the NCS.

Recognizing this, AHRQ requested that the Resource Center participate in the design of a pilot study of PBRNs' ability to participate in the NCS. The proposed NC pilot study will test the ability of PBRNs to collect, process, and manage data similar to that which is expected to be collected and processed in the NCS.

This pilot study will allow the Resource Center to determine the factors that enable or hinder the collection of such data at primary care practices, as well as make an overall determination of the feasibility of PBRN practices' participation in the NCS.

The pilot study will collect data using several instruments and will involve multiple individuals at the clinic: (1) A trained interviewer will administer a questionnaire on medical and nutritional history; (2) the same trained interviewer will conduct a developmental assessment of each child; (3) a nurse or physician's assistant will collect vital signs and a urine specimen; (4) a physician will conduct a brief physical exam; and (5) study participants will complete self-administered questionnaires about the experience of participating in the study. The pilot study will evaluate the feasibility of having PBRNs participate in the NCS using several indicators:

The ability of practices to use self-administered questionnaires to collect and manage the medical and dietary history data of pregnant women and of children ages 1 and 5;

The ability of practices to effectively collect and manage data from a physical examination of study subjects (including health status and urine collection);

The ability of practices to facilitate a developmental assessment of children conducted at age one and age five;

The amount of burden data collection places on practices;

The characteristics of successful and unsuccessful practices in the study;

The ease of data collection across different patient populations and data collection modes and;

To make the necessary determinations, assessments and surveys will be conducted with PBRN practice patients as well as with a small number of patients who ordinarily receive care elsewhere, and PBRN staff will also be surveyed.

The data will be collected from 36 practices per respondent category, meaning 36 practices will collect data on pregnant women, 36 practices will collect data on children aged 1 and 5. It is expected that some practices will collect data on more than one respondent group. Each practice will recruit 14 patients per respondent group using convenience sampling procedures. A total of 504 pregnant women and 504 children and their parents (half will be 1 year old and half will be 5 years old) will be involved in the data collection. Because a small proportion (20%) of patients will be asked to vising another practice participating in the pilot study in order to test the ability of practices to collect and manage data on non-member patients, the NCS will require some providers to collect data on some patients they do not normally care for.

The method of data collection for the patient assessment includes self-administered questionnaires, physical examination, and collection of a urine sample.

The practice will contact potential participants through a mailing and a phone call. Non-respondents will not be contacted again.

The total cost to the government for activities directly related to this data collection is estimated to be $780,411 for the pilot study.

In accordance with the above cited legislation, comments on the AHRQ information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of AHRQ, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;

(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. all comments will become a matter of public record.

Under Title IX of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 299a-299c-7) as amended by Public Law 106-129 (1999), AHRQ is charged with enhancing the quality, appropriateness, and effectiveness of health care services and access to such services. AHRQ accomplishes these goals through scientific research and through the promotion of improvements in clinical practice and health systems practices, including the prevention of diseases and other health conditions.

The purpose of this Federal Register notice is to encourage participation and collaboration of professional societies, health systems, payors, and providers, with AHRQ as it carries out its mission to promote the practice of evidence-based health care. AHRQ serves as the science partner with private-sector and public organizations in their efforts to improve the quality, effectiveness, and appropriateness of health care delivery in the United States, and to expedite the translation of evidence-based research findings into improved health care services. In this context, AHRQ awards task order contracts to its Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) to undertake scientific analysis and evidence syntheses on topics of high-priority to its public and private healthcare partners and the health care community generally. The EPCs produce science synthesis—evidence reports and technology assessments—that provide to public and private organizations the foundation for developing and implementing their own practice guidelines, performance measures, educational programs, and other strategies to improve the quality of health care and decision-making related to the effectiveness and appropriateness of specific health care technologies and services.

The evidence reports and technology assessments also may be used to inform coverage and reimbursement policies. As the body of scientific studies related to organization and financing of health care grows, systematic review and analysis of these studies, in addition to clinical and behavioral research, can provide health system organizations with a scientific foundation for developing or improving system-wide policies and practices. Thus, EPC reports may address and evaluate topics such as risk adjustment methodologies, market performance measures, provider payment mechanisms, and insurance purchasing tools, as well as measurement or evaluation of provider integration of new scientific findings regarding health care and delivery innovations.

The EPCs prepare evidence reports and technology assessments on topics for which there is significant demand for information by health care providers, insurers, purchasers, health-related societies, and patient advocacy organizations. Such topics may include the prevention, diagnosis and/or treatment of particular clinical and behavioral conditions, use of alternative or complementary therapies, and appropriate use of commonly provided services, procedures, or technologies. Topics also may include issues related to the organization and financing of care. AHRQ widely disseminates the EPC evidence reports and technology assessments, both electronically and in print. The EPC evidence reports and technology assessments do not make clinical recommendations or recommendations of reimbursement and coverage policies.

Nominators of topics selected for development of an EPC evidence report or technology assessment assume the role of Partners of AHRQ and the EPCs. Partners have defined roles and responsibilities. AHRQ places high value on these relationships, and plans to review Partners' past performance of these responsibilities, at such time, as AHRQ is considering whether to accept additional topics nominated by an organization in subsequent years. Specifically, Partners are expected to serve as resources to EPCs as they develop the evidence reports and technology assessments related to the nominated topic; serve as external peer reviewers of relevant draft evidence reports and assessments; and commit to (a) timely translation of the EPC reports and assessments into their own quality improvement tools ( e.g., clinical practice guidelines, performance measures), educational programs, and reimbursement policies; and (b) dissemination of these derivative products of their membership. AHRQ also is interested in members' use of these derivative products and the products' impact on enhanced health care. AHRQ will look to the Partners to provide these use and impact data on products that are based on EPC evidence reports and technology assessments.

AHRQ will review topic nominations and supporting information including the need and the nominators' commitment to partnership roles described above; seeking additional information as appropriate to determine final topics. AHRQ is very interested in receiving topic nominations from professional societies and organizations comprised of members of minority populations, as well as nomination of topics that have significant impact on the health status of women, children, ethnic and racial populations.

The processes that AHRQ employs to select topics nominated for analyses by the EPCs is described below. Section A addresses AHRQ's nomination process and selection criteria for clinical and behavioral topics. Section B addresses AHRQ's nomination process and selection criteria for organization and financing topics.

1. Nomination Process for Clinical and Behavioral Topics. Nominations of clinical and behavioral topics for AHRQ evidence reports and technology assessments should focus on specific aspects of prevention, diagnosis, treatment and/or management of a particular condition, or on an individual procedure, treatment, or technology. Potential topics should be carefully defined and circumscribed so that the relevant published literature and other databases can be searched, evidence systematically reviewed, supplemental analyses performed, draft reports and assessments circulated for external peer review, and final evidence reports or technology assessments produced within a timely and reasonably responsive manner. Some reports and assessments can be completed within six months, if there is a small volume of literature to be systematically reviewed and analyzed. Other evidence reports and technology assessments may require up to 12 months for completion due to complexity of the topic, the volume of literature to be searched, abstracted, and analyzed, or completion of the external peer review process. Topics selected will not duplicate current and widely available syntheses, unless, new evidence is available that suggests the need for revisions or updates. For each topic, the nominating organization must provide the following information:

a. Rationale and supporting evidence on the clinical relevance and importance of the topic;

b. Plans for rapid translation of the evidence reports and technology assessments into clinical guidelines, performance measures, educational programs, or other strategies for strengthening the quality of health care services, or plans to inform development of reimbursement or coverage policies;

c. Plans for dissemination of these derivative products, e.g., to membership; and

d. Process by which the nominating organization will measure the use of these products, e.g., by their members, and impact of such use. Specifically, nomination information should include:

• Defined condition and target population.

• Incidence or prevalence, and indication of the disease burden ( e.g., mortality, morbidity, functional impairment) in the U.S. general population or in subpopulations ( e.g., Medicare and Medicaid populations). For prevalence, the number of cases in the U.S. and the number of affected persons per 1,000 persons in the general U.S. population should be provided. For incidence, the number of new cases per 100,000 a year should be provided.

• Costs associated with the clinical or behavioral condition, including average reimbursed amounts for diagnosis and therapeutic interventions ( e.g., average U.S. costs and number of persons who receive care for diagnosis or treatment in a year, citing ICD9-CM and CPT codes, if possible).

• Impact potential of the evidence report or technology assessment to decrease health care costs or to improve health status or clinical outcomes.

• Availability of scientific data and bibliographies of studies on the topic.

• References to significant differences in practice patterns and/or results; alternative therapies and controversies.

• Plans of the nominating organization to incorporate the report into its managerial or policy decision making ( e.g., rapid translation of the report or assessment into derivative products such as clinical practice guidelines or other quality improvement tools, or to inform reimbursement or coverage about a particular technology or service).

• Plans of the nominating organization for disseminating derivative products e.g., to its membership.

• Process by which the nominating organization will measure use of the derivative products, and measure the impact of such use, on clinical practice.

2. Selection Criteria for Clinical Topics. Factors that will be considered in the selection of clinical topics for AHRQ evidence report and technology assessment topics include:

a. High incidence or prevalence in the general population and in special populations, including women, racial and ethnic minorities, pediatric and elderly populations, and those of low socioeconomic status;

b. Significance for the needs of the Medicare, Medicaid and other Federal health programs;

c. High costs associated with a condition, procedure, treatment, or technology, whether due to the number of people needing care, high unit cost of care, or high indirect costs;

d. Controversy or uncertainty about the effectiveness or relative effectiveness of available clinical strategies or technologies;

e. Impact potential for informing and improving patient or provider decision making;

f. impact potential for reducing clinically significant variations in the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, or management of a disease or condition, or in the use of a procedure or technology, or in the health outcomes achieved;

g. Availability of scientific data to support the systematic review and analysis of the topic;

h. Submission of nominating organization's plan to incorporate the report into its managerial or policy decision making, as defined above; and

i. Submission of nominating organization's plan to disseminate derivative products, and plan to measure use of these products, and the resultant impact of these products on clinical practice.